The Question of Feudalism as a Manifestation of Political Dominance in European Society and the Implications for Modern Political Theory

Inquiring in the basis for historical observation of the debate between economic and political primacy in European society, one inevitably encounters the rather imposing French quote, l’etat c’est moi, as spoken by King Louis XIV of France. Inevitably one also encounters the importance of feudalism as a system and as a case study, that beautifully encapsulates the debate at hand; a debate that emerged indeed much after the manorialism of the feudal age had been ousted in favor of more modern theories of statehood and society. As these theories emerged and indeed prevailed, the economic dominance and primacy in social and political life was hard to ignore. Questions and riddles of revolution, reform and reactionarism emerged a priori, to address a problem that was conceived as modern, but not as a byproduct of progress. However, it is worth noting, that the feudal system holds answers to many of those questions, and offers equally a great deal of insight in a discussion that otherwise has little traceable historic precedence, or rather, has a very difficult-to-condensce set of data that is almost impossible to compile in a comprehensive study and answer to the riddles posed above.

Upon examining H.H.Rowen’s “L’Etat c’est a moi”: Louis XIV and the State,”(1961) several observations in the nature of feudalism and its translation into modern political thought and theory emerged. Most importantly, three points stood out and perhaps are the most important to grasp before moving on and examining feudalism’s role in our own debate of political versus economic primacy. These three are the concepts of the state, property, and office.

The distinction between property and state, or otherwise property and office, (always in a politico-economic context) is the most important one to document. Rowen suggests that the King, in the French context, particularly in the dynastic zenith of his rule in the 17th century, was the “owner” of the state. The concept of property is thus introduced, but not in the sense of private property, therefore a predominantly economic sense, but rather as a case of holding office which the King has. Property in this context has three main defining features, 1) ethical legitimacy, 2) exclusive rights, 3) legal enforceability. It provides benefits that are social and political, not strictly economic. The owner of the state therefore (Rowen defines the state as it was understood then, an set of administrative agencies of political authority, nation and an implied ethnic union), does not have ownership of the political community but rather, and concretely owns the territory of the state. His subjects are explicitly not his slaves, but he reserves the right to command them. What then is the limit and definition of the King’s power?

The King, Rowen explains, is provided with the right of legitimacy, that is his power is public, through birthright, divine gift, conquest and inherritance. From his ownership of the state in this sense, the King’s property may be defined.

The idea therefore of property and state in the early modern period, that is, the main representatives of economy and politics, respectively has been settled, but the link with feudalism is rather lacking. Feudalism stands as a merger of economic and political powers, a combination of property and office/ state. Roman law strictly forbids that merger, and therefore the medieval system of the seigneur is introduced. Rowen analyzes what that means and what its functions, which are for the purposes of this analysis, irrelevant. What is relevant is to note that feudalism allows for a merging of office and property with responsibility through a strict system of classes and manorialism, as defined and explained by Bloch.

Therein the link between the King, state and property was accepted, from the times of Richelieu and Mazarin up until the Revolution, as both l’etat c’est moi - “I am the State” and l’etat c’est a moi “The State is mine.” What this translates to is that the King was both the “symbol of the nation, the sole source of authority in the state” but also that the state was the property of kingship. This relationship of property-kingship, Rowen analyses as “The King [being] the usufructuary of the crown, not its freehold possessor: he enjoyed its powers and revenues for his own lifetime, to pass on undiminished and unimpaired.”

Having established the aforementioned, we may proceed to the most important part of our analysis which is the link between feudalism and the debate of economic versus political primacy. The very debate itself is difficult to define and lies much outside the scope of this article, but to simplify our task we shall call economic primacy as the dominance of money, as Spengler would call it; the rule of the abstract and the artificial, of disenchantment and rationalization, ultimately of democratic and populist forms of government. Political primacy, again with Spenglerian overtures, refers to the dominance of instinct, natural forms and truths, blood and aristocracy, (not in their literal definitions but rather in the definitions provided by Spengler and other reactionary modernists, see Jeffrey Herf’s work). Therein, feudalism obtains a concrete place that must be identified. Spengler and others of his line of thought embraced a nihilism that came with their teleology of cultural despair. No political system could and would breach the gap between the inevitable political past and economic future.

Examining feudalism in this context we see certain points about its manorial structure, that appeal to Spengler’s concerns. Of course, Spenglerian philosophy is not the object of this study, but feudalism’s merger of property, state and office -the main contestants in Spengler’s conundrum- certainly grants it an important role that I will attempt to examine more in detail in future posts.