The nature of aristocracy

[Terxpahseyton]

You've missed the major disadvantage - ruling a country is a difficult job which takes extremely able people, and the chance of the sons of a few inbred noble families fitting into that category in sufficient numbers is nil.

I don't think it is nil because preparing someone for a job from the very start gives a lot of an edge on being able to do it well I imagine. + Plus there will be vast resources in means and experiences which can be drawn from to prepare.
You may want to point to how in history that hasn't exactly worked out that way, but I think this is where a comparison simply fails. Today are different times. We live in a relatively rational, in a performance society and even if the aristocracy would be partially exempt from this way of life, the spill-over would still be significant.
I also doubt that inbreeding would still be a popular. The believes this practice was based on simply are not there anymore. Are modern monarchs still interbreeding? Nope.

Moreover, rule based on "merit" - that is based on being able to fight ones way through - doesn't actually appear to be all that successful in having competent people rule.

 

[Borachio]

Mebbe. But I'm still highly dubious about the worth of a system overtly based on inherited wealth and privilege. How can that be fair or rational?

 

[Old Hippy]

Mebbe. But I'm still highly dubious about the worth of a system overtly based on inherited wealth and privilege. How can that be fair or rational?

it was more based on the right to read, get an education, I would still be dubious about being led by someone who could not read

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't see it being fair. It would be rational if they simply tended to do a better job due to various factors. What actually is irrational is to get hung up on the ideology of meritocracy and democracy and ignore the actual social and institutional realities in which they manifest in the political spheres and the general problems that come with it. I don't think people want to be rational about this. They are very emotional about the idea of aristocracy.
That said, I don't actually think aristocracy is superior, as I hoped to have already conveyed. But I do think that if one manages to cast ones strong emotions about this topic aside for a moment there can be an argument made in favor of it. I mean it starts with realizing what angur Bán seems to be saying: That this technical opposition of aristocracy and meritocracy/democracy is to a degree an artificial one. There is no black or white. Just different systems.
Though @ Pangur Bán for all the similarities between unofficial and official aristocracies, surely you can also acknowledge fundamental differences?

 

[Pangur Bán]

That said, I don't actually think aristocracy is superior, as I hoped to have already conveyed. But I do think that if one manages to cast ones strong emotions about this topic aside for a moment there can be an argument made in favor of it. I mean it starts with realizing what angur Bán seems to be saying: That this technical opposition of aristocracy and meritocracy/democracy is to a degree an artificial one. There is no black or white. Just different systems.
Though @ Pangur Bán for all the similarities between unofficial and official aristocracies, surely you can also acknowledge fundamental differences?

Well, what would those fundamental differences be?

 

[Old Hippy]

Well, what would those fundamental differences be?

it would start with me and you (most probably) not being in the ruling group

 

[Phrossack]

If one lacks virtue, one should not be called an aristocrat, even if one is formally considered such. It is what distinguishes aristocracy from mere rule of the strong or plutocracy.

You're working with a highly idealized conception of aristocracy here. It has never worked that way. Aristocracy is usually hereditary.

Who determines what virtue is, and who has it? Who rewards the "virtuous," and how? How does one punish aristocrats without virtue? Isn't a poor single mother who sacrifices all of her time and happiness for her children virtuous? Would that make her an aristocrat?

 

[Borachio]

Only if she happens to rule the country as well.

That's what aristocracy is though, isn't it? Rule by the best (or excellent). And it assumes that the offspring of the "best" are also the best.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well, what would those fundamental differences be?

In case of unofficial aristocracies, inheritance is only incidentally a factor, as what really matters is only money and connections.
That makes the elite a lot more transparent as well as uncohesive.
Depending on your actual political system and landscape, the influence of this elite on the ruling class is also a lot more nuanced, they are not as much identical.
All that means in the end very different social environments and dynamics. Isn't it obvious?

 

[Pangur Bán]

In case of unofficial aristocracies, inheritance is only incidentally a factor, as what really matters is only money and connections.
That makes the elite a lot more transparent as well as uncohesive.
Depending on your actual political system and landscape, the influence of this elite on the ruling class is also a lot more nuanced, they are not as much identical.
All that means in the end very different social environments and dynamics. Isn't it obvious?

If anything you post undermines the point you are making. It is almost certainly much easier to transmit wealth and power through inheritance today than in the middle ages, the formalization of some of that through inherited titles is late and not particularly well connected to power. Modern elites may not used court-derived titles to legitimize their social position and entrench their status, but they do use titles; corporate ones in particular, 'chairman of this', 'honourary x of that', and so on. This reflects that modern elites achieve and perpetuate much of their dominance through corporations and public office rather than a royal court.

 

[Pangur Bán]

wrong thread

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is almost certainly much easier to transmit wealth and power through inheritance today than in the middle ages

If you mean economic power - maybe. But political power is another game.

 

[Borachio]

There's a fair few political dynasties out there, though, aren't there?

(You're going to ask me to name a few now, I guess.)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

True enough but it surely is a lot less inheritable than in actual aristocracies. In many democracies you even have people from all kinds of backgrounds rise to political power. In others it is more heavily dominated by elites.

 

[Phrossack]

But the abstracted 'aristocracy' people are discussing here is a historical fantasy. Property is more hereditary now that it ever was in the Middle Ages, and the bulk of the societies being described here as 'aristocratic' weren't as remotely inaccessible as the modern corporate and political elite. If 'aristocratic' means decision making is done by a small exclusive elite who all know each other and sustain their power bases by alliance with each other, modern America is much more 'aristocratic' than medieval England.

I wouldn't call it aristocratic. That carries connotations (or denotations) of birthright by nobility. In many aristocratic systems, an impoverished nobleman has more rights and privileges than a rich burgher (at least in theory; some states in some periods sold patents of nobility, and the government would probably be more likely to listen to a very rich merchant than a landless noble, but the noble still starts with a really nice advantage that he'll rarely if ever lose). In America, social status is determined mainly by income, not birthright. If anything, it's a burgher's paradise, where the nobility was never allowed to be established, and where anyone can gain great power and privilege so long as they have a lot of money.

 

[Traitorfish]

I wouldn't conflate nobility and aristocracy. In fifteenth century Spain, the nobility constituted something like 10% of the total population, but the aristocracy proper constituted less than 2%. The terms are only interchangeable in societies which lack a legally-distinct noble class, e.g. Early Modern England, so noble status defaults to aristocracy.

 

[Phrossack]

I wouldn't conflate nobility and aristocracy. In fifteenth century Spain, the nobility constituted something like 10% of the total population, but the aristocracy proper constituted less than 2%. The terms are only interchangeable in societies which lack a legally-distinct noble class, e.g. Early Modern England, so noble status defaults to aristocracy.

Ah, thanks. I forgot the distinction between the two.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I didn't know there even was something to forget.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I wouldn't call it aristocratic. That carries connotations (or denotations) of birthright by nobility. In many aristocratic systems, an impoverished nobleman has more rights and privileges than a rich burgher (at least in theory; some states in some periods sold patents of nobility, and the government would probably be more likely to listen to a very rich merchant than a landless noble, but the noble still starts with a really nice advantage that he'll rarely if ever lose). In America, social status is determined mainly by income, not birthright. If anything, it's a burgher's paradise, where the nobility was never allowed to be established, and where anyone can gain great power and privilege so long as they have a lot of money.

I trust it won't be news to you, but we don't have a 'noble' v. 'rich burgher' distinction. Modern elites have the powers of both through ownership and, without the responsibilities, the scrambled anonymization called shareholding. Early modern and late medieval societies may have tried to ritualize and formalize their social structures, but such attempts were unstable and semi-fictional just like they are today.

In America, social status is determined mainly by income, not birthright. If anything, it's a burgher's paradise, where the nobility was never allowed to be established, and where anyone can gain great power and privilege so long as they have a lot of money.

Yeah, income is for much of the modern elite determined by 'birthright' (i.e. inheritance).

Anyway, basically what you are saying is that America has no aristocracy because wealth and power are monetarized and thus, for some reason you haven't explained, more open to 'anyone'. You do know, right, that early modern / late medieval titles and hereditary honours were routinely acquired and lost through failure and success?

 

[Pangur Bán]

If you mean economic power - maybe. But political power is another game.

Not sure what the difference here is supposed to be. But in relation to the modern world, I would very much be surprised if George Bush II would have been president, his bro. Jeb a candidate, were it not for his father. This is just a big example without mentioning the dozens of of political families in the US who provide a large proportion of the congressmen and governors in the US, not to mention the thousands of similar dynasties elsewhere in the Western world.