The nature of aristocracy

[Tahuti]

Is aristocracy nothing more than a naked sense of privilege, sacralised by certain rituals with nothing real to offer society? Or does it actually serve a social purpose? Why do people think it collapsed?

Aristocracies were usually not closed, in that a lowborn individual could aspire to join the aristocracy, by performing feats of great heroism on the battlefield for royalty, to name just one example. Aside from a status gained by birth, it thus usually had a meritocratic aspect to it as well, in the form of being recognition for a rendered service.

My personal perspective was that while aristocracies are a highly desirable social institution, most historical aristocracies have collapsed because aristocracies failed to perform their duties in the face of adversity. For all the privileges the status conferred, it also entailed duties - primarily military ones - that were simply shirked at, culminating in its end at the hands of quite a few revolutions.

 

[Phrossack]

Is aristocracy nothing more than a naked sense of privilege, sacralised by certain rituals with nothing real to offer society? Or does it actually serve a social purpose? Why do people think it collapsed?

Aristocracies were usually not closed, in that a lowborn individual could aspire to join the aristocracy, by performing feats of great heroism on the battlefield for royalty, to name just one example. Aside from a status gained by birth, it thus usually had a meritocratic aspect to it as well, in the form of being recognition for a rendered service.

My personal perspective was that while aristocracies are a highly desirable social institution, most historical aristocracies have collapsed because aristocracies failed to perform their duties in the face of adversity. For all the privileges the status conferred, it also entailed duties - primarily military ones - that were simply shirked at, culminating in its end at the hands of quite a few revolutions.

The fundamental tenet of aristocracy is that some people are better than others- "aristocracy" means "rule by the best." It holds that the mere accident of birth can make one person entitled to rule over others and enjoy privilege and wealth, while another is destined to be ruled over. That is fundamentally unjust, and any society with a real aristocracy is not one society, but rather at least two societies.

Sure, sometimes aristocracies allow their inferiors to join them if they're truly remarkable-or much more commonly, if they have a lot of money- but that's about it. If you're not born an aristocrat, don't think you ever will be one. You'll be shining their boots forever.

 

[Borachio]

Is aristocracy nothing more than a naked sense of privilege, sacralised by certain rituals with nothing real to offer society? Or does it actually serve a social purpose? Why do people think it collapsed?

Aristocracies were usually not closed, in that a lowborn individual could aspire to join the aristocracy, by performing feats of great heroism on the battlefield for royalty, to name just one example. Aside from a status gained by birth, it thus usually had a meritocratic aspect to it as well, in the form of being recognition for a rendered service.

My personal perspective was that while aristocracies are a highly desirable social institution, most historical aristocracies have collapsed because aristocracies failed to perform their duties in the face of adversity. For all the privileges the status conferred, it also entailed duties - primarily military ones - that were simply shirked at, culminating in its end at the hands of quite a few revolutions.

I don't know about your perspective, i.e. what your experience of aristocracies has been, but mine leads me to believe that they're nothing short of a kind of Mafia.

Kleptocracy, pure and simple.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Few systems relied on an actual aristocracy, cause that seemed more rigid than the commerce/money-based oligarchies, or the kingship (or tyrrany; note that the original meaning of Tyrant only has to do with one getting in power without the legal means, as in succession or other local rules, and a tyrant could be benevolent etc). I think that aristocracy was an older system in the archaic era, and was eclipsed; later on the systems were either tyranny, oligarchy or democracy.

In the previous era lineage had likely far more implications than monetary wealth. But several factors eroded that (including greek to greek migration to other city-states, and laws on who could be seen as a full citizen depending on more or less lineage, having both parents be from that state or just one, etc).

I don't think an aristocratic system could work now, not unless we go through a hugely violent shock as in a ww3. And by 'aristocratic' i of course don't mean lineage-based, but something centered on ethico-intelligence and wish to help others. (which obviously by itself is quite ambiguous; personally i doubt it will happen, but i at least hope we stop having vermin as political leaders).

 

[Tarquelne]

Aside from a status gained by birth, it thus usually had a meritocratic aspect to it as well, in the form of being recognition for a rendered service.

I suspect "governed by whim" might be a more accurate descriptor than "meritocratic".

My personal perspective was that while aristocracies are a highly desirable social institution, most historical aristocracies have collapsed because aristocracies failed to perform their duties in the face of adversity.

The hidden problem with many political systems is how easily they slip away from the theoretical standard. Things like lack of checks or balances, the inability to peacefully transfer power, or inherent disincentives to adapt to changing circumstances can quickly reduce a system that looks great on paper to a farce.

Aristocracies sometimes put a lot of effort into justifying themselves in moral or practical terms, but they generally lacked effective checks or balances (almost antithetical), frequently had problems with transferring power, and generally had a lot invested in maintaining the status quo.

 

[Tahuti]

The fundamental tenet of aristocracy is that some people are better than others- "aristocracy" means "rule by the best."

Exactly. That said, the group of people formally recognised as aristocracy seldom perfectly correlates with the group of people deserving of such status.

It holds that the mere accident of birth can make one person entitled to rule over others and enjoy privilege and wealth, while another is destined to be ruled over. That is fundamentally unjust, and any society with a real aristocracy is not one society, but rather at least two societies.

Imagine you are a king. Someone of unremarkable descent (as far you are aware of) performs something so great that you feel you owe him. eternally to be sure. Since neither you or him will live eternally, his status will be heritable to his descendents to come so your debt to him is ensured of being repaid, even after your or his death. It would make some sense to have your children perform a similar occupation to yours as well, as you would have ample abilities to transmit your knowledge of your occupation to your descendents.

One problems of the perception of aristocracy - perpuated by both supporters and critics - is that it is portrayed as only privileges and no duties. The concept of Noblesse Oblige has all but faded away and that's certainly an important reason why it did ultimately collapse in France for instance.

Sure, sometimes aristocracies allow their inferiors to join them if they're truly remarkable-or much more commonly, if they have a lot of money- but that's about it. If you're not born an aristocrat, don't think you ever will be one. You'll be shining their boots forever.

It is largely true, save for some extreme counterexamples (such as Spain, where like 40% to 60% of the people was nobility because so many commoners participated in the Reconquista). I don't think I would be an aristocrat in such a society. Then again, aristocrats are expected to perform duties primarily military in nature. Lowborn individuals could still rise to positions of prominence (notably in the arts, sciences, businessworld) though actual political positions would be held by the noble born.

 

[Borachio]

the group of people formally recognised as aristocracy seldom hardly ever perfectly correlates with the group of people deserving of such status.

In fact, when has it? I'd be inclined to go with "never", but it doesn't pay to be dogmatic, I find. Well, not often, anyway.

 

[Phrossack]

Imagine you are a king. Someone of unremarkable descent (as far you are aware of) performs something so great that you feel you owe him. eternally to be sure. Since neither you or him will live eternally, his status will be heritable to his descendents to come so your debt to him is ensured of being repaid, even after your or his death. It would make some sense to have your children perform a similar occupation to yours as well, as you would have ample abilities to transmit your knowledge of your occupation to your descendents.

One, his kids didn't perform that feat, their father did (I'm using the masculine gender here because KG's example was masculine. Please don't kill me!). They don't deserve to directly reap the benefits of his actions. I mean, sure, if I give their dad money, they're most likely going to benefit indirectly, but I'm not going to give some title to some porridge-flinging diaper-wearer just because her father did something great. And I certainly wouldn't grant anything to his descendants in perpetuity.

One problems of the perception of aristocracy - perpuated by both supporters and critics - is that it is portrayed as only privileges and no duties. The concept of Noblesse Oblige has all but faded away and that's certainly an important reason why it did ultimately collapse in France for instance.

If the nobles are in charge, who's going to make them fulfill their obligations to others? Are they really going to give away most of their wealth and enact laws and do things like that to meaningfully improve the lives of commoners just because people say they should?

The fact is that the aristocrats and the commoners are distinct societies, and the commoner society just so happens to be carrying an aristocratic society on its back who spurs it and puts it to hard labor for a carrot. The rules of one don't apply to the other, and the nobles have little to gain, save a delaying of their removal from power by the commoners, from helping the commoners. They'd much rather exploit them for material gain, using taxes to build palaces and gold-plate their swords and the like.

It is largely true, save for some extreme counterexamples (such as Spain, where like 40% to 60% of the people was nobility because so many commoners participated in the Reconquista). I don't think I would be an aristocrat in such a society. Then again, aristocrats are expected to perform duties primarily military in nature. Lowborn individuals could still rise to positions of prominence (notably in the arts, sciences, businessworld) though actual political positions would be held by the noble born.

Nobles haven't had much in the way of military obligations in a long time. In the middle ages, they were fully expected, even required, to personally lead charges (as in actual, literal charges) and engage in close combat in which many died, at least in Europe. Gradually they started seeing military service as a burden that got in the way of partying and savoring peasant-grown wine in peasant-built manors, and delegated the fighting to paid troops. And later, right up to WWI, European aristocrats commanded armies and ships and fleets, but I don't think they were legally obligated to, and they certainly had it better than your average grunt or sailor.

Any modern aristocracy certainly isn't going to demand that its nobles buy a nice suit of ballistic armor and a good rifle and go out and fight. Most likely it would have the nobles put in charge of some units or whole armies, not because they're the best people for the job, but because Daddy had money.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Noble prince harry went to fight in Iraq, as a simple UK soldier, in the tower of a tank escorted by tens of other tanks and helicopters, so i don't see what you mean

 

[Tahuti]

Nobles haven't had much in the way of military obligations in a long time. In the middle ages, they were fully expected, even required, to personally lead charges (as in actual, literal charges) and engage in close combat in which many died, at least in Europe.

This is an essential element of an aristocracy. By the time this had dissappeared, I would say aristocracy as a meaningful element of society ceased to exist, and was largely a signifier of privilege, rather than being honoured for fulfilling duties such as these.

 

[Borachio]

A Duke is literally a leader. Historically, a military leader.

 

[Old Hippy]

This is an essential element of an aristocracy. By the time this had dissappeared, I would say aristocracy as a meaningful element of society ceased to exist, and was largely a signifier of privilege, rather than being honoured for fulfilling duties such as these.

so sort of take us all back to the 15th century, the good old days, seems a lot of that about lately.

 

[Oruc]

so sort of take us all back to the 15th century, the good old days, seems a lot of that about lately.

Do those who like democracy want to take us back to the 5th century bc?

 

[innonimatu]

Aristocracies were usually not closed, in that a lowborn individual could aspire to join the aristocracy, by performing feats of great heroism on the battlefield for royalty, to name just one example. Aside from a status gained by birth, it thus usually had a meritocratic aspect to it as well, in the form of being recognition for a rendered service.

Aristocracies were closed. "Purity of blood" was an obsession of aristocrats throughout history... The reason why some "heroic" individuals became known as having been promoted was because such a thing as so exceptional!

Moreover, rendering services to aristocrats is not necessarily a socially positive thing to do, so your meritocratic reading fails there. The most important service that a dominant class can have is its own perpetuation - at the expense of everyone else. Imagine a class of slavers who occasionally reward its best guards though promotion to slaver status...

so sort of take us all back to the 15th century, the good old days, seems a lot of that about lately.

I'm blaming all those fantasy TV series. Times are bad, escapism is rife...

One problems of the perception of aristocracy - perpuated by both supporters and critics - is that it is portrayed as only privileges and no duties. The concept of Noblesse Oblige has all but faded away and that's certainly an important reason why it did ultimately collapse in France for instance.

As far as I can see the only portion of Noblesse Oblige that was ever real was the socially expected obligation of the noble to protect his own direct, household servants. It's the clientele system of old Rome, or the modern Mafia system as someone else commented. Also the system that supports every modern corrupt political institution. So Aristocracy in that way would be no better than modern politics with a lot of corruption and patronage thrown in.
Of course, you can find economists arguing that corruption is good because id "leads to a better allocation of resources to those capable of paying for them". Same old defense of power and greed with new trappings.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Do those who like democracy want to take us back to the 5th century bc?

I guess it'd only make sense, that if we combine democracy and aristocracy, we'll advance by the pure logic, to the 20th century!

 

[Pegasus_77]

Men are born equal. end of story.

 

[Borachio]

Men, and women, are born free, but are everywhere in chains.

 

[Traitorfish]

When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

 

[Tee Kay]

When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

God of course

The Serpent is Karl Marx, and the apple is class consciousness.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Equality before the law is well and good, but the idea that people are equal otherwise is complete fiction. There are many people manifestly superior to most of us, and many more greatly worse than us. Greatness doesn't follow bloodlines, though, so hereditary aristocracy was always a misnomer. There's also the slight problem that superiority is relative; my father is far better at the mechanical arts than I, and my mother in cooking, but in knowledge of economics, science, history -- I am their better. A man can be noble in character, but not a particularly effective military strategist, or he could be a fierce warrior but an utter ass of a man.