Poltica comparada. Dresser.

10/15/2015

Joseph Strayer, On The Medieval Origins of the Modern

State (1970)
September 7, 2011
In this book Joseph Strayer sets out to trace the origins of the
institutions that make up the modern state in the medieval period starting
from 1100 onward. Strayer focuses on England and France, while admitting
that this is not an account of every possible detail but a general overview.
Some opening remarks are required before proceeding. Strayer focuses on
explaining the state as he saw it in 1970. This meant that he went back in
time and located those institutions which developed into those which the
state currently holds. this does not mean that he is historically thorough. It
is simply because the European model of the state was expropriated to the
rest of the world that it is the medieval European institutions which should
be taken into account. This does not mean that these institutions did not
share or borrow from other cultures (Arab and Chinese) or that they did not
develop along the way.
Strayer does not focus on the war making aspect of the state, or its
link to power. Rather Strayer seems to focus on the institutions which
constitute the state and by showing that they existed prior to the state he
also shows that they can exist past its demise.
Strayer focuses on four main factors which were necessary for state
formation. Stable political units over time. Law. Bureaucracy. And Loyalty of
the people.
Strayer argues that a period of stability in 1100-1300 allowed the
political units of the time to stabilize and develop the seeds of the state by
turning inward. In England and in France the King consolidated his rule,
instituted the institutions that would provide stable governance efficiently
(and at times inefficiently) and acquired the legitimacy which had been
previously a mainstay of the church.
In England the decimation of local rulers by successive invasions which
ended with the supremacy of the Norman king meant that local elites did not
have time to establish themselves. This meant that the king was more or
less the uncontested source of authority so that subsequent rulers took to
contesting their hold over and profit from the institutions of the monarch and
did not seek to replace them. A mixture of common law, efficient
bureaucracy, and a vacuum left by church reformation all contributed to
laying the seeds of future state institutions. The earliest was internal with
revenue and bureaucracy, the last to appear was the foreign policy offices
and the ministries of war.

In France there did not exist a homogeneous populous which the Frank
king could subdue to singular rules. Once the Frank king had gained enough
strength so as to cover most of what is regarded as modern day France by
1200s he found himself in control of an amalgam of different principalities
and kingdoms. Instead of quashing local traditions, he added another layer
of bureaucracy over that of local tradition while trying to normalize taxation
so that he could gain legitimacy and loyalty of the subjects while maintaining
their complacency. The French laws were closer to Roman law as well as
other mixes. France had dual bureaucracy.
In both cases the contestation over taxes between the church and the
king was a crucial point in the assertion of the authority of the new states. In
both cases again when the king wanted to tax the clergy against the will of
the church he ultimatley was able to do so with the people siding with him,
including a number of the clergy themselves. (investitutre struggles in
France and England)
1100-1300 was the period of internal development 1300-1450 was a
period of extreme duress. There was no innovation in these periods because
of the many wars, famines, plagues But Strayer argues that after this
period, the fact that the states survived showed their durability and after
1450 there came new developments in the state. Also he posits that
representative councils also emerged during this period. They emerged as a
way forgovernment to exert control and include the propertied class.
The role of the Church in this period was two fold. In the first sense it
created a vacuum which the state had to fill when it reformed away from
secular authority. Therefore the state naturally filled the gap left by the
church. This gap however perhaps was not left willingly as it seems to come
across in Strayer. Whether this was hard fought ground which the Church
vacated in reaction to state behavior or if it was an internal reformation is
not clear from the book. Though the latter is implied I believe. The second
role of the Church is that it taught states how to organize themselves and it
gave them an ideology. (more in profs notes)
Of those was the development of representative councils which the
King used to give legitimacy to his decisions. More importantly though was
the development of policy advisers after 1450, These were again added
above the bureaucracy and were kindred to the executive body that we know
of today. The new policy makers were professionals, the king banished
incompeten royals to the old bureaucracy and kept a trusted professional
group of men (12 in France) around him.

Strayer seems to imply that the division of powers between legislature,

executive, and judicial had its seeds in the functional utility of the different
institutions in 1100. This is important because it tells us much about why the
institutions of law, bureaucracy and policy were first created in Europe. And
why they succeed in their operation. And why they fail when exported
wholesale without an understanding of their historical role. Therefore the
strong judiciary and bureaucracy developed in tension with the king and not
in harmony with him. Though he created them to take much of his plate in
terms of workload and to bring more people under his domain.
After 1450 we finally saw the development of foreign policy offices and
defense offices. By the 1600 the authority of the state was uncontested.
Notes on the text while reading (refer further to PDF):
The author does not account for the enforced and at times violently
achieved normalcy of the state. At several points he makes claims to imply
that the populous suddenly had a shift of heart, or that they approved of the
monarchs wars, taxes, and institutions. In my experience of medieval history
the populous was often cowed into subordination, and exterminated into
homogeneity. Outside groups were culled and inside groups were disciplined.
There is much to violence in the development of the state and it cannot be
understood without it.
It is not clear why 1100 is a good starting point. Why not in 1450
after the turbulence had ended. Joel migdal and Spruyt both picked up after
1300 and pointed to different processes. Though this book seeks to trace the
origins of state institutions it overlooks how states became normalized.
Notes by prof Grovogui:
Three themes are important in analyzing any historical institution,
especially one such as the state. Events, Ideas, and Institutions. This seems
to be the paradigm that Prof. Grovogui uses when looking at institutions over
time.
Prof Grovogui believes that external threat forced internal
consolidation of state-like institutions. The threat of Islamic conquest from
1100 to 1300 spurred European states to make internal reforms. Whether
this applies to England is something I am not too sure of.
On the role of the catholic church. The bureaucratic organization of the
catholic church is technically a pagn inheritance from the Roman pagan
traditions. So in this sense the state did not really arise out of the church
bureaucratically. But the Church and monotheistic christianity did give an
ideology which mandated that there was one sovereign and that he was on
the top. It also gave the state responsibility for the temporal wellbeing of its
citizens (again in ideology)
Strayer is right in saying that states need permanent communities to
rise.

Times of crisis emphasize the we of the state. So when there is an

external enemy internal reform is easier.
The state is exotic. Meaning it took aspects from Muslim and Chinese
governance and incorporated them. 1249 Roger Bacon argued to borrow
fromthe policies of Muslim. Francis bacon half a century later said we dont
need them any more
Although Florence may have been richer than France and weathered
1300-1450 better, it was more efficient in one thing and not in others. States
are more efficient at war making. It allows the bureaucratization of elites,
creation of loyalty to a state. And then city states would have never been
able to keep up with industrialization. There is a time at which institutions
give you advantages and after 1700 larger states had bigger advantages due
to industrialization and need for resources. States were also capable of
conquering the new world in ways which city states never could.