One of the other graduate TAs gave a guest lecture in my Western Civ discussion section this morning. I had quite a few issues with her analysis. She led a discussion in which we analyzed the relative freedoms of everyone in the European empires during the early and mid-eighteenth century. My issues were these:
We did not discuss the restrictions of the monarchy. The monarchs were, rather cavalierly placed at the top of the freedom and power scale. Now, I do not dispute that monarchs were immensely powerful, but there were a great many things that a monarch was required to balance in order to hold on to power. The first, and most obvious in my opinion, would be the monarch's obligation to the nobility. The nobility essentially made up the local government of a nation. They controlled, on a smaller scale, just as much as the monarch. Particularly powerful or wealthy nobles, and coalitions of nobles would have had great influence over the monarch. The monarch could not have done anything drastic to harm the power of the nobles because, together, they were capable of overthrowing the monarchy. The monarch also was dependent on the church for power. The Investiture Conflict, in which, during the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Emperor was excommunicated by the pope and had to plead to be forgiven, solidifying the influence of the Catholic church in Europe. The Catholic church lost power over the years, particularly after the Protestant Reformation, but was still a political force to be reckoned with in European politics. The Monarch was also extensively dependent on the middle and lower classes. They provided the labor that produced food, raw materials, finished goods, trade, finance, and many other things. They were the vast majority of the population and had ties to all aspects of the European economy. That said, the TA made a good point in saying that they were not unified. The unity of general purpose (meaning the retention of power and privilege) of the upper class was one of the main factors in the successful subjugation of the majority of the population. There was not enough emphasis placed on just how many groups the monarch had to remain aware of. There was relatively little extensive change that the monarch could affect without offending or angering someone. The power of the monarch depended entirely upon his or her subjects. A monarch could not just do whatever he or she wanted.
The TA did mention the discrepancy in the power of women during this time period, but she did not emphasize it nearly enough. Women who were also slaves were, admittedly, those with the least power. They were subject to both their owners and the men of their own class. The same was true to much the same extent for serfs and for peasants. They had little control over their own lives. Decisions about children, marriage, and reproduction were generally handled by the men in their lives--the patriarchs. The same was true for women of the upper and middle classes. The social system of the eighteenth century was extraordinarily patriarchal. Even the Enlightenment, which did encourage the education of women, did not change this to any great extent. A daughter needed her father's permission to marry, if she had any say at all. She would often have no say in how her children were educated, or married. This was even more true for the aristocratic women of the time. They had little control over their marital lives, children, or selves. To be a woman in the eighteenth century was to be significantly less free than men--no matter the station in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment