Question

1. Diamond makes an argument that all stratified societies employ one (or a combination) of four means to enable and justify the distribution of the social surplus. From the readings, discuss feudal stratification and how it was enabled and justified.

2. The basic economic ideology concerning market activity in Feudal times arose from the Church. What did the church consider sinful or acceptable regarding economic activity and why?

Answer 1

1) Historically, societies have exhibited a varied range of stratification systems. A stratification system is the overlapping manner in which societal members are ranked into classes, status groups and hierarchies of power. In order to distinguish among them, social scientists often use models, abstract conceptions that they place on a particular continuum. At one extreme of the continuum is the closed, or caste, stratification system. The middle is represented by the estate system. At the other extreme is the open, or class, system.

The Closed Society: Caste

Whether a society has an open or a closed stratification system is determined by the way its members obtain wealth, prestige and privilege. In a closed, or caste, stratification system, class, status and power are ascribed, that is, determined strictly on the basis of family inheritance rather than individual effort or merit. In a closed society, the individual is born into a specific social stratum, called a caste, and has no opportunity to move in or out of it.

The Estate System

The estate system was the economic and social system that prevailed in feudal Europe and, existed in different forms, has characterized a number of nations in Asia. As in the caste system, in the estate system of stratification, social positions were also ranked according to their functions; however, in theory, all the estates were considered equal in importance. The three main estates were: (i) the nobility, (ii) the church (religion) and (iii) the peasants, and within each estate there was a stratified hierarchy of positions.
Supported by religion and tradition, the estate system permitted quite a bit more mobility among social strata than did the caste system. Because only eldest sons could inherit the title and possessions of a noble family, the remaining sons had to enter either the military or the clergy. Occasionally, serfs who had distinguished themselves were freed and given land, and some peasants were allowed to enter the lower ranks of the priesthood. The remnants of the estate system are still visible in some modern societies that retain a landed gentry and inherited titles of nobility.

The Open Society: Class System

Modern industrial and postindustrial societies mostly nearly approximate the model of an open society. Open, or class, societies have a few common characteristics:

1. Classes exist but are not institutionalized as in the caste or estate systems;
2. Class lines are not very clear, so people do not display excessive class consciousness, but inequality stemming from class divisions is apparent;
3. Status is usually achieved, but there is evidence to indicate that status tends to be ascribed to the lowest and the highest social classes; and
4. Social mobility is possible and occurs frequently.

Open, or class, systems work best in industrial societies that have market economics, because these offer more opportunities for achieving wealth and status than do societies with centralized economies. In government-controlled economies, people may not have the opportunity to choose their jobs and maximize advantages.

Social mobility – essentially, changing class membership – is possible and encouraged in open systems; however, it is not evenly distributed in the society. Limitations based on racial, ethnic, regional, educational and even religious factors restrict mobility. However, the individual is still permitted much more leeway for social as well as physical movement than in closed systems.

2) Feudalism is a medieval model of Government which predated the birth of modern nation state. It was a term for system of political and social order in Medieval Western Europe
i)New economic pattern based on land ownership
ii)The manor became the main economic unit.
iii)Feudal system developed
iv)King at top
v)Lords, vassals, and peasants
Like all pre-industrial societies, medieval Europe had a predominantly agricultural economy. The basic economic unit was the manor, managed by its lord and his officials. This was, in the early Middle Ages especially, a largely self-sufficient farming estate, with its peasant inhabitants growing their own crops, keeping their own cattle, making their own bread, cheese, beer or wine, and as far as possible making and repairing their own equipment, clothes, cottages, furniture and all the necessities of life.

Surplus produce was sold at the nearest market town, where equipment which could not be made or maintained in the manor workshops, or luxuries unavailable locally, could be purchased. Here craftsmen and shopkeepers such as cobblers, tailors, costermongers, tinkers, smiths and others plied their trades.
The medieval Roman Catholic Church, as an economic and political entity, attempted to accomplish its otherworldly goals in this world by acquiring power and influence. Most large corporations need access to capital markets to grow and prosper. The medieval Church was no exception, but it was constrained by its own admonitions against “laying up earthly treasure” and “serving Mammon instead of God.” This article discusses the political economy of the medieval Church, focusing on its response to the Crusades and also considering purgatory, indulgences, and the Protestant Reformation, as well as marriage as a sacrament.
The Roman Church held monarchs and other secular leaders at bay for several reasons. The papacy was a monopoly in the competition for power—a monopoly possibly dating as far back as Charlemagne—against monarchs and feudal lords. But most important, polities in the medieval period were at the mercy of the Roman Christian monopoly over the supernatural belief system. Rome’s approbation of a secular leader meant support by his or her subjects. The Church was able to use Christianity and particular doctrinal innovations as weapons to receive benefits in its dealings with both Church members and in the secular political world.
By its nature, monopolistic behavior has important economic consequences. Social scientists working in the field of religion therefore face the following uncomfortable circumstance: although its stated goals were spiritual, the medieval Roman Catholic Church functioned in large measure as an economic and political firm, making decisions about the nature and characteristics of its “product” as well as establishing the organizational structure to provide that product—with various quality assurances—to its customers, the religious faithful. In other words, the Catholic Church could not help but be a key economic and political player in the medieval world. The ultimate consequence of this behavior was the successful entry by Protestants in the early sixteenth century.
Material wealth was seen as necessary, since with out it a man could not support his family or help his neighbors. But it must be stressed that wealth was a means to an end, not an end in itself, and a man should have no more wealth than he required. Unlike modern society which accepts profit growth as justification for almost any action, the medieval world considered economic actions subordinate to moral authority. "The Church condemned as a sin precisely that effort to achieve a continuous and unlimited increase in material wealth which modern society upholds as a virtue."