An aristocracy is a form of government in which rulership is in the hands of an "upper class" known as aristocrats. (The Greek origins of the word aristocracy imply the meaning of "rule by the best".) This inevitably means those with the power to hold wealth and to define who remains in poverty - or, often, slavery
In other Definition –
| Aristocracy: |
Aristocracy is a name associated with Western Europe and the old days. There was, for example, up until the midpoint of the Twentieth Century, an automatic assumption among the powers that be that there were two distinct classes: Aristocracy and Commoners. This attitude is reflected in Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical of Condemnation, which was issued against Freemasonry for holding, practicing and encouraging such heretical ideas as equality of human beings (male and female) in all aspects of life; including the right of commoners to remove heads of state and other high ranking officials by the rules of law. Can you imagine his chagrin at the American Revolution!
It’s important to note, however, that the Founding Fathers of the United States
There has since arisen an equally ludicrous concept that the aristocracies of old no longer have any real power. In reality, aristocracies exist today which are in fact the powers that be -- even when for various and sundry diplomatic and deceptive reasons they may choose to not be addressed as lords, ladies, knights, earls, and esquires. They may be positively demure in exhibiting themselves on the street or calling attention to themselves in any way.
Dirk Wittenborn, in his delightful and entertaining novel, Fierce People [1], has one of his characters say, “The brilliance of the American aristocracy is they’ve convinced the world they don’t exist... It’s safer that way. Unlike us [the old European aristocracy], they’re invisible targets...” Furthermore, “It’s very clever -- you teach them in America
Wittenborn’s book is as Candace Bushnell has noted, “A riveting page-turner that offers a haunting and fascinating glimpse into the lives of the super-rich.” In effect, the characters in the book are the American aristocracy, and also equivalent to the Fierce People -- more cutthroat than anything in any ghetto, slum, or grimy downtown street. Think of Bill Gates with premenstrual syndrome and a government inspired migraine.
The fascinating possibility is that Wittenborn was allegedly raised in a community similar to the one he describes in his fictional story. In effect, the story is realistic to the core, and there is, according to Wittenborn and others, an American aristocracy which does in fact control all significant wealth and power in the country, regularly pass this wealth and power on to its progeny (including those who constitute the demented results of years of in-breeding), and in general do whatever they damn well please -- any and all laws, rules, regulations, and whatever notwithstanding. They are the Lords of the Flies, and rules applicable to the commoners need never apply.
These are the people whose children are raised in very private, exclusive schools, where their Education is about assuming their rightful places at the apexes of power. These are the children who get to meet the astronauts up close and personal, who can receive an abortion by the best trained doctors in the world (regardless of the parents’ public stand on the issue or relevant State or local laws), who can avoid the draft with the dismissal wave of their hand, who will go to the best colleges and universities, and who ultimately can become most anything they want (barring the desires of their equally aristocratic peers) -- including becoming President of the United States.
[As interesting aside is that President Bush (aka Shrub) recently had his administration argue in a court of law against any form of quota systems in college admissions. The college, in question, was attempting to allow minorities (just by virtue of being a member of a minority) an extra 20 extra points out of a maximum of 150 -- as a means of giving them a headstart in the admissions lottery. But when Shrub went to Yale, the admissions program was equivalent to giving him (as a son of President, CIA Director, etceteras) an extra 250 points out of, say, a total of 150. Basically, Shrub got into college on a quota system -- his minority being his stereos in the aristocracy. Irony is a wonderful thing.]
Meanwhile, the American Aristocracy has joined the old aristocracies in being the leaders of any and all generations. It is perhaps to their credit (or to their practicality) that those born of lesser parents can sometimes be reluctantly admitted to the aristocratic club. But such admissions are generally to the advantage of the club’s elder guard, who perceive a use or value in so and so enterprising (and likely manageable) fellow’s activities, and in no way need be considered to be a gesture of genuine Philanthropy.
Fortune Magazine in 2002 had an interesting article on the aspect of the American and other aristocracies, whose premier members have finally caught on to the wisdom of Wittenborn’s character. In effect, what was once considered a perk for CEOs (Chief Executive Officers of major corporations -- those who likely attained their position by family connection and wealth), to flaunt their success with new Trophy World Corporate Headquarters buildings, has now gone slightly out of fashion. Such arrogance has proven to be a bit of an Achilles heel.
How Trophies Lost Their Allure
These days, brand-name buildings are out and anonymity is in.
FORTUNE
By Devin Leonard
CEOs used to have an important rite of passage: When a company reached a certain level of grandeur, the chief executive hired a major architect to design a new headquarters, a trophy building symbolizing the company’s financial might and corporate style. The skyline of every major American city is adorned with these wonders. Chicago Sears Tower San Francisco New York City
Now corporate America New York U.S. Jersey City
It would be a mistake, however, to blame Sept. 11 entirely for the decline of trophy buildings. Matthew Cullen, head of real estate for GM and chairman of CoreNet Global, an association of top real estate executives, says companies began forsaking trophy buildings nearly a decade ago when technological advances like the Inter Net and cell phones allowed employees to work anywhere, lessening the need for a fancy tower.
Sandy Apgar, a director at the Boston Consulting Group who advises corporations on real estate, sees the same trend. He counsels clients to follow the lead of AT&T, which cut costs and increased productivity in the early ‘90s when it left its posh, Philip Johnson-designed Manhattan Jersey suburbs, and encouraged employees to telecommute. Sept. 11, says Apgar, has only accelerated things. Though a handful of companies like Ernst & Young and Reuters have recently moved into trophy-worthy digs, “the age of the corporate-icon building is passing,” he says. “One of the great challenges facing the real estate industry is how to rethink and reuse the traditional corporate headquarters building for other purposes. I know some people who are thinking, very quietly to be sure, about converting buildings in New York Manhattan
So is this the end of a great corporate tradition? Probably not. Trophy buildings go up in boom times, not in downturns. Merrill Lynch recently noted that there was currently a “complete absence of demand” for office space and expected paralyzing market conditions to last at least though 2003. However, once the economy picks up, that sentiment may change. For all their downsides, trophy buildings offer CEOs a form of immortality. Few of the cars built by Walter Chrysler in the ‘20s survive, but the art deco spire he commissioned still looms majestically over Manhattan
The fact that the upcoming American Aristocracy may be less obvious in their corporate digs is not necessarily cause for celebration. A covert conspiracy is often worse than an overt action -- although increasingly, there is no apparent attempt to conceal anything.
Other than perhaps an aristocratic contempt for commoners. As The Little King once said, when informed that the peasants were revolting, “They always have been.”
| Aristocracy: |
[Gr., =rule by the best], in political science, government by a social elite. In the West the political concept of aristocracy derives from Plato's formulation in the Republic. The criteria on which aristocracy is based may vary greatly from society to society. Historically, aristocracies have usually rested on landed property, have invoked heredity, and, despite frequent conflicts with the throne, have flourished chiefly within the framework of monarchy. Aristocracy may be based on wealth as well as land, as in ancient Carthage Venice India England
| Aristocracy: |
In the Medieval period, everyone had their place. And nowhere was this more rigidly applied than in the nobility. This group, comprising only few percent of the population (depending on region) was at the top of everything, socially, economically, politically, and militarily. Within the nobility there were numerous ranks . The names varied from region to region, but by more or less common agreement, there was a definite pecking order for each rank.
The nobles became nobles as a result of the German invasions of Roman territory during the 4th and 5th centuries. Both the Germans and the Romans had a nobility, but neither was identical to what would develop duing the Medieval period. Most previous nobilities were composed of people who were simply wealthier, and politically better connected, than the commoners. Fancy titles and a little ceremony reinforced the higher status. Medieval nobles were different. The differences had to do with two factors; manors and the method developed for paying the troops.
The Ruling Class (titled and otherwise):
About three percent of the population comprised the ruling class. The ruling class were not all nobles, but rather the educated and wealthy class of families that ruled Europe . The lower ranks of this ruling class ("gentlemen" and "esquires" in England
A title, by itself, meant nothing. What was really important was land, and control over sufficient population to work the land and render rents and fees to the noble (or non-noble) owner. Actually, many nobles did not "own" the land they lorded it over, but held it as a vassal of their king (or some other higher ranking noble). In return for virtual ownership, the vassal had to give his overlord an annual payment of money, goods or service. The amount varied considerably. In some cases it was a token payment, in other instances the amount was so high that a few bad crop years could render the landlord unable to extract enough profit from the property to keep up the payments. However, this was changing during the Medieval period, as more laws were passed and feudal power was continually curbed. Kings gradually relinquished their claim to control of the land in return for some thing kings never had enough of (besides power,) namely, money. Cities could purchase degrees of self-government in return for large, one time, payments to the crown. Nobles, and commoners, could purchase outright ownership of more land for cash.
While these deals may have seemed one sided, selling off long term rental income for lump sum payments, the political realities were that the feudal lords were buying greater loyalty from their former tenants. Otherwise, as many reluctant nobles discovered, their rambunctious and ever more prosperour subjects were likely to rebel .
The principal function of the feudal system was for the nobles to provide military protection and government for their subjects. But increasingly, tenant farmers were willing to go off and shop for better terms. After the Bubonic Plague, when there was a tremendous labor shortage, the farmers were in a very powerful position. The principal means for keeping farmers on a nobles land was to allow the peasants to purchase the land (which the wealthier peasants could do) or to ease up on rental rates and feudal obligations (free labor) for the less affluent peasants. In effect, the nobility recognized that times were changing and they could either lose their power and property through revolution, or sell it to their subjects a piece at a time. The English nobles were the ones who most enthusiastically adopted this policy, and this is one reason why the English aristocracy still exists. Across the Channel, the nobles were less eager to sell off their ancient rights. It was this obstinacy that caused the French Revolution in the 18th century, and weakened the other European aristocracies in the 19th and 20th centuries. The American Revolution, of course, made a point of not allowing any aristocracy whatsoever.
A small, but very important, portion of the commoner aristocrats were the large merchants and bankers. While nobles and senior clergy often got involved in lending money, it was the commoners who did most of it. These pools of money were essential for economic growth. All manner of capital improvements, from ship building to industrial expansion, required a large amount of cash to get started. The nobles tended to spend their capital on building splendid homes and fortifications. The church pured much money into cathedrals and abbeys. But vital items like iron works, cloth factories and merchant ship fleets were largely built by entrepenurial commoners. These items produced more wealth, where castles and cathedrals did not. Eventually, this mass of commoner wealth turned into political power and this was beginning to happen even during the Medieval period.
Landlords and Tenants:
At it's peak, the feudal system placed nearly all the people working the land under the control of one feudall landlord or another. Many of these tenants labored under a legal status known to us as "serfdom ." A serf was not a slave, but lived under conditions that were close to it. A serf could not leave the land without the landlords permission, nor could he marry off his daughters unless the lord allowed it. Perhaps worst of all, serfs could not petition the courts for relief from abuse they might receive from their lord. Serfs had to give a large chunk of their crop to the overlord, contribute free labor and pay fees for a long list of items.
Farmers had originally accepted the burdens of serfdom more or less voluntarily in return for the armed nobles providing protection and rule of law. Such arrangements were already practiced in Romanized lands . To the 9th or 10th century peasant beset by brigands and general anarchy, serfdom seemed like a pretty good deal. But over the centuries, peace and order became a permanent part of the landscape. The nobility lived it up, but eventually ran short of money. This was particularly true during the Crusades of the 11th and 12th centuries. It was expensive to equip oneself for a journey to the Middle East to liberate the Holy Lands. Yet it was very fashionable to go, and one had to go in style. Some nobles borrowed money, others found a source of cash closer at home. Serfs were allowed to buy their way out of some, or all, aspects of serfdom. While serfs had been exploited, they were not picked clean. A serf could make a profit in his work and build up a nest egg. Either individually, or as a group (often entire villages), the serfs bought their way out of serfdom. By the 14th century, only about 25 percent of the farmers were serfs to any degree.
Allowing the serfs to buy their freedom turned out to be a pretty good deal for the nobility. The farmers still worked the land controlled (if not, increasingly, owned) land, but did so even more efficiently. The overlord still collected rents, taxes and fees, and in the 12th and 13th century the nobility became more diligent in managing their estates. While all this increased aristocrats income, the nobles were even more enthusiastic in finding new ways to spend their money. One was really compelled to keep up appearances. The merchants were quick to supply whatever the free spending nobles might want, even if they could not afford it, or even need it.
Noble wives learned the pleasures of shopping, especially when eager merchants were willing to bring their travelling botiques right to your castle. But many aristocrats now had a second home in a city. Paris London
The Heir Angle:
Another problem with aristocracy was that it was hereditary. The feudal contract stipulated that a family was holding the land from the king. If the family died out, the land returned (escheated) to the king. It wasn't enough to produce heirs, you had to try and produce able ones who could survive in the rough and tumble of Medieval politics. While some families do produce talented individuals over many generations (but, then, so do some race horses), there are also a fair number of clunkers oozing out of the gene pool. One inept heir can ruin the productive work of many previous generations. While it's human nature to want to keep it in the family, and do the best one can for ones children, these efforts often produce unfortunate results. To make matters worse, noble families tended to have few children. One reason was that wives were selected with an eye to forming (or strengthening) political alliances, not for the womans ability (or willingness) to bear children. These arranged marriages often created a couple that did not get along at all. It was not uncommon for the husband to refuse to sleep with his wife (there were plenty of other women available for that) and for the wife to actively avoid getting pregnant no matter what shape the marital relations were in. Most noble families died out within a century or two after getting established. The women were anxious to avoid the very real dangers of Medieval childbirth, and the men often lived for the present, ignoring the future need for an heir.
In the Kings Service:
Although aristocrats were always eager to keep the nobility an exclusive club, the kings saw their power to create new aristocrats as a highly effective tool for maintaining the loyalty of his nobles, and putting more able commoners into positions of power. The British monarchy still gives out noble titles in this way, and few commoners (no matter what their personal attitude towards the monarchy) so honored come away unappreciative. Kings were, after all, little more than hugely successful nobles. The current monarchy of Britain Normandy Norway France
As in any organization, there can be only one man at the top. While it was difficult to depose a king, and grab the crown yourself, it was possible for a mere noble to become a great noble, a magnate. There were two ways to do this, by taking from the king or your fellow nobles, or by becoming an invaluable servant of your king. Fighting other nobles, and especially the king, was usually a losing proposition. But a grateful monarch would usually reward his faithful, and able, nobles with more land and titles. There was plenty of work to do, for many nobles took the other road, making war or scheming to take from the king and other nobles. As powerful as the king was, he could never, in the Medieval period, do it himself. He needed allies, to deal with those who would not be allies.
The titled arsitocracy was actually shrinking as the Medieval period turned into the Renaissance during the 15th century. There had been several centuries of relative peace and the expense and discomfort of training to become a knight was seen as less and less attractive. While the kings made noises about how all landowners of a certain size should be knights, the kings were just as happy to take money instead of military service from these landlords. Kings were getting used to hiring mercenary troops, instead of the hodge podge of troops he would get if he called all his vassals to render their military obligation. Besides. this obligation was only for a month or so per year and a campaign might go on for many years. Mercenaries will stay with you as long as you pay them regularly. Another benefit of mercenaries was that, once the military function of the nobility was gone, the nobles were defenseless against the power of a growing central government. The kings still saw the nobility as their allies against all those commoners and, bit by bit, the nobility were turned into a titled civil service for the royal government. By the 17th century, this trend was complete. The nobles were the creatures of the king, and were unable to reserse the process. In the 14th century, however, the trend was just getting into high gear. The nobles still knew how to use weapons, and had the wherewithall to raise their own armies. But this was changing, and a lot of the change occurred during the Hundred Years War.
| ARISTOCRACY: Like many terms used to describe government structures, Aristocracy is impossible to define. Founded on the Greek word, aristos , which means "best," at its heart aristocracy means "rule by the best." Its theoretical foundation begins with the political works of Plato and Aristotle, the two central figures in Greek and European philosophy. Both felt that Greek democrac> had been a disaster; their fundamental problem with democracy was that it put government in the hands of people who were the least capable of making sound decisions. For Plato, the general run of humanity was driven by its selfish passions and desires; this was a poor foundation for deliberate, considered, and selfless decision-making. While Plato and Aristotle were familiar with an infinite variety of possible governments, they believed that government should be in the hands of the most capable members of society. Above all, people in government should be moral and selfless; they should be highly intelligent and educated, as well as brave and temperate. This was "rule by the best." |
| This is not, however, what we think of when we use the term aristocracy. In early modern |
| The answer can be found in part in theories of the monarchy in the Middle Ages. In order to legitimate ta hereditary monarchy, the medieval Europeans theorized that the virtues which made a monarch suitable for the job were hereditary . This led to a segregation of virtues: the monarch and his noble bureaucrats were by nature and heredity more moral and civilized than the rest of the population. They were, then, the "best" morally and intellectually. In this way, the notion of "aristocracy," as "rule of the best," eventually translated into a concept of a hereditary aristocracy. So ingrained is this notion in the European world view, that we still assume a hereditary superiority in the upper classes. |
| The founders of American democracy turned back to the original, philosophical definition of aristocracy when they built American government. Very conscious of Plato's and Aristotle's criticisms of democracy, the founders of American government wanted to avoid putting the government into the hands of the worst members of society. They also, however, wanted to avoid the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy, for European history proven amply that the hereditary aristocracy is many things but it rarely consists of the "best" members of society either in moral or intellectual terms (look at the royal family in Richard Hooker |
No comments:
Post a Comment