290week10c

Tony Waters

Sociology 290, Week 10c

Most historical sociology is based in the western experience. This is particularly true for the older social theorists who described "The Rise of the West" either explicitly, or implicitly. These theorists include: Marx, Weber, Durkheim, etc., all of whom modeled their thinking based on their understanding of western society which began in the Greek/Roman times, and extends through what we now call "feudalism," and then into the emergence of the modern state and capitalism.

Implied by most of these theories are "stages" or "pre-conditions" which are necessary for the development of modern societies. These theories typically imply that if conditions A, B, and C are met, then a social process will occur resulting in a particular type of society.

These theories are inherently "functional" meaning that they emphasize that for "progress" to occur, it is somehow necessary to have a particular set of conditions work together. This functionalism is the basis for much of the "modernization" theory which undergirds development aid policies in the Third World today. (Note: this is different from core-periphery/world systems type theories which focus on exploitative relationships between countries, and not just seemingly inevitable stages of progress).

In terms of evidence, though, there has always been one fly in the ointment, so to speak. That is, Japan. Japan has capitalism and a modern state, but no relationship to the West, Rome, or other key sources of Western development. The open question has always been why? There are several schools in this debate, incluidng

--a group that says Japan has passed through similar shifts in ideology, culture, and that therefore a single theory of the state is possible (Randall Collins, Max Weber, etc).

--a group that says Japan is completely different, and that there can be no one theory of the state or capitalism. In effect that the Japanese exception disproves the generalizations based on Japan, and that any similarities are a result of wishful thinking and selective scholarship.

If you watch American Sociological Review in particular, you will find many articles dealing with this question: how are Japan and the west/US same or different. In my opinion, most start with somewhat Eurocentric assumptions that the categories found in Europe are relevant to the study of Japan, but not vice versa. This is perhaps most loudly heard in Randall Collins recent "eureka" article in which he identifies Buddhist monasteries as being the source of capitalist ideology in feudal Japan. He writes that this ideological "incubator" was analogous to Calvinism in the rise of the Protestant Ethic and capitalism in the West.

Having had my peace….

Feudalism in Japan (after Peter Duus)

Tribal Rule (before 600 a.d.)

Before 600 a.d., Japan was on the periphery of the bureaucratic Chinese Empire. Organized into warrior clans. Warriors were calvary, i.e. horses with bows and arorws, swords, quilted cloting, armor). Not ties of vassalage, but economy based on irrigated rice agriculture which required fairly complex social relations. Farming done by families on small plots that were intensively farmed. Influence of the Chinese Empire was felt, but Japan was not conquered.

Civil Monarchy (about 600 a.d. to 1000 a.d.)

The Yamato family became dominant, and began appropriating land, serfs, granaries. Demainding fealty. Borrowed ideas of bureaucratic rule from China, and established civil service (with tests of ability) as a criteria for employment, and salaries paid in exchange for loyalty to the central government.

However, the civil service did not develop along the same lines as in China, and positions soon became dependent on political connections and reward. A system of salaries also did not emerge. What did emerge was a mixed system where there was a central government (consolidated through conquest), which devolved on itself because

--in lieu of salaries, "fiefs" were awarded to members of the court

--loyalties developed toward the local fief-holders, and away from the Emperor

--testing and ability were not used as the criteria for civil service. Rather loyalty was, meaning that administration of laws and regulations soon became more uneven.

The net result was that by about 1000 a.d. a substantial and powerful aristocracy emerged. Instead of their being a "bureaucratic monarchy" there was an "aristocratic monarchy." The lands owned by the crown had shrunk as over the centuries grants in sovereignty were made. These grants often included the rights of a sovereign, within the context of the overarching Imperial system. Notably, they were allowed to exploit the peasantry for personal gain.

As a result, by about 1000 a.d., the power of the Emperor had declined substantially, and for practical purposes, a warrior elite ruled. In effect, a system of vassalage.

NB: In Duus' formulation, this period in Japan corresponds to Charlemagne's Empire in Europe.

Warrior Rule (about 1000 a.d. to 1300 a.d.)

Warriors controlled small areas. Production was enough for them to establish themselves as an elite that lived off the production of the peasantry, and who protected against the potential depredations of neighboring warrior bands. Mixture of kin-based loyalty and vassalage. Big emphasis on personal loyalty and charisma of individual leaders. No system of civil service. Followers could share in booty, if they won, fight to death if they didn't. Time of glorification of fighting and military virtue:

Each warrior leader had a household, and collected tribute from estates which may or may not be contiguous to the family manor. More distant estates would be managed by land stewards who theoretically would pass on tributes to the aristocracy.

From the Tale of Mutsu, a description of Minamoto Yoshiie

Such warriors are suitable for small jurisdictions, but not larger ones. Settle disputes over land, and protect against bandits. They are not armies. Not adequate to quell civil disorder, or protect against mass invasion.

During this period, the Imperial government declined, but maintained a presence in the province via provincial "constables" who nominally were in charge. I.e. representatives of Imperial power. However, since the Emperors had transferred away so much sovereignty to aristocrats over the years, these positions were not very powerful.

Institution of "warrior government" established about 1180 to provide protection/alliance for warrior class,. Drew power from the throne, but also usurped power.

Result was that by about 1300 there was an incessant warfare feeding upon itself. This was in part inherent to the system which emerged. Also of relevance though was an expanding population, and no law of primogeniture. As a result, there were smaller and smaller units of land.

Feudal Anarchy (about 1300 to 1867)

The Shogun period. Decline of estate system into an anarchy. Breakdown of government by vassalage. Emergence of competing courts and armies (infantry). Particular noble could switch sides. Remanants of civil service positions, (constables) became more powerful, and were able to separate tax collecting duties for their own benefit.

Reason that period is called "anarchic:" Many competing forces. Declining aristocracies, re-emergence of constables, assertion of some central power. Loyalty shifts based in legal documents which rigidified vassalage arrangements, but at the same time could be broken if the vassal strong enough. Loyalty was a matter of self-interest, not of ethics.

Wars of succession also common. Heads of provinces called daimyo, and they had the power to grant fiefs.

Daimyo began to bureaucratize at the end of the 16^th century, i.e. lay taxes on peasantry via direct taxes (not through feudal intermediaries). Squeeze peasantry directly rather than the lords from whom he needed military assistance. This involved land surveys, censuses, etc. Beginnings of modern state emerged at this time. Also Daimyos, who had control of only a small territory, started to encourage trade of manufactured goods using markets.

Towards the end of the feudal period, a supreme (central) monarch, the Shogun, emerged to coordinate/enforce peaceful relations between the Daimyo. "Centralized Feudalism." Received fealty oaths or conquered all other Daimyo. This is the period that the novel Shogun is about, i.e.the military unification of Japan. Done with the concepts of loyalty/fealty of feudalism in mind. But also led to the establishment of a bureaucracy, one for the central government, one for each individual daimyo. Led to the decline of the warrior function, and the old hereditary military leaders tried to move into the emerging bureaucracy. The bureaucracy tended to take the aristocratic rights out of the loop; convert fief holders into stipend receivers, i.e. under the control of the daimyo bureaucracy.

Solidification of social hierarchy. Officials (noblility), peasants, artisans, merchants.

National Unity (after 1868)

Modern Japan traces its origins to the Meijij Restoration, i.e. a conservative coup d'etat. Meant to preserve old order from encroachments by Europeans. Shogun abdicated, and authority transferred back to Emperor.

Ironically, conservative coup d'etat led quickly to abolition of old feudal categories. Daimyos domains abolished, and prefectures introduced. Caste distinctions eliminated. Feudal stipends taken away. All within about ten years.

Concluding Note
The Presentation of Japanese Feudalism I have described here is the "standard version." At the beginning, I mentioned that I thought it was "Eurocentric." To be honest, I think that Hall's description of the Southwest is of this nature. I am equally critical of both "modernization" type theorists (like Duus), as well as "world systems theorists" (like Hall) on these accounts. For that matter, both Adam Smith and Karl Marx can, I think be thrown into this boat. Here is why I think this.

Each starts with a careful and thorough assessment of a Western situation. For most it is "feudalism" which (as Bloch writes) is really and "after the fact" category.

My question is, had we started our assessment of Japanese history by looking at it for its own sake, and then proceeded to look for organizing principles, would we have found the same patterns? The same can be said for Africa, Latin America, China, Australia, etc. What if we had steeped ourselves in the history of Japan, would we then have a different tool with which to analyze the history of Europe, and thereby come up with different observations?