Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T00:24:35.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Struggle in Bureaucratic Societies*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

S. N. Eisenstadt
S. N. Eisenstadt
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology at the Hebrew University
Get access

Extract

THE purpose of this article is to analyze in a preliminary way some of the basic sociological problems of bureaucratic political systems—legitimation, autonomy, and political struggle. For reasons which will be specified later—not least among them, reasons of space—we shall limit our discussion to pre-modern, historical societies, such as the ancient empires (especially the Egyptian), the Byzantine, Chinese, and Ottoman Empires, and some of the European countries in the age of absolutism. By way of introduction, we shall endeavor to discern some common characteristics in all these political systems, and the main differences among them; and then inquire into some of the sociological conditions that are related to both the common features and the chief differences.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , October 1956 , pp. 15 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mosca, G., The Ruling Class, New York, 1939, pp. 70–103.Google Scholar See also Marx, F. M., “The Bureaucratic State,” Review of Politics, 1 (October 1939), pp. 457–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See Weber, M., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen, 1922, pp. 148–53Google Scholar, 650–78. For some of the discussions based on Weber's analysis, sec the various papers in Merton, R. K., ed., Reader in Bureaucracy, Glencoe, Ill., 1952.Google Scholar

3 See Bendix, R., “Bureaucracy and the Problem of Power,” in Merton, ed., op.cit., p. 114Google Scholar; Lipset, S. M., Agrarian Socialism, Berkeley, Calif., 1950, pp. 255–77Google Scholar; Finer, H., Theory and Practice of Modern Government, rev. ed., New York, 1949Google Scholar, esp. chs. 2ff.

4 On primitive political systems, from this point of view, see Fortes, M. and Evans-Pritchard, E. E., African Political Systems, London, 1940Google Scholar, Introduction; Gluckman, M., Rituals of Rebellion in South East Asia, Manchester, Eng., 1954Google Scholar, passim. A very illuminating analysis of the struggles of medieval-feudal monarchy to free itself from feudal bonds and to establish its political autonomy can be found in Jolliffe, E. A., Angevin Kingship, London, 1955Google Scholar, passim. See also Fawtier, R., Les Capétiens et la France, Paris, 1942Google Scholar, esp. chs. 5, 10, and 11; and the general discussion of Kern, F., “Vom Herrenstaat zum Wohlfahrtstaat,” Schmollers Jahrbuch, LII (1928), pp. 393–415.Google Scholar

5 See Wilson, J. A., The Burden of Egypt, Chicago, 1951Google Scholar, esp. chs. 3 and 4; Edgerton, W. F., “The Government and the Governed in the Egyptian Empire,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, VI (July 1947), pp. 152–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 See Eisenstadt, S. N., “Communication Systems and Social Structure,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XIX (Summer 1955), pp. 153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See Weber, , op.cit., p. 658Google Scholar; Friedrich, C. J., Constitutional Government and Politics, New York, 1937, pp. 20–41.Google Scholar

8 See Diehl, C., “The Government and Administration of the Byzantine Empire,“Cambridge Medieval History, IV, Cambridge, Eng., 1923, pp. 726–44Google Scholar; Bréhier, L., Les institutions de l'Empire byzantin, Paris, 1949Google Scholar, esp. ch. 1; Kracke, E. A., Civil Service in Early Sung China, Cambridge, Mass., 1953Google Scholar, chs. 3 and 4; Ford, F. L., Robe and Sword, Cambridge, Mass., 1953Google Scholar, esp. p. ii and ch. 5; Beloff, M., The Age of Absolutism, London, 1954Google Scholar, ch. 1.

9 Kracke, , op.cit., chs. 1 and 2Google Scholar; Balázs, E., “Les aspects significatifs de la société chinoise,” Astatische Studien, VI (1952), esp. pp. 80ff.Google Scholar; Eberhard, W., A History of China, Berkeley, Calif., 1950Google Scholar, esp. chs. 6, 7, and 9.

10 Pulleyblank, E. G., The Background of the Rebellion of An Lu-Shan, London, 1955, pp. 40–61Google Scholar; Yü-ch'üan, Wang, “An Outline of the Central Government of the Former Han Dynasty,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, XII (June 1949), pp. 134–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, W. L., ed. and trans., Ottoman Statecraft, Princeton, N.J., 1935, esp. pp. 21–60Google Scholar; Bréhier, , op.cit., ch. 2Google Scholar; Richardson, W. C., Tudor Chamber Administration, Baton Rouge, La., 1952Google Scholar, passim; Steele, A., “The Place of the King's Household in English Constitutional History, to 1272,” History, XV (January 1931), pp. 289–95.Google Scholar

11 Ostrogorsky, G., “Die ländliche Steuergemeinde des byzantinischen Reiches im X. Jahrhundert,” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, XX (1927), pp. 1–108Google Scholar; Bach, E., “Les lois agraires byzantines du Xe siècle,” Classica et Mediaevalia, V (1942), pp. 70–91.Google Scholar

12 Eberhard, , op.cit., ch. 6Google Scholar; Pulleyblank, , op.cit., pp. 24–40Google Scholar; Balázs, , op.cit., pp. 80ff.Google Scholar; Balázs, S., “Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des T'ang Zeit,” Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen, XXXIV (1931), esp. pp. 82ff.Google Scholar

13 Lybycr, A. H., The Government of the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge, Mass., 1913, pp. 48–61Google Scholar; Wright, , ed., op.cit., pp. 21–28.Google Scholar

14 Ostrogorsky, , op.cit., pp. 1–108Google Scholar, and “Das Steuersystem in byzantinischen Altertum und Mittelalter,” Byzantion, VI (1931), pp. 223–40; Gale, M., Discourses on Salt and Iron, 11Google Scholar, Sinica Leideniensa, Leiden, 1931, Introduction; Balázs, S., op.cit., pp. 82ff.Google Scholar; Blue, R. C., “The Argumentation of the Shih-huo Chih,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, XI (June 1948), esp. pp. 30ff.Google Scholar For the later periods in particular, see Balázs, E., Le traité économique du “Souei-Chou,“ Leiden, 1953, pp. 123ff., 151ff.Google Scholar

15 For good illustrations of such struggles, sec Pulleyblank, , op.cit., esp. ch. 4Google Scholar; Rideout, J. K., “The Rise of the Eunuchs During the T'ang Dynasty,” Asia Major, N.S., 1 (1949), PP. 53–72Google Scholar, and 111 (1953), pp. 42–58; Wright, , ed., op.cit., pp. 28–33.Google Scholar

16 See Diehl, C., “Le Sénat et le peuple byzantin aux VIIe et VIIIe siècles,” Byzantion, 1 (1924), PP. 201–13.Google Scholar

17 Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates, Munich, 1950Google Scholar, ch. 5; Stein, E., “Introduction à l'histoire et aux institutions byzantines,” Traditio, VII (1949–1951), esp. pp. 138ff., 143ff.Google Scholar

18 Pulleyblank, , op.cit., pp. 42ff.Google Scholar; Dubs, H. H., ed. and trans., History of the Former Han Dynasty, Baltimore, Md., 1938, esp. pp. 171ff., 216ff.Google Scholar; Rideout, , op.cit., III, pp. 42–58Google Scholar; Bingham, W., The Founding of the T'ang Dynasty, Baltimore, Md., 1941Google Scholar, esp. chs. 6 and 11; Haloun, G., “The Liang-Chou Rebellion, 184–221 A.D.,” Asia Major, N.S., 1 (1949), pp. 119–39.Google Scholar

19 See Ostrogorsky, , Geschichte, op.cit., pp. 118ff., 319ff.Google Scholar

20 Gale, op.cit., passim; Haenisch, E., Chinas Weg vom Lehnsreich zum Einheitsstaat, Sitzungsberichte der Bayer. Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl, No. 3, Munich, 1947.Google Scholar

21 Rideout, , op.cit., III, pp. 42ff.Google Scholar; Guilland, R., “Les Eunuques dans l'Empire byzantin,” Etudes byzantines, 1 (1943), pp. 197–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Fonctions et dignités des Eunuques,” ibid., 11 (1944), pp. 185–225; Wright, ed., op.cit.

22 See Bréhier, , op.cit., chs. 2 and 3.Google Scholar

23 See Wang, , op.cit., pp. 161ff.Google Scholar; Kracke, , op.cit., pp. 28–54.Google Scholar See also Miyakawa, H., “An Outline of the Naitō Hypothesis,” Far Eastern Quarterly, XIV (August 1955), esp. pp. 538ff.Google Scholar

24 Hucker, C. O., “The Traditional Chinese Censurate and the New Peking Regime,“American Political Science Review, XLV (December 1951), pp. 1041–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Eberhard, W., “The Astronomers in China,” paper delivered at the 2nd Conference on Chinese Thought, 1955 (mimeographed).Google Scholar On the role of oracles in Egypt, see Edgerton, , op.cit., pp. 159–60.Google Scholar See also the papers of Wilson, , Speiser, , and Bodde, in “Authority and Law in the Ancient Orient,” supplement of Journal of the American Oriental Society (1954).Google Scholar

26 Ford, , op.cit., pp. 222ff.Google Scholar; Beloff, , op.cit., ch. 1.Google Scholar

27 Diehl, C., Guilland, R., et al., L'Europe orientale de 1081 à 1413, Paris, 1945, esp. pp. 129ffGoogle Scholar; Diehl, in Cambridge Medieval History, op.cit.; Bréhier, op.cit.; des Rotours, R., Le traité des examens, Paris, 1932Google Scholar, esp. Introduction, and Traité des fonctionnaires et traité de l'armée, Leiden, 1947.

28 For a general survey of this problem, see Swart, K. W., Sale of Offices in the Seventeenth Century, The Hague, 1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim.

29 This term is used by Gouldner, A. (Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Glencoe, Ill., 1954)Google Scholar in relation to industrial bureaucracy, but it has a much wider and more general application. By “punishment orientation” is meant that the norms of the bureaucracy are imposed on the population and not fully accepted by it as contributing to its welfare.

30 I am indebted to Professor W. Eberhard for this suggestion.

31 Wang, , op.cit., p. 181.Google Scholar

32 See Ford, , op.cit., pp. 105ffGoogle Scholar See also the discussion of Pagés, G., “La vénalité des offices dans l'ancienne France,” Revue historique, CLXIX (May-June 1932), pp. 476–95Google Scholar; Pagés tends to see in this an important precondition of the French Revolution.

33 The controversy between the Wittfogel school and other Sinologists, especially Eberhard, as to whether the literati constituted a group distinct from the landed gentry does not greatly affect our argument. Even Wang admits that there was a marked difference between the literati, who did not hold positions, and the gentry. Eberhard himself would probably agree that while the bureaucracy was close to the gentry, it sometimes tended to maintain distinct policies. See Balázs, E., “Les aspects significatifs,“op. cit., pp. 80ff.Google Scholar In general, however, Eberhard's insistence on the continuity of gentry families seems well founded. See the balanced summary by Bodde, D., “Feudalism in China,” in Coulborn, R., ed., Feudalism in History, Princeton, N.J., 1956, pp. 49–92.Google Scholar

34 Balázs, E., “La crise sociale et la philosophie politique à la fin des Han,” T'oung Pao, N.S., XXXIX (1950), pp. 83–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Les aspects significatifs,” op.cit., pp. 80ff.

35 See Williamson, H. R., Wang An Shih: A Chinese Statesman and Educationalist of the Sung Dynasty, London, 1937Google Scholar, passim; Michael, F. H., “From the Fall of T'ang to the Fall of Ch'ing,” in MacNair, H. F., ed., China, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1946, pp. 89–111.Google Scholar See also Franke, O., Der Bericht Wang An Shih's vom 1058 uber Reform des Beamtentums, Sitzungsberichte der Pr. Akad. der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1931–1933, pp. 264–312.Google Scholar

36 See Wright's discussion in Ottoman Statecraft, op.cit., esp. pp. 43ff.

37 Ostrogorsky, , “Das Steuersystem,” op.cit., pp. 223–40Google Scholar, and “The Peasant's Pre-emption Right,” Journal of Roman Studies, XXXVII (1947), pp. 117–26; Yü-ch'üan, Wang, “The Rise of Land Tax and the Fall of Dynasties in Chinese History,” Pacific Affairs, IX (June 1936), pp. 201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It may be, however, that an explanation of these changes in terms of problems of taxation alone is oversimplified. This has been suggested to me by Professor Eberhard. Problems of taxation did constitute a significant element, however. The importance of the financial problem in France on the eve of the Revolution is well known, as is that of the problem of control over taxation in English constitutional history.

38 Balézs, E., “Les aspects significatifs,” op.cit., pp. 80ff.Google Scholar; Eberhard, W., “The Formation of a New Dynasty: A Sociological Study,” in Thurnwald Festschrift, Berlin, 1950, pp. 54–67.Google Scholar

39 Ostrogorsky, , Geschichte, op.cit., chs. 3–6.Google Scholar

40 Edgerton, W. F., “The Question of Feudal Institutions in Ancient Egypt,” in Coulborn, ed., op.cit., pp. 120–32Google Scholar, and “The Government and the Governed,” op.cit., pp. 152–60.

41 Edgerton, “The Government and the Governed,” op.cit.