Oriental Despotism
by Rolando Minuti O
The
concept of Oriental Despotism has shaped the European interpretation and
representation of Asiatic governments and societies for many centuries. Its
origins can be found in Aristotelian political philosophy. However, its meaning
since then has evolved, not only due to the theoretical approach of different
thinkers, but also to Europeans' experiences in confrontation with the Asiatic
world. During the Age of Enlightenment, Oriental Despotism was a particularly
important idea, especially for the writings of Montesquieu. Afterwards, it
played a significant role in Hegel's thought as well as in Marx's writing when
it turned towards the "Asiatic mode of production" theory. Finally,
the concept reappeared both in Weber's thought and, in the 20th century, in
Wittfogel's.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6. Appendix
1. Sources
2. Bibliography
3. Notes
Introductory Remarks
The
idea of Oriental despotism has an old and diversified history in European culture . It was
a conceptual model in different interacting cultural contexts, it assumed
various functions and meanings, and it waned with the decline of the
Eurocentric preconception on which it was deeply grounded ever since its
origins in Greek thought.1 Many
agents, not only philosophers or political theorists but also travellers,
diplomats, missionaries and administrators, have shaped, spread and applied the
idea of Oriental despotism. The classical scheme was not merely reproduced, but
enriched with particular articulations and specific values which were connected
to different exigencies and contexts. Hence the story of Oriental despotism is
not only that of a unique philosophical and political idea, it is also a story
of cultural attitudes, representations, concrete interests, interactions and
direct experiences. This offers plenty of interesting variations on the same
theme of the confrontation with and interpretation of an Oriental alterity .
We
could say that the theoretical force of this concept has vanished nowadays, if
we mainly considered the development of post-colonial approaches
or the methodological perspectives opened up by world or global history. Inside
the general framework of the contemporary analysis of 'Orientalism',2 in
particular, the stereotype of the arbitrary power of Asiatic princes and
sovereigns and its political, social and cultural consequences have been
pointed out, showing the strong implications of an ideology of domination which
was inherent in colonial and imperial European
power. Although Oriental despotism as a conceptual tool is not as common and
accepted as it has been in the past, its influence on European culture has been
considerable. In particular, it has shaped the modern European mind and its
consciousness of civic identity and
responsibility, which played a critical and controversial role in the course of
many centuries of international relationships.
The Classical Roots
of a Eurocentric Concept
Like
many other key concepts of philosophical and political European culture,
Oriental despotism is deeply rooted in Greek thought. The words
"despot" and "despotism" clearly come from a classical
Greek context, where this concept became an effective tool of automatic
recognition of Greek identity and superiority over other "barbarous"
nations, mainly the great Persian enemy.
Although the idea of a radical opposition between the Greek and Persian
nations, grounded on the Greek assumption that Persians were subordinate
slaves, was expressed by several authors, such as Aeschylus
(525–456 BC) or Isocrates (436–338 BC) , it
was Aristotle (384–322 BC) who
formulated the first solid theoretical foundation of this idea, codifying
despotism as a topos of political philosophy.
In
Book III of his Politics, Aristotle identified a
particular form of monarchy – which, with aristocracy and the state, is one of
the three possible forms of government. These three forms may degenerate and
thus become tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. He explained the despot's
authority in terms which correspond to the power of a master over his servant.
Despotic monarchy is precisely distinguished from tyranny, which is exercised
over people against their will and consequently is illegitimate, whereas
despotism is exercised over people who voluntarily or passively accept this
kind of power. Despotic government as such is not unlawful or arbitrary; it is
a special form of monarchy which
can be confused with tyranny because its power is exercised in similar ways.
However, it is substantially different, because despotic monarchy is both
legitimate and hereditary.3
In
many respects, this was a crucial distinction which enabled the Greeks to
theoretically justify their future attitudes towards Asiatic societies and
political systems. First, Aristotle's theory clearly qualified despotism as
incompatible with the natural character of the Greek people, who were free and
could only temporarily be subject to tyranny because they would revolt against
it as soon as possible. Instead, despotism was said to be the most suitable
form of government for barbarous nations, mainly the Persians, who were thought
to have a natural tendency towards subordination and would thus accept
authorities which would be intolerable for the Greeks without opposition or
apparent pain. Despotism, for Aristotle, was therefore not degeneration, but a proper
and possibly durable system in radical opposition to the Greek world and mind.
This judgment followed from the idea that different ethnic groups were
naturally compatible with different systems of government, which is an
important element of Aristotle's political thought.
From
another point of view, this ancient Greek stereotype of Persians being
naturally inclined to accept despotic power introduces an historical and
geographical determination of despotism which has no connection with the
Aristotelian concept of tyranny – any monarchy may degenerate into tyranny, in
every place and time. This establishes the "Oriental" character as a
constitutive value for the notion of despotism.
The
history of the relationship between Greece and the Asiatic world, especially
whileAlexander the Great (356–323 BC) was
expanding his empire, is full of interactions and contaminations. A prominent
example is Alexander's way of adopting Oriental concepts of conceiving and
exercising power. It was criticized by his opponents because it was contrary to
the idea of a necessary separation between different forms of society and
government, which was stressed in Aristotelian political thought. However, it
thus opened the way for a variety of attitudes towards the Oriental world in
Alexander's empire, both empirical and theoretical, which was typical of the
Hellenistic era. Nevertheless, the previously established stereotypes about the
Persians continued to have a strong influence. After the foundation of
the Byzantine Empire and of the so-called New Rome(Constantinople), the Greek cultural and
political identity found in this topos an
important ideological support against the threats of the Sassanid Persian
Empire, which was founded by Ardashir I (died 241) in
224. Thus the idea of the anthropological and political otherness of the
Persian people was not rejected but enriched and articulated in various ways by
several authors in this new context. In particular, moral judgments of the
Eastern enemy now played an important role alongside the emphasis on
geographical and anthropological diversity which had until then been
predominant.
We
can observe that by this time the Aristotelian classification of governments
was no longer the only theoretical foundation of these debates. For example,
the term despoteswas used with a connotation that is not
negative – in the late ancient language it was mainly an equivalent for emperor. On the other hand, the term tyranny was now
employed more frequently for classifying the Persian government. Only after
Aristotelian thought had been rediscovered and appreciated in late medieval
culture, mainly after the translation of Aristotle's works by William of Moerbeke (1215–1286) , the
influence of his classification and attributes of Oriental despotism grew and
developed. Again, the Aristotelian terms were not simply reproduced; a
significant variety of attitudes can be found in the writings of authors such
as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) , Tolomeo da Lucca (1236–1326/27) , Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382) , William of Ockham (1285–1347) and Marsilius of Padua (1275–1343) .4 Generally,
they were less interested in interpreting and judging Oriental societies and
governments than in using Asiatic examples of tyrannical government in order to
support the struggle between imperial and popish power. Still, the geographical
identification of Asiatic areas, where the existence of aprincipatus despoticus was supposed to be
naturally consistent with the character of the people, remained a mark of a
qualitative difference between European and Asiatic society and politics and a
confirmation of Oriental otherness in many works – especially in
Marsilius's Defensor pacis or in the
commentary of Aristotle's Politics by
Nicholas Oresme.5
Theoretical Developments and Travelling Experiences
in the Early Modern Age
The
classical heritage and the various implications of the Aristotelian model were
of great importance for the early modern European approach towards Eastern
societies and governments. Nevertheless, important new ideas emerged which gave
the category of Oriental despotism fresh connotations from a theoretical point
of view. Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) distinguished
between two essential forms of states, thus uniting Aristotle's classifications
of Aristocratic and Democratic governments in a single category called republics, which he opposed to the
category of principalities. The notion of a despotic power, notwithstanding the
fact that Machiavelli did not use terms like despot or despotism, was explained as the absolute power of a
monarch ruling over a nation of slaves instead of free citizens. This power was
thought to be the most difficult kind to achieve, but the easiest to preserve
because, in his view, the subordinates did not even know the meaning of
freedom.6
What
is particularly important with regard to Oriental despotism is the fact that
the traditional geographical delimitation of Oriental despotism changed in
reaction to the emergence of theOttoman Empire at
the end of the 13th century. However, Machiavelli's approach placed the fear of
Islamic expansion, which was common in European Christian thought and culture,
in a different context. He was more interested in analysing the characteristics
of the Ottomans' particular form of monarchical government than in portraying
the Islamic enemy. This state form is ruled by the Sultan, who is
simultaneously the Caliph, the religious head of
state, since he is considered to be a descendant of the prophet Muhammad (570–632) , with
the assistance of his most powerful minister, the Grand Vizier. It is therefore
radically opposed to European monarchies, which are led by a prince and his
lords, as was the case in France at the time. Therefore Machiavelli
saw the governance techniques of France and Turkey as two opposite ways of
conceiving and practising power and authority, thus proposing a new outline for
the traditional confrontation between East and West .
The
reference to the Ottoman example for qualifying Oriental despotism is important
for the political theories of the French author Jean Bodin (1530–1596) as
well. Bodin further developed the thoughts of his predecessors by describing
a monarchie seigneuriale7 in
which the authority of a prince over his subjects is limitless and similar to
that of a master over slaves in the Aristotelian sense. The word despot or
despotism, however, was not included in Bodin's political vocabulary. The
essential difference between a monarchie seigneuriale and
what Bodin called monarchie royale consists in
the fact that the absolute nature of a king's power – legibus solutus – has some essential limits, that
is property rights, divine and natural laws as well as the fundamental laws of
the kingdom. As a consequence, the king of France , whose
power is in fact absolute because there are no opponent authorities, does not
have the same position, according to Bodin, as the kind of sovereign who, for
example, rules the Ottoman Empire. In the latter case, neither property nor
fundamental laws are respected; the king is the only proprietor of his
subjects' possessions. In Bodin's thought, this is not the consequence of a
particular nature of the Ottoman people, as Aristotle believed, but the effect
of war and conquest, which is the only origin of slavery. For this
reason, not only Oriental monarchies were supposed to be despotic, but also
the colonial empire of Charles V of Spain (1500–1558) . Any
monarch can incur the arbitrary power of a prince who does not respect the
system of amonarchie royale and will thus be a tyrant, but
his power must always be temporary because rebellion is an unavoidable
consequence of his illegal authority. Despotism, that is,monarchie seigneuriale, on the other hand, is a
political and social system which may have great stability and whose duration
can be very long. In fact, according to Bodin it was the most ancient and
primitive form of monarchy in world history. 8
By
stressing conquest as the origin of despotic power and pointing out the absence
of property rights as a characteristic of despotic government, Bodin introduced
important new aspects into the theoretical debate about despotism. As a result,
significant developments in the works of major philosophers like Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) or John Locke (1632–1704) and
in the general political and ideological European debate were possible.9 Nevertheless,
not only the theoretical side of the issue is of interest here, because the
evolution of the concept of Oriental despotism, as we said, is the result of a
complex interaction of factors. The early modern interest in
discoveries and voyages and the
collection of new experience and
knowledge in travel literature and encyclopaedic works also influenced the idea
of an Oriental political otherness whose typical character was despotism. On
this empirical basis a new comparative analysis of various Oriental societies
and cultures was attempted. There were, for instance, theRelazioni Universali by Giovanni Botero (1540–1617) ,10 who
made use of a large amount of primary sources and, above all, travel
literature, describing the political relations of Venetian ambassadors
and many others. He geographically extended the idea of a despotic form of
government beyond the Ottoman Empire, including a whole variety of Oriental
governments, from Turkey to Persia, from Mughal
India to China and Siam. This extension of the boundaries
of Oriental despotism, in addition to previous philosophical and political
ideas concerning the substantial difference of Asiatic governments,
significantly enhanced the concept by offering a synthesis of empirical
experience and theory.
Travel
writings played a major role in this process, and their importance, sometimes
underestimated in comparison to philosophical and political theory, deserves
particular attention. For example François Bernier (1620–1688) , a traveller in the Mughal Empire, proposed a
comparison between Mughal India and Europe in which the
socio-economic situation in the country was profoundly analysed. Bernier
painted a negative picture of the Empire by emphasizing the economically
disastrous consequences of despotic government, the ruinous effects of a lack
of private ownership, and the shocking contrast between the extreme wealth of
the princes and the poverty of their people, who were oppressed by the taxation
system and by rapacious peripheral administrators.11 His
writings had a major influence on European attitudes towards India and, more
generally, towards Asiatic politics and governments. All this was the result of
an empirical approach and direct experience, and not of mere theoretical
speculation, although Bernier was also a philosopher and an original thinker.
Another
example would be Jean Chardin (1643–1713) , who was
not a philosopher but "qui a voyagé comme Platon", as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) said
of him.12During
his travels in Persia he empirically experienced a state shaped by Oriental
despotism. His observations in the Safavid monarchy at the end of the 17th
century led him to describe the Persian despotic government as a result of
incidental and historical circumstances which provided the prince with strength
and extreme authority for controlling the aristocratic opposition. Chardin did
not consider despotism as a result of the natural character of the people nor
of Islamic religion, which could in fact produce different political systems,
as the examples of Turkey and Persia show. He therefore took care to describe
the different varieties and forms of Oriental despotism in detail, and his
writing is a remarkable example of how empirical experience could not only
confirm but also question the use of a uniform interpretation scheme applied to
every Asiatic government.
Oriental Despotism in Enlightenment culture
When Charles Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu (1689–1755) published
his Lettres Persanes in 1721, France had already been
debating on Oriental despotism for many years in a highly intellectual way,
mainly in connection with the political and ideological struggle against the
authoritarian trend of the French monarchy. The new term emerged during the age
of the Fronde13 and
was elaborated in an intensive pamphlet war, in which the similarities between
the power of Louis XIV (1638–1715) and
that of the Grand Seigneur or the Grand Mogol were often hinted at; for instance, in
the celebrated Soupirs de la France esclave by Michel Le Vassor (1646–1718) .14 Obviously
the tensions in the critical period of transition after the Sun King's death
and the worries about the authoritarian turn of the French monarchy played an
important role in the Lettres Persanes and
in Montesquieu's treatment of Oriental despotism as well. It would be
misleading, however, to reduce Montesquieu's important contribution to this
subject, which was later elaborated in his Esprit des Lois (1748),
to a mere polemical or ideological exploitation of the concept for contingent
political purposes.
What
distinguished Montesquieu's approach was his analysis of a particular
authoritarian form of government which he may have rejected but whose
predominance in the ancient and modern world, especially in Eastern countries,
urged him to study its causes and conditions of existence. It led him,
therefore, to define Oriental despotism as an autonomous form of government
beyond its accepted categorization as a particular form of monarchy coming from
the Aristotelian tradition. His analysis of despotism, of its nature – a
concentration of authority that leaves no place to liberty –, and the principle
of intimidation it is grounded on, as well as his systematic study of its various
connections with climate, religion, manners, economy and laws, made
Montesquieu's work the most important contribution to this debate in the 18th
century and beyond.
Asia
– referring to all Eastern countries, from the Islamic world to the Far
East – was for Montesquieu the natural milieu of despotism. He accordingly
proposed a contrast between Europe and the Orient that was based on
his scientific approach. L'Esprit des Lois was
immediately recognized by his contemporaries as an important work and was
extremely influential not only from a theoretical but also, maybe more, from a
more general cultural point of view. Its success may be connected with the fact
that Montesquieu based his conclusions not only on philosophical and political
speculations, but also on a variety of empirical experience.
Travel
literature was an essential source for Montesquieu's approach, as his careful
readings and summaries of the works by Bernier, Chardin, and many others show.
They inspired his interest in the particularities of despotic governments and
their varieties in the context of the nature and principle of despotism, which
had not always been analysed as closely as they deserved. Islam is proposed, in
this view, as a perfect ally of despotism because of the strong interaction
between political and religious matters, even if the respect for religion can
have a stabilizing effect, since it imposes rules that everybody must accept.15 Montesquieu
thus emphasized the importance of religion from a political point of view and
showed that it could act as a moderating force in despotic realities as well.
At
the same time, although he highlighted the radical geographical and political
differences between Europe and Asia – the large plains of the Asiatic
natural milieu were an essential condition for despotism, in Montesquieu's
view, whereas the fragmented territory of Europe gave natural support to
political liberty –, he did not deny that historical events and political
situations could produce despotism in Europe as well. For example, such a
situation could have occurred after the territorial and political extension of
a sovereign's authority and the weakening of its checks, even though, in
Montesquieu's eyes, it would not have been typical.16 All
these reflections hint at a political criticism that is strongly linked to the
sociological or scientific analysis of despotism in Montesquieu's work.
Although
Montesquieu considerably influenced European attitudes towards Oriental
despotism in the 18th century and beyond, a variety of approaches can be
observed that sometimes diverged from and sometimes directly opposed
Montesquieu's thesis. The fundamental connection of despotism with religion was
a central element of Nicolas-Antoine Boulanger's (1722–1759) Recherches sur l'origine du despotisme oriental as
well, in which theocracy was established as the essential basis of despotism.17 However,
he did not believe climate or natural environment to be a cause of Oriental
despotism, as Montesquieu did. Other authors, Claude Adrien Helvétius
(1715–1770) for
instance, made the same point.18
Besides,
Boulanger did not define religion as socially useful but as the anthropological
source of a fundamental mystification that creates power. Its political
consequence, reinforced by superstition and idolatry, would then be despotism.
In Boulanger's analysis, the link between religion and despotism was strongly
emphasized. A similar approach was present in the writings of various other
authors of that time. This can be seen as the expression of a struggle against
ecclesiastical power in which the negative model of Asiatic governments was
systematically employed. At the end of the century, Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794) gave
this idea a concise and vigorous form in his Esquisse,19 observing
the marked contrast between Orient and Occident. He thus urged all enlightened European countries to energetically help
foster the emancipation of a large part of humanity which was, according to
him, still living in a system of oppression producing economic, cultural and
civic backwardness and stagnation.
The
political relevance of the concept of Oriental despotism in the 18th century is
also evident in writings that directly opposed Montesquieu's analysis but used
the same methodological premise, which is empirical evidence. For
example, Voltaire (1694–1778) accused
Montesquieu of incorrectly using his sources and thus shaping a concept of
Oriental despotism that had no matches in history and the real world, as he
proved by the example of Turkey.20 Although
this attitude was mainly due to the substantial difference between Voltaire's
political ideas on government and limiting monarchic power and Montesquieu's
thought, criticism also came from other scholars. Abraham-Hyacinthe
Anquetil-Duperron (1731–1805) tried
to demonstrate, supported by his vast experience as an orientalist, that an
unlimited authority without regard to property rights had never existed in
Asiatic countries or the Islamic world.21 In
Anquetil-Duperron's thought, it was even more necessary to oppose the notion of
Oriental despotism because of Europe's growing economic and political interest
in Asia, particularly in India, whose complex and ancient civilization would
have been wronged by the use of this concept.
In
the Physiocratic school which was founded in France by François Quesnay (1694–1774) ,
despotism had other theoretical and political connotations, on the basis that
scientific knowledge of the economic and social
laws should have imposed the despotism ofevidence. A good and
well-ordered government could, for this economic school, politically be managed
by a strong central authority, which justified a virtuous despotism.22 They
frequently referred to the empire of China as an example, revealing an
appreciation of China which can be connected to Jesuit sources. The
Physiocratics proposed China as a model23 because
of its economic regulations and its social, political and administrative rules
as well as its religion, Confucianism, which efficiently cooperated with
political order. They thus created a different and more positive image of
Oriental despotism.24
All
these various attitudes towards Oriental despotism should, however, be
considered as the theoretical side of a more complex debate; the real
development of the relation between Europe and Asia must not be overlooked. Since European powers became
more involved in Asia during the 18th century and British
colonial interest in India was growing especially fast, Europeans
could gain empirical experience much more easily and extensively.
Administrators, diplomats and political staff employed in colonial government
were much more involved in Asia and became the main source on this topic,
whereas authors in earlier centuries had mainly had to rely on travel
literature. The lack of proprietary rights in India and the idea of the prince
as the owner of everything, one of the central elements of the modern idea of
Oriental despotism, became a more urgent question in the colonial age. One of
the most important consequences in British India was that thezamindars, that is, the tax-collecting tenants in the
Mughal administration, were granted proprietary rights.25 This
had unexpected negative effects on the society and economy of British India and
clearly shows the practical effects of the European idea of Oriental despotism
when it was directly applied by colonial administrators, opening new and
various debates.
In
other words, the concept of Oriental despotism is shaped by different
languages, approaches and actors, and should not be seen uniquely from the
theoretical side. The cultural problem of this Eurocentric category and its
evolution should be analysed in all its varieties and implications.
From Oriental
Despotism to the Asiatic mode of production
The
Eurocentric representation of the relationships between the East and Europe,
from a philosophical point of view, becomes most interesting at the beginning
of the 19th century when Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
(1770–1831) used
the concept of Oriental despotism in his Vorlesungen über die
Philosophie der Geschichte.26 The
quality of his interpretation is comparable to that of Aristotle's and
Montesquieu's contributions to the debate. Elements of Montesquieu's analysis
were in fact present in Hegel's interpretation – above all, he focused on
despotism as a particular form of government. What distinguished Hegel's
approach is that he placed despotism within a dialectical scheme which is
chronological and logical at the same time, since it is the first phase of the
historical and universal movement of the spirit. Despotism, which for Hegel was
represented by Asiatic societies and governments, was conceived of as the first
of four stages in the dialectics of the universal spirit, because it departs
from the state of nature but does not yet permit the individual to be
autonomous. A despotically ruled society cannot articulate itself, and the
universal spirit is concentrated in a single free person, embodied by the
despot himself. The logical analysis of the spirit's development implies an
historical movement, and in Hegel's view "the History of the World travels
from East to West, for Europe is absolutely the end of History."27
This
movement also has a geographical dimension, because the universal spirit can
only be achieved by peoples with the corresponding natural constitution (Volksgeist). A link with Montesquieu's approach is
clearly visible here, as well as the influence of more recent authors, in
particular Carl Ritter (1779–1859) , who
believed geographical factors to be natural conditions for the evolution of
people's spirit.28 Geographical
factors interact with the logical development of the spirit, which Hegel
divided into four great stages, that is, the Oriental, Greek, Roman and,
finally, Germanic stage. The particular history of each people's spirit is also
influenced by geographic factors such as the different lifestyles in the
uplands or in the plains of the Eastern world. The Eastern world represents the
first stage of the universal spirit's movement – "the childhood of
History" – since it remains locked in a condition which, by restricting
the role of the individual, does not permit any evolution. 29
This,
for Hegel, is most evident in the Mongolian and Chinese Empires. They may be
characterized as systems of "theocratic despotism", for which the
connection with Enlightenment ideas on Eastern societies and governments is
particularly clear and in which religious and political authorities are
strongly linked. In India, the situation is similar and the caste system is a
different expression – "theocratic aristocracy" – of the same
unarticulated dimension of the spirit. The same could be observed in ancient
Persia – "theocratic monarchy" – where the interaction with the West
and sea trade, however, produced more heterogeneous elements.30 In
this general context, the sea – in the case of the Phoenicians, for instance,
and their maritime commerce – particularly acted as an effective force against
the undifferentiated dimension of the spirit. In Western Asiatic countries, it
opened up the way to a different scenario, defined by Hegel as the second stage
of universal history, that is, the Greek one. In this geographical area,
therefore, despotism is no longer the main political category.
The
extraordinary theoretical strength of Hegel's thought reinforced the idea of an
inexorable connection between despotism and immobility and an essential
difference between the Eastern and the European world which had already been
discussed in the Age of Enlightenment. Its influence, from a theoretical but also
from a political and ideological point of view, was considerable. If Asia was
located at the origin of the universal spirit's movement, its lack of dynamics
placed it outside the development of civilization.
The
parallels between Hegel's interpretative scheme and Karl Marx's (1818–1883) thought
have often been pointed out. At the same time, the connection of Marx's
interpretation of Asiatic societies with 17th and 18th century observations on
the specific nature of their economy, particularly the idea of the precarious
status of proprietary rights in Asia, is clearly visible in his writings,
mainly in his journal contributions on India and China.31According
to Marx, the entire Asiatic economic system was based on the absence of
individual proprietary rights, due to the sovereign's being the sole
proprietor, and to the organization of economic life in autonomous village
communities. Marx believed that the geographical conditions of Asiatic
countries reinforced this political system, for example, because only a strong
and centralized authority could provide the required agricultural watering
systems. The Asiatic "mode of production"32 which
prevailed in India and other Eastern countries like China and parts
of Russia was, for Marx, the real foundation of Oriental despotism,
and these two concepts are strictly linked in Marx's thought. In the general
framework of Marx's ideas on the development of society and its future
perspectives, this system marked a stoppage. For this reason, Marx thought the
European domination of the colonies – particularly the British involvement in
India – to be a necessary measure or, in his words, a "double mission […]:
one destructive, the other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic
society, and the laying of the material foundations of Western society in
Asia".33
This
shift from the "Oriental despotism" concept to the "Asiatic mode
of production" opened a fresh discussion and proposed new methodologies of
investigation. It also had political implications which were related to the
international social and political contexts of the late 19th and 20th
centuries.34
The
connection between irrigation systems and the nature of Asiatic political
structures also played a major role in Max Weber's (1864–1920) interpretation
of the differing development of Mediterranean and Asiatic societies. Weber
claimed that different geographical conditions caused this fundamental
divergence, pointing out the contrast between coastal Mediterranean
regions and the essential importance of rivers and the managing of
irrigation in Egypt or in Middle Eastern areas in the
ancient world.35 He
wrote: "The crucial factor which made Near Eastern development so
different was the need for irrigation systems, as a result of which the cities
were closely connected with building canals and constant regulation of waters
and rivers, all of which demanded the existence of a unified bureaucracy."36
The
political and ethical consequence was "the subjugation of the
individual" in the East, and, on the Mediterranean side, the rise of a
"purely secular civilization which characterized Greek society and caused
capitalist development in Greece to differ from that in the Near East".37 The
economic foundation of Asiatic monarchies and the existence of a 'patrimonial'
bureaucracy personally depending on the monarch, such as existed in China, thus
seemed to prevent political development and the modernization of the social and
institutional structure. Weber gave the old concept of Oriental despotism a
fresh impetus by interpreting various materials and judgments from the history
of European culture. He thus supported the core idea of a European singularity
and predominance in the history of world civilization which he clearly exposed
in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.38
In
the 20th century, Karl August Wittfogel (1896–1988) recovered
the term "Oriental despotism" in his provocative work Oriental Despotism in 1957.39 His
approach was strongly related to the thought of Marx and particularly that of
Weber. He developed the idea of the economic necessity of supporting irrigation
systems as the foundation of a model of society and government whose main
characteristic was the absolute power of a central bureaucracy. On these
grounds, Wittfogel diagnosed a clear contrast between polycentric societies
like those that developed in Europe and monocentric ones as in Asia. There, he
observed a transition from the old despotic governments to a new form of
despotism represented by communist Russia , which
could be considered as a new version of industrial-bureaucratic despotism.
Wittfogel's controversial and stimulating work was clearly influenced by the
ideological and political tensions of its time, but it also shows a remarkable
methodological and theoretical insight. Accordingly, it proves the long life of
an ancient concept and cultural attitude which has for many centuries shaped
the European perception of the clash of Eastern and Western civilizations.
Rolando
Minuti, Florence
Appendix
Sources
Anquetil-Duperron,
Abraham-Hyacinthe: Législation Orientale, Ouvrage Dans Lequel, En Montrant
Quels Sont En Turquie, En Perse Et Dans l'Indoustan, Les Principes Fondamentaux
Du Gouvernement, On Prouve: I. Que la manière dont jusqu'ici on a représenté le
Despotisme, qui passe pour être absolu dans ces trois Etats, ne peut qu'en
donner une idée absolument fausse. II. Qu'en Turquie, en Perse & dans
l'Indoustan, il y a une Code de Loix écrites, qui obligent le Prince ainsi que
les sujets. III. Que dans ces trois Etats, les particuliers ont des Propriétés
en biens meubles & immeubles, dont ils jouissent librement, Amsterdam 1778.
Aquinas,
Thomas: Sententia Libri politicorum, in: idem: Opera Omnia, Roma, 1971, vol.
XLVIII.
Aristotle:
Politics, in: Jonathan Barnes (ed.): The Complete Works of Aristotle, Princeton
1984, 2 vols.
Bernier,
François: Voyages De François Bernier Docteur en Médecine de la Faculté de
Montpellier: Contenant la Déscription des Etats du Grand Mogol, De
l'Hindoustan, du Royaume de Kachemire, &c.; Où il est traité des Richesses,
des Forces, de la Justice & des Causes principales de la décadence des
Etats de l'Asie, & de plusieurs èvenemens considerables ...; Le tout
enrichi de Cartes & de Figures, Amsterdam 1699, 2 vols.
Bodin,
Jean: Les six livres de la République, Paris 1576.
Botero,
Giovanni: Delle Relazioni Universali, Rome 1591–1596.
Boulanger,
Nicolas-Antoine: Recherches sur l'origine du despotisme oriental, London 1762,
online: http://www.bsb-muenchen-digital.de/~web/web1043/bsb10433369/images/index.html?digID=bsb10433369&pimage=1&v=pdf&nav=0&l=de [02/03/2012].
Caritat
Condorcet, Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de: Tableau historique des progrès de l'esprit
humain: Projets, Esquisse, Fragments et Notes (1772–1794), ed. by Jean-Pierre
Schandeler et al., Paris 2004.
Chardin,
Jean: Voyages de monsieur le chevalier Chardin en Perse et autres lieux de
l'Orient, Paris 1711, 10 vols.
Hegel,
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Lectures on the Philosophy of History: Introduction,
Reason in History, transl. by John Sibree, London 1861 [Original German
edition: Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte, [Berlin 1837];
online:http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hi/lectures.htm [30/04/2012]].
Helvétius,
Claude Adrien: De l'Esprit, Paris 1758.
idem:
De l'Homme, London 1772.
Hobbes,
Thomas: Leviathan, ed. by Richard Tuck, Cambridge 1991.
Hobbes,
Thomas: De Cive, ed. by Howard Warrender, Oxford 1983.
Le
Vassor, Michel: Les Soupirs de la France esclave, qui aspire après la liberté,
Amsterdam 1689–1690.
Le
Mercier de la Rivière, Pierre-Paul: L'ordre naturel et essentiel des sociétés
politiques, London [Paris] 1767, 2 vols.
Locke,
John: Two Treatises of Government, ed. by Peter Laslett, 2nd edition, Cambridge
1970.
Machiavelli,
Niccolò: Il Principe, ed. by Giorgio Inglese, Turin 2006.
Mably,
Gabriel Bonnot de: Doutes proposés aux philosophes économistes sur l'ordre
naturel et essentiel des sociétés politiques, Den Haag et. al. 1768.
Marsilius
of Padua: Defensor pacis, ed. by Richard Scholz, Hanover et. al. 1932–1933, 2
vols.
Marx,
Karl: The British Rule in India, in: Karl Marx / Friedrich Engels: Collected
Works, New York, NY 1975–2004, vol. 12, pp. 125–133; online:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm [27/02/2012].
idem:
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in: Karl Marx / Friedrich
Engels: Collected Works, New York 1975–2004, vol. 16, pp. 465–491; online:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx2.htm[02/03/2012].
idem:
The Future Results of British rule in India, in: Karl Marx / Friedrich Engels:
Collected Works, New York 1975–2004, vol. 12, pp. 217–222; online:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/22.htm [27/02/2012].
Montesquieu:
De l'Esprit des Lois, ed. by Robert Derathé, Paris 1973, 2 vols.
idem:
Lettres Persanes, ed. by Paul Vernière, Paris 1960.
Oresme,
Nicholas: Le livre de Politiques d'Aristote, ed. by Albert Douglas Menut,
Philadelphia 1970, pp. 44–359 (Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 60, 6).
Quesnay,
François: Despotisme de la Chine, in: idem: Œuvres économiques complètes et
autres textes, ed. by Christine Théré et al., Paris 2005, vol. 2, pp. 1005–1114.
Ritter,
Carl: Die Erdkunde im Verhältniss zur Natur und zur Geschichte des Menschen,
oder allgemeine, vergleichende Geographie: als sichere Grundlage des Studiums
und Unterrichts in physikalischen und historischen Wissenschaften, Berlin
1817–1818.
Rousseau,
Jean-Jacques: Discours sur les sciences et les arts: Discours sur l'origine de
l'inégalité, ed. by Jacques Roger, Paris 1971.
Tolomeo
da Lucca: De regimine principum continuatio, in: Thomas
Aquinas: De regimine principum, ed. by Joseph Mathis, 2nd edition, Rome et al.
1948.
Voltaire:
Commentaire sur l'Esprit des Lois, in: idem: Œuvres complètes, ed. by Louis
Moland, Paris, 1877–1885, vol. XXX, pp. 405–464.
idem:
Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations, ed. by René Pomeau, 2 vols., Paris
1963.
Weber,
Max: The Agrarian sociology of Ancient civilizations, transl. by R. I. Frank,
London 1976 [Original German edition: Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum, Jena
1898].
idem:
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, London 1930, online:http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/weber/protestant-ethic/index.htm [02/03/2012].
William
of Moerbeke: Aristotelis politicorum libri octo, cum vetusta translatione
Guilelmi de Moerbeka, ed. by Franz Susemihl, Leipzig 1872, online:http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/ljs/PageLevel/index.cfm?option=view&ManID=ljs025[27/04/2012].
William
of Ockham: Dialogus de imperatorum et pontificum potestate, ed. by Charles K.
Brampton, Oxford 1927.
Wittfogel,
Karl August: Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power, New Haven,
CT 1957.
Bibliography
Bobbio,
Norberto: Dispotismo, in: idem et. al (eds.): Dizionario di politica, Turin
2004, pp. 276–283.
idem:
La teoria delle forme di governo nella storia del pensiero politico, Turin
1976.
Brunner,
Otto et al. (eds.): Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur
politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Stuttgart 1972–1997, 8 vols.
Clarke,
John James: Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter Between Asian and Western
Thought, New York, NY 1997.
Curtis,
Michael: Orientalism and Islam: European Thinkers on Oriental Despotism in the
Middle East and India, Cambridge 2009.
Derathé,
Robert: Les philosophes et le despotisme, in: Pierre Francastel (ed.): Utopie
et institutions au XVIIIe siècle: Le pragmatisme des Lumières, Paris 1963, pp.
57–75.
Felice,
Domenico (ed.): Dispotismo: Genesi e sviluppi di un concetto
filosofico-politico, Naples 2001–2002, 2 vols.
Grosrichard,
Alain: Structure du sérail: La fiction du despotisme asiatique dans l'occident
classique, Paris 1979.
Kaiser,
Thomas: The Evil Empire? The Debate on Turkish Despotism in Eighteenth-Century
French Political Culture, in: The Journal of Modern History, 72, 1 (2000), pp.
6–34.
Koebner,
Richard: Despot and Despotism: Vicissitudes of a Political Term, in: Journal of
the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 14, 3/4 (1951), pp. 275–302.
Krader,
Lawrence: The Asiatic mode of production: sources, development and critique in
the writings of Karl Marx, Assen 1975.
Laurens,
Henry: Les Origines intellectuelles de l'expédition d'Égypte: L'orientalisme
islamisant en France (1698–1798), Istanbul et. al. 1987.
idem:
Orientales, Paris 2004, 3 vols.
Mandt,
Hella: Tyrannie, Despotie, in: Otto Brunner et al.: (eds.): Geschichtliche
Grundbegriffe, Stuttgart 1972–1997, vol. 6, pp. 651–706.
Minuti,
Rolando: Proprietà della terra e dispotismo orientale: Aspetti di un dibattito
sull'India nella seconda metà del Settecento, in: Materiali per una storia
della cultura giuridica, VII, 2 (1978), pp. 29–176.
idem:
Mito e realtà del dispotismo ottomano: note in margine ad una discussione
settecentesca, in: Studi settecenteschi 1 (1981), pp. 35–59.
Nippel,
Wilfried: La costruzione dell' "altro", in: Salvatore Settis (ed.): I
Greci: Storia, cultura, arte, societa, Turin 1996, vol. I, pp. 165–196.
Osterhammel,
Jürgen: Die Entzauberung Asiens: Europa und die asiatischen Reiche im 18.
Jahrhundert, Munich 1998.
Richter,
Melvin: The Concept of Despotism and l'abus des mots, in: Contributions to the
History of Concepts, 3, 2007, pp. 5–22.
idem:
Despotism, in: Philip P. Wiener (ed.): Dictionary of the History of Ideas:
Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, New York, NY 1973, vol. 2, pp. 1–18.
idem:
The History of Political and Social Concepts: A Critical Introduction, Oxford
1995.
Rubiés,
Joan-Pau: Oriental Despotism and European Orientalism: Botero to Montesquieu,
in: Journal of Early Modern History, 9, 1/2 (2005), pp. 109–180.
Saïd,
Edward: Orientalism, New York, NY 1978.
Sofri,
Gianni: Il modo di produzione asiatico: Storia di una controversia marxista,
Turin 1974.
Stelling-Michaud,
Sven: Le mythe du despotisme oriental, in: Schweizer Beiträge zur allgemeinen
Geschichte, 18–19, 1960–1961, pp. 328–346.
Swedberg,
Richard: Max Weber and the Idea of Economic Sociology, Princeton, NJ 1998.
Travers,
Robert: Ideology and Empire in Eighteenth-Century India: The British in Bengal,
Cambridge 2007.
Turchetti,
Mario: Tyrannie et Tyrannicide de l'Antiquité à nos jours, Paris 2001.
Valensi,
Lucette: Venise et la Sublime Porte: La Naissance du despote, Paris 1987.
Venturi,
Franco: Despotismo orientale, in: Rivista storica italiana, 62 (1960), pp.
117–126.
Notes
1. ^ For
general surveys on the history and varieties of the Oriental despotism concept,
see mainly Koebner, Despot and despotism 1951; Venturi, Despotismo orientale
1960; Stelling-Michaud, Le mythe du despotisme oriental 1960–1961; Richter,
Despotism 1973; Bobbio, Dispotismo 2004; Felice (ed.), Dispotismo 2001–2002;
Rubiés, Oriental despotism 2005; Richter, The concept of despotism 2007.
2. ^ Cf.
Saïd, Orientalism 1978.
3. ^ Cf.
Aristotle, Politics 1984, III, 14.
4. ^ See
William of Moerbeke, Aristotelis politicorum libri octo 1872;
Aquinas, Sententia Libri politicorum 1971; Tolomeo da Lucca, De regimine
principum continuatio 1948; Oresme, Le livre de Politiques d'Aristote 1970;
William of Ockham, Dialogus 1927; Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1932–1933.
5. ^ Cf.
Felice, Dispotismo 2001–2002, vol. I.
6. ^ Cf.
Machiavelli, Il Principe 2006, IV.
7. ^ Cf.
Bodin, Les six livres de la République 1576. The same form of
monarchy is named dominatus in the Latin version
of his work, published in 1586.
8. ^ Cf.
ibidem, I, 6.
9. ^ See
Hobbes, Leviathan 1991; De Cive 1983; and Locke, Two Treatises 1970.
10. ^ Cf.
Rubiés, Oriental despotism 2005, for a recent interest in this work and its
importance for the Oriental despotism concept.
11. ^ See
Bernier, Voyages 1699.
12. ^ Cf.
Rousseau, Discours sur l'origine de l'inégalité 1971, p. 181.
13. ^ Cf.
Koebner, Despot and Despotism 1951.
14. ^ See
Le Vassor, Les Soupirs de la France esclave 1689–1690.
15. ^ See
Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des Lois 1973, V, 14 and VII, 29.
16. ^ See
ibidem, VIII, 8.
17. ^ Boulanger,
Recherches sur l'origine du despotisme oriental 1761.
18. ^ See
Helvetius, De l'Esprit 1758; De l'Homme 1772.
19. ^ See
Condorcet, Esquisse, in: idem, Tableau historique 2004.
20. ^ See
Voltaire, Commentaire 1877–1885, especially Chapters IV and XII; idem: Essai
sur les Mœurs 1963, p. 832.
21. ^ See
Anquetil-Duperron, Législation orientale 1778.
22. ^ See
mainly Le Mercier de la Rivière, Ordre naturel 1767.
23. ^ See
Quesnay, Despotisme de la Chine 2005.
24. ^ This
image met with severe opposition, mainly from Mably in Doutes proposés 1768,
who asserted that every form of despotism had a negative and destructive part,
mainly from an ethical point of view.
25. ^ For
a recent approach to this complex issue, see Travers, Ideology and Empire 2007.
26. ^ Hegel,
Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte, 1837.
27. ^ Hegel,
Lectures on the philosophy of history 1861, p. 109.
28. ^ See
Ritter, Die Erdkunde 1817.
29. ^ Hegel,
Lectures on the philosophy of history 1861, pp. 111f.
30. ^ Hegel,
Lectures on the philosophy of history 1861, pp. 118f.
31. ^ See
Marx, The British Rule in India 1853.
32. ^ Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy 1859.
33. ^ Marx, The Future Results of British rule in India 1853,
pp. 217f.
34. ^ See
Sofri, Il modo di produzione asiatico 1974 and Krader, The Asiatic mode of
production 1975.
35. ^ See Weber, The Agrarian Sociology of
Ancient Civilizations 1976.
36. ^ ibidem,
pp. 157f.
37. ^ ibidem,
pp. 157f.
38. ^ Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism 1905.
39. ^ See
Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism 1957.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.