Feudal America Shlapentokh, Vladimir, Woods, Joshua Published by Penn State University Press Shlapentokh, Vladimir & Woods, Joshua. Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2011. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/. For additional information about this book https://muse.jhu.edu/book/2410 No institutional affiliation (29 Jan 2019 18:43 GMT)
Preface Judging by their commentary on American public opinion, their sharp de - bates on key social issues, and the wide variety of labels they place on society, the critics and observers of the United States seem to be talking about several different countries. Indeed, their portrayals of the country range from fascist state to ideal democracy. The United States is certainly not the only country to have stimulated debate over its defining characteristics. The Soviet Union, for instance, was the subject of a wide range of commentary and analysis. Until its collapse in 1991, many observers both inside and outside the country treated the USSR as a true socialist society, while others regarded it as a brutal totalitarian regime (Shlapentokh, Shiraev, and Carroll 2008). In the post-soviet period, debates over Russia and other postcommunist countries continued. If some were eager to accept the official definition of Russia as a normal liberal capitalist country, others were no less insistent that labels such as authoritarian and oligarchic should be applied (Shlapentokh with Woods 2007). Similarly, is France the motor of European integration, a deeply nationalist country in search of grandeur, a true democracy, a champion of egalitarianism, or a society with growing authoritarian and discriminatory tendencies? Italy, in its turn, has been described as a normal democratic society and an oligarchy, as well as a criminal society ruled by mafias. Iran is seen by some as a healthy Islamic democracy and by others as a highly repressive theocracy. Popular labels for China range from a normal totalitarian regime to a fledgling liberal capitalist society. Returning to the United States, we see sharp disagreements among journalists, scholars, and politicians on whether or to what extent the term liberal capitalism, including genuine political and economic competition, accurately describes U.S. society. It is difficult to deny the considerable influence of corporations and political clans on the election process, the importance of personal relations in business and politics, the frequent disregard of merit in the hiring and selection procedures of public and private organizations, the
viii Preface privatization of public space, the walling of wealthy American neighborhoods, the widespread use of private security, and the independent control of violent force. While there is agreement that deviations from ideal liberalism exist, there is general disagreement about the seriousness of these problems, how long they will persist, and how they became problems in the first place. One camp, the true believers in liberal capitalism, suggests that all such problems are temporary, accidental deviations from the liberal model. While every society faces considerable challenges, U.S. society is led, for the most part, by honest and able people who can meet these challenges. In other words, the problems derive not from the barrel, but from a few bad apples. This optimistic vision of liberal capitalism has been attacked from all sides. Those on the far right believe that the country has moved toward an authoritarian model, in which corrupt bureaucrats and government officials violate the principles of liberalism in all spheres of life, while those on the far left insist that American society has never fit the liberal mold and is currently dominated by big corporations that use the government as a tool for achieving their private interests. We disagree with all three camps. Many aspects of American society fall into the category of liberalism, and the economy is, for the most part, competitive. The problems that plague the country, however, are not temporary or accidental, but are deeply ingrained in the fabric of society. To an extent, we agree with the position of those on the left but disagree with their views on the origin of these problems and their exaggerated claim that liberal elements do not exist. While U.S. corporations weaken the bureaucracy, encourage corruption, and damage the democratic process, the American people still have a great deal of influence on their leaders. The election of President Barack Obama stands as evidence in favor of the democratic vision of society. We also question the notion that corporations represent a united front in their dealings with government and the public. Some radicals on the left underestimate the rivalries between individual corporations, the autonomy of the state, the role of the media as critics of corporations, the power of the grassroots organizations scrutinizing corporate activities, and the independence of government officials. While the country s social, political, and economic ills are endemic and en - during, they do not derive from a fatal flaw in the essence of liberal democracy. The cause, rather, should be traced to the coexistence of other types of social organization. As seen in many countries, past and present, the United States is a hybrid or segmented society, one that comprises several universal social
Preface ix forms. To glimpse the whole its functions, dysfunctions, and general characteristics we need multiple models, including liberal, authoritarian, criminal, religious, and others. Each of these ideal types deserves the attention of scholars. In an effort to fill gaps in the literature, this book focuses on the feudal model, and draws primarily on the liberal and authoritarian models for the sake of comparison. The idea that feudal elements can be found in contemporary U.S. society may seem historically discordant. After all, the United States, unlike European countries, did not experience a feudal stage in its history. At the same time, feudal developments need not be associated only with the European Middle Ages. Societies encounter feudal tendencies whenever the egotistical interests of the few challenge democratic principles, and do so within the rules of competition in the political and economic spheres. Our approach is intended to underscore the weakness of describing American society, or any society, with a single model or system. A tendency among scholars and, particularly, politicians to label societies as either liberal or authoritarian rose to prominence in the postwar period. This dichotomous framework imbued as it was with cold war ideological leanings sometimes made it difficult to see other forms of social organization in the United States and elsewhere. Furthermore, two tendencies the grand theoretical tradition and the enduring interest in explaining everything in society with a single set of principles are deeply rooted in the social sciences. Marx in the nineteenth century and Parsons in the twentieth century were notable among sociologists who believed that one theory alone could explain all aspects of a given subject. Scholars of the natural sciences are probably even more eager than social scientists to develop grand theories. The propensity to simplify information and give straightforward answers to complicated questions was epitomized by the medieval thinker William Occam in the fourteenth century. The rule of Occam s razor insisted that en - tities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. As the history of science has shown, the systematic process of reducing complex problems to relatively simple ideas, though a reasonable path for science, can result in serious mistakes. A noteworthy rejoinder to Occam s razor is Einstein s famous quip that theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. The trouble with simplicity came to light rather glaringly during the financial crisis of 2008 9, when the public s trust in market mechanisms was put into question. Even professional economists found themselves in a general state
x Preface of bewilderment as they watched the faltering financial institutions unravel. During a congressional deposition in 2008, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said, Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief (Andrews 2008). Representative Waxman of California pressed Greenspan to clarify his statement: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working. Absolutely, precisely, Greenspan replied. You know, that s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for forty years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well. The misreading of financial institutions during the economic crisis of 2008 9 is only one of many examples that demonstrate the dangers of relying on the simplistic assumptions of a single model, in this case liberal capitalism. One of the underlying goals of this book is to show how a multimodel analysis what we call the segmented approach may help us avoid, at least in part, potential pitfalls. A second aim is to outline, delimit, and apply the feudal model to the United States. While feudalism reveals only one part of this multifarious society, it has been largely neglected by contemporary observers and deserves a careful investigation.