Feudal America : Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society

Abstract

Judging by their commentary on American public opinion, their sharp debates 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 influ ence 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 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 ...

Medieval Security in the Modern State

“…Although these perspectives offer a unique and worthwhile line of theorising, the 'segmented approach' focuses not on how one political form or social system may be replacing another, but rather on how multiple organising forces co-exist (Shlapentokh and Woods, 2011;Shlapentokh with Woods, 2007). As previously discussed, the feudal model is merely one of several models that are necessary for rendering a meaningful picture of almost any given society.…”

“…To glimpse the whole, then, we need a hybrid or 'segmented approach' to social analysis (Shlapentokh and Woods, 2011;Shlapentokh with Woods, 2007). For instance, even some aspects of security in the late Middle Ages can be better understood with the liberal model than the feudal one.…”

“…One example of this effort consists of financial investments in political campaigns. The use of big money in politics, another feudal element of contemporary society (Shlapentokh and Woods, 2011), has propelled the growth of the private prison industry. During the 1998 election cycle, private prison companies made 1187 contributions to 636 candidates totalling more than $862 822, a sum that exceeds the contributions of other major groups, such as the National Rifle Association, and does not include the far greater amount of funding used to pay for the services of lobbying firms and other associations (Bender, 2000).…”