Original link: http://headsalon.org/archives/9007.html
God’s New Pasture #3: The Divide of Classes
Whig
November 19, 2018
Class differences are not just inequalities in economic status and political power (although these two always get the most attention), in a mature hierarchical society, different classes of people live, dress, behave, talk, socialize, There are stark differences in entertainment content, knowledge structure, value orientation and social norms followed, [1] even accent, height, [2] head shape, [3] may also be very different, in a nutshell, they It’s like coming from a different culture, even a different race.
The reason why such differences can be formed is because classes are structurally stable, and social interactions produce a certain tendency to continuously strengthen cohesion with different statuses, and finally form a segregation mechanism, and each highly cohesive part becomes a class. ; There will still be flow between classes, but the new entrant will imitate and adopt the habits, norms and values of the class he enters, thereby completing cultural reproduction; there may be some major changes that can be called social revolutions, but in the history of civilization Most of the time, we see more continuity in class structure.
The formation of this structure has undergone a variety of evolutionary processes, and the evolutionary paths of major civilizations are also different. However, in the end, they all produced some quite similar structural elements, which can be regarded as convergent evolution at the cultural level. I’ll start by talking about some general trends and leave the differences for later.
difference in livelihood
When biologists study the physiology and habits of an animal, diet is always the preferred entry point, because as a pivotal factor, what to eat and how to obtain it determines many other characteristics, such as limb structure, digestive organs and metabolism. characteristics, behavioral patterns, cognitive abilities, group or solitary living, and even mating patterns; similarly, anthropologists, when examining small societies, tend to start with the subsistance pattern—how to obtain the main food To a large extent determines which technologies people develop, which tools and utensils they use, how to divide and cooperate, and how to organize society.
It is also possible to speculate on the type of food and how it is obtained which traits contribute to individual success, such as insects and hummingbirds that feed on many nectars, the shape of their feeding organs closely matching the shape of the calyx of their preferred plants, [4] and vice versa Of course, if we see a female cheetah giving birth to a large litter of leopards and feeding them fat, she is undoubtedly a good hunter with a good set of claws.
For individuals in large hierarchical societies, however, such inferences are no longer valid. In a society where wheat milk is the staple food, the most successful individuals are likely to know nothing about growing wheat or raising cows. In this way, their social status is more likely to be closer to the bottom (at least before the rise of modern commercial agriculture); the reason for this reversal is that there is a differentiation in the way of making a living, and some people no longer rely on the food produced by themselves or their families. Rather, he bases his livelihood on the operation and maintenance of a system of power that compels others to provide him with the means of existence, and more goods and services than he needs to survive.
This is an intra-species food chain structure, which can be pyramid-shaped: the regional chief forces the groups he controls to pay tribute to him, the large chief forces the subordinate chiefs to pay tribute to him; it can also be umbrella-shaped : A ruling group collects tribute from a large area and, in addition to meeting its own needs, also supports (either by hiring or buying) a group of specialized occupations that are separated from food production; in larger hierarchical societies, it is usually a combination of both.
Of course, livelihood differentiation may also occur in a non-coercive way. [5] For example, in the modern free market, there are countless ways of making a living. Most people do not make a living from food production, but they obtain survival materials through free exchange without food producers. , may not have a higher status; however, unfortunately, the initial differentiation of human livelihoods is all based on coercion. This is probably because the market division of labor must be based on reliable private property rights, and in a Huo where property and personal safety are not guaranteed In the Booth world, only the strong can defend their property rights, but since he is strong enough to win the competition for power, has solid power, and can coerce others, it is obviously more convenient to directly ask for tribute with this power practice.
There is a view that the domestication of animals and plants and the invention of agriculture have increased productivity, increased food production beyond what producers need to survive, and allowed some of the population to leave food production and engage in other specialized occupations, thus promoting professional division of labor and market transactions. The division of labor is a powerful catalyst for knowledge accumulation and technological innovation, and the resulting wave of innovation ultimately leads to the birth of civilization. [6]
This claim has neither factual basis nor theoretical scrutiny. First, technological progress that leads to increased productivity must occur at a very fast pace to produce sustainable food surpluses, otherwise short-lived surpluses will soon be Depleted by population growth (unless there is some mechanism that prevents the producers who have the surplus from using it to feed more children, a possibility I will discuss later), and we know that from people who understand crop farming to farming A transition period of thousands of years between the main subsistence, [7] and population growth sufficient to deplete any possible surplus from agriculture, the history of the Americas shows us that when the amount of food did not constitute a limit, the population How fast will it grow? The first few groups of immigrants who entered the Americas were no more than a hundred people, and after a few thousand years they were all over the continent. [8]
Second, while agriculture increases land productivity, it reduces labor productivity, and only an increase in labor productivity creates a surplus (albeit only in the short term), because that means labor time to produce the food you (and your family) need to survive Less, so it may take more time to produce additional food; however, growing grains is far more time-consuming and labor-intensive than gathering wild grains of the same kind. Experiments have shown that in areas where wild wheat is prosperous, 2.5 kilograms can be collected per hour, and a family only needs to harvest at maturity. If the season is busy for more than ten days, it is enough to eat for a year, saving all the labor before the harvest. [9]
In fact, after the last ice age and before the origin of agriculture, human beings experienced a period of continuous decline in labor productivity. This is because a series of technological advances represented by bows and arrows in the late Paleolithic period greatly improved hunting efficiency, resulting in accelerated population growth. The disappearance of large animals or shrinking populations [10] has forced humans to turn more to small animals and plants, and to incorporate more and more labor-intensive animals and plants into their diets. Calorie returns per unit of labor are typically two or three orders of magnitude lower than in larger animals. [11]
Anthropologists call this process a broad spectrum revolution, and the origins of agriculture are just a natural extension of this general trend, [12] in economic terms a Malthusian growth Intensity to increase production while labor productivity declines, in layman’s terms, technological innovations that allow humans to squeeze more and more from increasingly scarce natural resources while the population continues to grow A little calorie, this is clearly not the way to generate extra surplus.
What really makes the differentiation of surplus and livelihood possible is the private control of land; with increasing population pressure and increasing scarcity of resources, people continue to strengthen the development of local small animal and plant resources, reducing mobility and increasing territoriality. Territorial conflicts have intensified, and the focus of the competition for survival has gradually shifted from how to deal with the natural environment to how to deal with other humans in order to defend the territory on which they live. [13]
As mentioned in the previous two chapters, it is in the escalation of war caused by territorial conflicts that leaders begin to rise, and then there is a competition for power among the leaders. Some of the strongest prevail, winning privileged positions and coercive power; Against other groups, once its power is stable, it may be used for its own interests. For example, after subduing other groups through wars, most of the tribute requested is in their own hands. When several adjacent groups dominate-submission Once the relationship stabilizes, this source of money may solidify into something like a ground rent or a tax.
Such a hegemonic structure established with the advantage of force can be extended to multiple levels. With the expansion of the structure and the deepening of the level, the social distance between the high-ranking people and the ordinary people continues to widen, and then through the mechanism centered on the intermarriage network described in the previous chapter, An increasingly closed upper-class elite circle, or nobility, was formed. They specialized in operating the system of power, controlling territory, and demanding tribute. At the same time, the special needs of the nobility for consumer goods and services also created a group of specialized occupations that were also separated from food production. , the process of stratification begins.
Economically speaking, food is artificially depressed because the aristocracy (whether in the form of tribute, tax, or rent) takes some of the output from the food producers, preventing the latter from using it to feed more children. The size of the producer’s population and the corresponding total amount of labor invested in food production results in a decrease in total output (relative to the Malthusian limit), but an increase in marginal labor productivity, while the population is lower than the potential limit, resulting in per capita output also increased, thus bringing in a surplus, which feeds specialized occupations separated from food production, including the aristocracy itself. [14]
business of nobility
The establishment of early regimes such as chiefdoms was accompanied by mutual expeditions and the militarization of tribal organizations, and having an armed force that obeyed its orders was the key to the chief’s ability to rule; [15] The reason is obvious: to obtain from the food producers Taking away some of the survival materials that could have supported more children will definitely encounter fierce resistance. You must know that the human beings in the pre-civilization era were all rebellious and had high self-esteem (because they were all survivors of the Hobbes world), and they would pay taxes. It was regarded as inevitable and natural, and it was the idea of obedience to the people created by the state later. Moreover, the benefits of controlling the territory and collecting tribute were so attractive that it would undoubtedly attract many eager competitors.
Even after the establishment of a larger polity, the rulers of the early countries still highly relied on the naked terror and coercion policy, read the literature about the early civilization, you will smell a strong smell of blood, massacred prisoners of war for human sacrifice Or the practice of burial is very common, and the more elegant way of ruling will not become popular until the existence of the state is generally accepted and the regime has a certain sense of security. [16]
Therefore, it is not surprising that the first nobles were all warriors, who specialized in warfare; [17] Warriors came from a variety of sources and their status was different. First, they were naturally the kings who won the power competition, and then their personal retinue. (retinue), squires were the main ruling tools of early monarchs, ranging in size from dozens to hundreds of people. At that time, there was no logistics system enough to maintain a larger standing army. Although thousands of people could be invested in major battles. There were even tens of thousands of soldiers, but they were all called on a temporary basis. They either brought their own supplies, so the battle could only last for a few days, or they obtained supplies by looting and extorting them along the way. [18]
In the original multi-level government system, each leader had a squire, and when they assembled, they became an army, and the primary political function of the monarch’s squire was to control the lower-level leaders, and they would fight if they didn’t obey, a bit like the military police. Conversely, it can be said that the monarch can become king precisely because he has the most powerful team of entourages, enough to overwhelm any subordinate leader who has dissent (at least when they fail to unite), this ruling mode The monarch is required to keep patrolling the territory, always sniffing for any signs of change. Territorial patrols are also a convenient way to evenly distribute the burden of governance, because even a team of several hundred people has a large logistical burden, and in an era of low transportation efficiency and no circulation market, Concentrating in one place can overwhelm locals. [19]
This kind of rule is not very reliable. Betrayal, usurpation, conspiracy, and reorganization of forces occur from time to time. It requires high personal ability of the monarch, especially the ability to recruit talents. Preferential treatment, the fiercer the competition between the monarchs, the higher their status, serving them with good wine and meat every day, treating them like brothers, sharing the spoils, and promising women of noble birth in the royal family as wives are all common ways to win over the early monarchs. His generosity continued the prestige contest of its predecessors, but the target audience was no longer the masses, but the warrior elite; archaeological findings show that when the Celtic tribes in Gaul and the Germanic tribes along the Rhine developed into chiefdoms, The Greco-Roman world imported a great deal of wine, mostly drank at such feasts. [20]
In addition to entourages, secondary leaders are another source of nobles. In the era of lack of a bureaucratic administrative system, large territories can only adopt a governance model of layer-by-layer decentralization. Allies (such as the princes surnamed Jiang in the Ji Jiang alliance that established the Zhou Dynasty), or former opponents who were defeated and became vassals, or those who were weak and unable to protect themselves and voluntarily surrendered, or members of the royal family who split the soil and sealed the frontier, or At first, he governed a certain place as the monarch’s agent, and later the power became a hereditary fief (such as the counts of the Carolingian Dynasty).
As professional warriors, the status of nobles (especially low-ranking nobles) of course comes from their combat power. However, in early societies, almost all adult males were warriors. Under the harsh selection pressure of Hobbes’ world, the individual differences in combat power would not be too great. Great, how did the samurai nobles maintain and pass on their status?
The answer may be the heavy equipment of individual soldiers; after entering the metal age, the heavy equipment of weapons has developed by leaps and bounds. Bronze swords, shields, armors, composite bows, and crossbows are all valuable; the entire equipment of English knights in the early 14th century ( (excluding horses and harness) was worth about 10 pounds, and many hired workers at that time earned less than 2 pounds a year. By the end of the century, due to the substantial increase in armor protection coverage, the increasing number of parts, and the increase in labor costs caused by the Black Death, The cost of equipment has skyrocketed to £80; however, the more significant impact was the introduction of horses. Warhorses used for heavy cavalry were very expensive. The price of a warhorse in England around 1300 was about £8.5, plus a complete set of saddles and protective gear, which cost ten A few pounds, and the warhorse is very delicate, and its maintenance cost is much higher than other draft animals; medieval European knights generally had at least two warhorses, and one or two servants needed to take care of the horses and the whole set of equipment when traveling, which was obviously not affordable for ordinary families. of. [twenty one]
The high cost of equipment set a high threshold for the profession of samurai, and also restricted the source of warriors for monarchs, who either recruited from wealthy families, required their own arms and servants, and recognized their noble status and territorial rights in return, Either hire good but poor fighters and equip them at his own expense, but the latter can only be done on a very small scale, or he needs a financial system to raise and distribute funds, which was inconvenient in earlier regimes. Existing, more common methods are to grant a poor warrior a piece of land as his fief, making him self-sufficient in exchange for his allegiance and service.
Therefore, in any way, warrior status is linked to land rights, so warrior nobility is also land nobility. In the future, when the military nature of nobility status gradually fades, its relationship with land will continue for a long time; in settled agricultural society , Land rights are a very reliable guarantee of life, and a properly managed manor can become a pocket kingdom with complete internal organs and a considerable degree of self-sufficiency, which is the basis for the nobles to maintain their financial and political independence.
To secure their position, however, they had one more problem to solve: how to avoid the division of territory too finely with inheritance; any division of territory would weaken the nobility of descendants, if the divided territory was too small to support a samurai (with its other In the Norman feudal system, the smallest fief to maintain the status of a warrior is called a knight’s fee, which is about a self-sufficient manor with a size of at least Five or six hundred acres of ripe land, or several thousand acres of newly cultivated land. [twenty two]
The loss of samurai status is likely to result in the loss of even the land itself, since in an age where there was no strong judicial system to provide universal protection of property rights, land rights had to be defended by the owner himself, and even seeking assistance depended on status-related issues. Mutual obligations; so nobles always try to avoid excessive division of their estates, and on the other hand, his lord does not want to see his vassal samurai status lost due to division of inheritance, which means that he will lose a loyal servant, so Certain restrictions on inheritance are necessary to ensure intergenerational continuation of lord-vassal obligations (i.e., feudal contracts), such as fee tail in England, lord’s guardianship of minor or single heiresses, and Has the right to escheat of extinct fiefs. [twenty three]
But the need to divide the estate was strong, since nobles tended to have many sons, which was natural given their power and wealth, and was their ultimate motive (whether they realized it or not) for their status; The analysis found that, on average, the richest had half as many children as the poor, and had lower child mortality, leaving an average of nearly four adult children, while the poor had fewer than two, below the replacement level, except for the trough of the Black Death. During the period, the hereditary nobles left an average of about 1.8 adult sons, which is also nearly twice the number of ordinary people. [twenty four]
Not only parents can’t bear to see their children fall from aristocratic status, but sons who have no hope of inheriting their inheritance are often a curse, and many tragedies of conspiracy, collusion, and even fratricidal cannibalism have arisen from this. Strength, they are often more keen on war than other warriors, hoping to increase their ranks with military exploits, especially those conquest wars that are expected to open up new territories, they are more likely to win a territory for themselves, so feudal monarchs always A war is going to be launched in a few years, and they know that those restless children of nobles will cause trouble for themselves if they have no battle for many years.
Another way out is to pursue a variety of more respectable professional occupations after education, so as to maintain at least a kind of gentleman status, the most common in Western Europe are lawyers and church priests, and some are housekeepers for other nobles, or administrative bureaucrats for the royal family. (they were also originally stewards of the various functions of the monarch), with the increase in civilization and the prosperity of the monetary economy, more opportunities for advancement outside the military and administration appeared, and these developments produced a growing gentry. Gentry, which later became part of the upper middle class.
role of priest
In addition to force, another source of early power was the belief in supernatural powers, people believed that some mysterious forces were controlling natural phenomena and human destiny, and that some people were more or less able to influence and even manipulate these mysterious forces, causing them Lead in a direction that is beneficial or detrimental to a particular individual or group.
Like force, witchcraft (thought to) can be used to benefit groups, such as casting spells on enemies, influencing the migration routes of beasts, and procuring long-awaited spring rain for farmers, or as a means of harming others. Therefore, in the early egalitarian society, people who claimed to be masters of witchcraft or were considered to be masters of witchcraft, like master hunters or excellent warriors, were not only capable people that other group members often turned to and rely on, but also the objects they were always vigilant against. [25]
With the development of the hierarchical structure, the role of the wizard has also changed. In an egalitarian society, everyone can claim to have mana (that is, the ability to influence or manipulate supernatural power), without any qualification threshold or identification process, the ability to cast spells. There are also different methods, and there are no fixed rules. Whether a person’s shaman status is recognized or not depends on whether other people believe that he has this ability, and whether to believe it or not is completely up to each person to judge.
However, the forces that led to the ascension and hierarchies of the elite changed this in several ways: when clans became an important basis for power, some ancestral gods began to be endowed with supernatural powers, [26] thereby attaining the status of natural gods, and memory and Reciting family genealogy and ancestral myths became a means of approaching and pleasing the gods and gaining their favor. Importantly, this transition erected a threshold, and reciting long, complex stories is not something everyone can do. It takes some talent and training, and it has to be taught by someone, which gives the wizarding identity a kind of exclusivity.
Once some individuals have won this exclusive status, they will constantly strive to raise the threshold and establish new thresholds in order to prevent others from sharing or replacing their status; one of the ways is through the tediousness of rituals, and they propose various ways to please the gods, Such as singing and dancing, prayer and sacrifice, and claiming that certain rituals must be strictly followed in order to be effective, the point is that they cannot be learned without special instruction and long-term training.
The second is to invent various sanctuaries and sacred objects, claiming that sacred rituals must be performed in specific places with specific objects to be effective, which means that only those who control these objects and places can conduct rituals, and this control—— Like the transmission of epics and rituals – they can be handed over according to specific procedures or inherited according to certain rules, which greatly enhances the exclusivity of priesthood. Therefore, the appearance of temples and ritual vessels in archaeological remains is often accompanied by Other signs of social status differentiation. [27]
Why, then, are others willing to believe in the efficacy of these rituals and holy instruments? The key is to introduce timing. When people face some fateful juncture involving major interests, they will be very eager to find any possible causal relationship. At this time, they will lower the identification standard for accepting a causal belief, and are often willing to believe any causal relationship. It sounds plausible, it’s not because they suddenly lost their minds, but because the gain and loss ratio of such choices is seriously asymmetric, and if you believe it right, you may save your life, or win the war, or write Fortune, if the letter is wrong, it may just burn a stick of incense and kowtow for nothing (because these ceremonies usually do not require the parties to give up other efforts), this principle, we learn from shareholders, gamblers, players, etc. People who often face big wins and losses can see it very clearly, and they will continuously create all kinds of bizarre superstitions.
So, introduce a new exclusivity element (Ritual or Artifact) before a war, which can earn a great reputation once defeated, and it is safer to surreptitiously deface a candidate Artifact after defeat or disaster, It is also easy to persuade people to believe that, strangely enough, if a new element survives the first few tests of validity, it is expected to establish its venerable status, because after a few of these tests, the cause and effect of the The relationship is regarded as a law, and whenever it is not fulfilled, they will try to find other reasons: did not bathe and change before the incense? Did you not wash your hands before picking up the relic? Is the method of slaughtering the sacrifice wrong? —thus creating new elements of ritual and making the ritual more complex, which the priests like to see.
If it is combined with financial resources, the threshold can be further raised. For example, the use of precious materials to make sacred artifacts, decoration of temples, and sacrifice of gods with a large number of livestock are all unaffordable for ordinary people; or combined with force: like Azit Like the Nobles, they claimed that a large number of prisoners of war must be sacrificed in order to please the gods, and this demand can only be satisfied by a strong armed force.
From shamans, sorcerers, to priests, the work of dealing with supernatural forces has gradually become a specialized profession. The key to this transformation is that the knowledge, skills and tools required by practitioners are increasingly complex and expensive, and ordinary people It is unaffordable and unable to support the family, so it must be done by full-time workers who are separated from food production, and as the qualification threshold is raised, it is closed into a class. This and the heavy equipment of individual soldiers promote the emergence of the warrior class. look alike.
Priests have acquired a highly respected status, especially among Indo-European-speaking peoples, such as Celtic druids and Aryan Brahmins, because the effectiveness of their work is considered vital to the destiny of the community (brahmins) were high-ranking priests who, together with warriors and commoners, formed a ternary hierarchy that existed widely in early civilizations. [28]
There is both cooperation and competition between priests and samurai nobles. Priests need the financial and military support of nobles to build magnificent temples, make precious rituals, and obtain a large number of sacrifices for sacrifices in order to increase the exclusivity of their professions , and the nobles need to use the work of the priests to strengthen their power and prestige. Their pedigrees, bloodlines, relationships with mythical heroes and natural gods, and their own and their ancestors’ positions in the world order, etc. These claims, all need the priest’s claim. With cooperation and approval, by sponsoring the priests, they are trying to send the message to the public that any attempt to challenge the nobility will be futile, so it is best to dispel such thoughts, for the nobility is blessed by the most powerful and supreme god, whose Status comes from its noble lineage, as evidenced by the extraordinary deeds of its heroic ancestors.
On the other hand, both of them have a certain leeway in terms of specific support objects: nobles can focus on sponsoring temples dedicated to a certain god, thus elevating the status of relevant priests, priests can identify a noble with more noble blood, or even Claims that he is a direct descendant of some natural god.
What is important to the development of civilization is that the business composition of the priestly profession allows them to unwittingly play the role of maintaining a knowledge system for the group while making a living from it; Explain the power and temperament of each natural god, and in order to guard against potential competitors, they must give an explanation for every phenomenon that may cause confusion, and incorporate it into their own god system, lest people find and invent because of confusion other gods.
This forced them to develop a comprehensive theory of world order in order to rationalize the world and life cognitively: why the world is as it is, which gods are in charge of the various forces of nature, what sacrifices they prefer, why they are angry, Where do we come from, why do we live like this, why do we need to abide by these or those norms, and so on; at the same time, family myths to support noble bloodlines are also woven into the narrative, how a heroic ancestor showed Amazing talent, how to defeat evil gods, save human beings from water and fire, and finally incarnate into a natural god.
When the belief system changed towards moralization, the natural god became a moral god, and the priest began to play a new role: to explain the moral code for the community – what behavior was prohibited by the gods, and whether a specific behavior violated these prohibitions. Law; this is a major change, it gives priests a status similar to judges, but in the eyes of the ancients, this may not be very abrupt, in their eyes, this is still a work of communication between people and gods, but people treat Subtle changes have taken place in the way of gods. In the past, gods, like mortals, can bribe, please, coax, fool, and even intimidate. However, in a mature belief system, they become more and more unselfish and obey him in their actions. The decree of , gradually became the only way to obtain its favor. [29]
All of the above make priests the full-time defenders of the cultural traditions of the community. They are often philosophers (explaining the world order), historians (reciting genealogy, allusions, and traditions), poets and performing artists (writing and singing epics), jurisprudence Multiple roles such as home (interpreting customs and customary laws), ritual experts, fortune-tellers, prophets, etc. In short, all intellectual work except daily production and life and war experience are within the scope of their occupation.
Because cultural traditions are consistent within groups and can persist across individual lives, they become the basis for intragroup identity and intergroup differentiation: we have similar or compatible perceptions of the world and enjoy the blessing of a common deity They follow similar norms and are moved by the same myths and epics, so they are of the same kind. On the contrary, they are often bizarre in their thinking, behave in a perverse way, and worship idols of unknown origin.
This further strengthens the political power of the priests, because any king who wants to be recognized by the members of the community will claim to be the inheritor and defender of the tradition, and whether this claim is true or not, the priests, who are the defenders and spokespersons of the tradition, of course have weight The heaviest voice, the anointed coronation or similar ceremonies they preside then becomes the final confirmation of the legitimacy of the monarchy.
Opportunities for civilians
Not all civilizations developed a hierarchical structure like Germanic feudalism, many societies had a thinner aristocracy, or a bureaucratic elite that was less aristocratic, while homesteaders and free tenants made up the majority of the population, in some Greeks City-states, yeoman farmers even achieved dominant political power, establishing democracies and relatively egalitarian social structures that were rare in the ancient world. The roots of these differences were, at first, military and logistical, and later financial and administrative.
The main form of war between the Greek city-states was the duel of hoplites in a dense phalanx. The whole set of hoplites was very valuable, but it could still be afforded independently by a wealthy homesteading family, which was a very coincidental special case. , if they relied on two-wheeled chariots, as did the Bronze Age, or heavy cavalry, as the Europeans did in the Middle Ages, or, as some empires did, employing sea tactics, with a large number of poorly equipped and untrained infantry as cannon fodder, then the Greek Democracy probably won’t even exist.
We can see this more clearly from the example of the navy, Greece also has heavier equipment, such as bireme or trireme, but that is not individual equipment, warships are owned by the city government Built, taxed, a single warship could carry hundreds of rowers and warriors, mostly from the landless class of hired hands (thetes), who were unable to equip themselves but contributed brute force and thus did not have full citizenship. [30]
Therefore, the equal structure of Greece is only relatively speaking. It can be maintained and it benefits from its extensive and frequent colonial activities. Whenever the population pressure in a city-state rises to a certain level, it begins to plan an overseas colonization, and those land are in short supply. The family will let their sons draw lots, and the winners will join the colonial team. After gathering hundreds of people, they will pack equipment, get on the warship, and go to the colony to get a piece of property for themselves. If not, there will be more and more people. Being poor and thus losing political status, the equality structure will inevitably be broken. [31]
The examples of both Greece and Rome show that in an agricultural society, as long as you successfully maintain a property that is enough to support your family, you can maintain your status as a freedman; there were generally four strata in the Germanic tribes of Roman times, the top layer was the leader and his entourage warriors. Aristocrats, the bottom is slaves, usually from prisoners of war, and above them are former slaves who have been freed (freedman), but their freedom is not sufficient to fight as independence fighters (and of course have no chance to win the spoils), nor Eligible to serve as witnesses in judicial proceedings, and then up to the freeman (freeman), accounting for about 1/5 to 1/4 of the population, they have enough property to support their families and equipment, always go to war with the leader when needed, and have the qualifications to testify , and even have some former slaves as servants, the boundaries between the ranks are quite clear, and any promotion must be recognized by a specific ceremony. [32]
The reason why the Germanic tribes had a considerable proportion of free people may be that the cavalry (especially the heavy cavalry) was still in the minority at that time and did not become the main force in combat, while the infantry was equipped with self-cultivation farmers. shrunk; in medieval England, holders of small holdings (smaller than knightly lands) were called landed gentry, and those with smaller holdings were yeomans, [33] both small in size, they They were also required to serve on their holdings, usually as sentries, infantry, and archers, or in the county as police officers, wardens, bailiffs, and other low-ranking officials. With the improvement of the institutional environment, these two classes have grown greatly, [34] becoming an important source of members of the House of Commons, and constituted the main force of the Protestant movement in the future, as well as the main component of the Puritans who originally colonized North America. [35]
However, the influence of the infantry cannot be overestimated. The regime’s reliance on large-scale infantry (especially light infantry) will certainly weaken the power of the nobles (especially the middle and lower samurai nobles), but it will not necessarily allow the commoners to gain higher status or more rights. Modern countries with this effect usually have established constitutional government before, and the monarch does not have the freedom to arbitrarily requisition personnel and materials, while the infantry of the Qin state cannot see any advantages, and the Russian soldiers are even more miserable. Those who already have a reliable society An autocratic monarch who controls the means does not necessarily have to use political concessions to buy cannon fodder.
The rise of the profession
武士和祭司是等级社会的创始阶层，他们追逐和加固权势的努力创造出了最初的三元等级结构，但等级结构的持久存在推动了专业分工，因而创造出更多职业阶层。
这一过程大致分为两个阶段，最初的专业化源自贵族的强大财力和旺盛需求，他们不仅有能力在满足生存需要之外消费大量奢侈品，维持地位的努力本身也产生了对一些特殊物品的需求，武器，车舆，宫殿，神庙，礼器，招待门客随从和客人的美酒珍馐，各种用于装点身份的声望品（prestige goods），以及宴席和节庆上的歌舞表演，等等。
这些产品常因其较高的工艺要求而需要由专业工匠制造，或由商人长途贩运而来，于是其从业者便脱离了食物生产；不过，在这些职业出现的早期，由于消费群体过于狭窄，从业者的生计常完全依赖于个别主顾的需求，结果往往与后者形成某种依附关系，有时甚至陷于奴役地位；而另一方面，有些贵族则索性将这些行当作为一门生意来经营，其御用作坊的产出在满足自家需求之余，也向外销售。
当贵族建立的秩序逐渐扩展，财产和交易安全有了一定保障之后，分工体系才开始延伸进更多领域，生产工具，日用器具，金属加工，纺织品，陆续成为流通商品；在乡村，它们起初常以副业形式由农民利用季节性闲暇兼营，而在城镇，则更多发展为专门职业；大众商品市场的形成，使得工商业者不再依赖少数主顾，因而变得更独立更自由。
另一类专业分工源自于祭司角色的分化，这一方面是因为祭司维护的知识体系日益庞大，单一个体很难再全面掌握，但更重要的是文字的出现改变了传播方式，口述传统是完全依赖面对面传授的，可是一旦被书写下来，变成经文，它们被垄断独占的可能性就大大降低了，不仅抄写经文要比口授-背诵容易得多，而且经文可以自行研读，虽然难懂之处也常需要前辈讲解，但讲解本身也可以注释的方式记录下来，不必对每位学生再重复一遍。
这样一来，从事知识性工作的门槛便降低了，衣食无忧且有闲暇者皆可参与其中，而且文字极大提升了知识的可积累性，加上参与群体的扩大，成数量级的扩大了社会的知识总量，于是众多原本局限于祭司阶层的工作都分化而成为新专业，宗教的与世俗的，仪式的和神学的，历史与文学，医药与巫术，皆发生了分离。
上述职业分化让平民中条件较好的那些获得了上升机会，因为相比于技术变化缓慢的农业，这些新生职业对知识技能的要求往往更高，因而报酬也更丰厚，他们构成了最初的中产阶级，虽然在整个古代这一阶层始终非常纤薄，但他们在社会事务和创造性活动中占据的分量却不容小觑。
中产职业也为那些未能继承父辈地位的贵族子弟提供了一条次优出路，免于跌落到更低的位置，而贵族家庭背景对他们在这些行业立足大有助益，良好的教育让他们更能胜任知识性职业，家族的财富和社会资本（social capital）则可帮助他们开始一门生意。
沦落的途径
部落和前部落社会主要以血缘亲属纽带和文化同质性为凝聚力，在朝向等级社会的发展过程中，一些其他组织元素被创造出来，首领-扈从关系，与之相若的门客制，基于封建契约的领主-附庸关系，庇护-纳贡关系，霸权结构，以及后来的编制化军队和官僚行政机器，这些元素让社会结构更具扩展性，令其能够容纳非同源群体和异质文化，社会乃得以大型化。
然而，上述过程的武力基础和强制性质决定了，多元化并不是以对等方式发生的，极少出现若干小社会以完全平等关系对等合并的情况，即便盟友之间也会随实力消长而分出主从高低，那些主导这一过程的强势群体及其权贵，仍然携带着其原有文化特质和族群背景，并经由上层关系网络的发育而令其精英化，这就构成了一个未来更大社会的文化内核。 [36]
于是，与这一权力/文化内核之间的距离和关系便成了地位差异的一大来源，主动归附并承担纳贡义务的群体常能保持自由民身份，顽强抵抗而最终失败者常沦为奴隶，因安全或生计无着而零散归附者则可能委身为类似维兰（villein）这样的农奴。
当优势群体向外殖民扩张时，常将一个精英层强加在当地原有社会结构之上，而土著常丧失部分自由，当扩张跨越显著的生态边界时，地位落差会更加明显，因为边界两侧的生计模式极为不同，农牧对采猎，农耕者对牧民，定居农民对游耕者，谷物种植者对园艺农业者，文化隔膜都很深，往往分属不同语系，弱势一方很难在优势群体带来的新生计中有良好表现。 [37]
当班图农牧民跨越热带雨林屏障向南部非洲扩张时，桑人采猎者的生存空间大受挤迫，许多桑人只能以受雇为班图农民放牛谋生，沦于依附地位，中非丛林的俾格米人处境类似，出于生计需要，他们常主动认一位附近班图村庄的农民为“主人”，与之建立一种依附性的交换和互惠关系，虽然这两种关系都并非真正的奴役，但一个关键事实揭示了其不对等性：许多班图农民娶了桑人或俾格米女孩，或私下和她们生了孩子，但几乎没有反过来的情况。 [38]
这种不对称的性关系和基因流动普遍存在于族群间的非平等接触中，甚至可用作辨认此类不平等关系的标志，和班图人一样，印欧人在欧洲和南亚的扩张中，对男系基因的替代要比女系彻底的多，蒙古大征服中传播的也主要是男系基因，美洲的种族混血关系中，同样以欧洲男性与土著或非洲女性的结合占绝对优势。 [39]
以上是扩张融合期的情况，当等级社会既已成型之后，地位分化将更多以内生的方式进行（尽管扩张融合仍时有发生）；理解内生性分化的核心要点是社会规范，有两种情况会让一个人沦入社会底层，它们都和规范有关。
第一种较容易理解，有些人出于生计需要，不得不漠视某种既已确立的规范，例如黑社会直接挑战了主流社会秩序，乞丐则破坏了互惠或对等交换原则，还有娼妓，其生意和社会有关婚姻、性关系排他性和女性贞洁的规范直接冲突，因而不可避免的被归为贱业，在特别看重贞操并以闺禁严加防范的社会，任何需要女性抛头露面因而与陌生男性有大量接触机会的职业，都可能成为贱业，例如古代中国的乐户。
黑社会是更明显的例子，有些妓女和黑帮头目相当富有，但无论他们多有钱，衣着多豪华，举止多高雅，都不会被视为社会上流；类似的，在印度，一些职业的从业者之所以被视为贱民（untouchables），正是因为这些职业迫使他们不得不违背主流社会的某些禁忌，比如有关杀生和洁净的禁忌，实际上，不只在印度，屠夫，刽子手，处理垃圾、粪便、尸体、兽皮等“不洁物”的职业，在许多社会都列于贱业。
第二种情况更微妙，一个人能否维持体面地位将取决于：当他因违反规范而对他人造成损害时，受损者有多大可能追究其责任并获得补偿；难以追责和索偿的可能原因有很多，比如过于贫穷，杀人后付不起偿命金，但贫穷既不是其充分条件，也非必要，假如一个穷人身处大家族之中，而习俗要求家族为其行为承担连带责任，他就有了一份担保，因而地位也不会很低贱。
在定居社会，追责与索偿困难的一大来源是游动性，一个人若是来路不明或居无定所，受其侵犯者就很难追责，所以人们对游动群体总是持一种怀疑和疏远的态度，默认的认为他们不可信任，不值得与之发展严肃关系，因而更少给予尊重，这种刻板印象一旦成为公共态度，就成了决定社会地位的一股重要力量，所以历史上很多游动性职业都属于贱业，比如明代（和清前期）中国，挑个担子走街串巷兜售小商品，理发，收废品，或提供缝补之类服务，还有婚丧仪式上替人吹打的人，都被归入“堕民”一类，属贱民之一种。 [40]
这些职业内容和欧洲吉普赛人的很像，他们以住在大篷车里四处游动而闻名，实际上欧洲的几个贱民群体都是游动者，包括日耳曼裔的叶尼什人（Yenish）和爱尔兰裔的帕维人（Pavees），中国的疍民和九姓渔户则是水上游动者，捕鱼只是其收入一小部分，更多以向沿岸居民兜售小商品和提供各种低技能服务为生， [41]这些群体当然都十分贫穷，但不少农民同样贫穷，甚至更穷，却因其与土地的关系而保持了平民身份。
另一个影响地位的因素是财产性质，差别也在于追责可能性，同样是财产，房屋和土地这样的不动产增强其主人地位的功能远远强过动产，因为不动产容易被扣押，并且能产生稳定可期的收入流，因而是其主人信誉的可靠担保，相反，动产（特别是现金）很容易卷了跑路，所以在古代，同为有产者，商人地位远低于同等财富的地主，并且往往背负污名，即便在希腊这样十分倚重贸易的社会，商人也备受歧视。 [42]
农业时代的商人也可以非常富有，但要跻身上流，就必须将财富转变为地产，在等级森严，土地流通极为受限的贵族社会，这只能通过高攀婚（hypergamy）一步步实现，先找财务窘迫的低级土地绅士联姻，然后凭财力积极为领主效劳，争取获封骑士，或由其安排与某位骑士的女继承人结婚，经过多代努力，逐渐爬升至贵族阶层。
大离散后进入欧洲的犹太人以手工业、商业和金融业为生，有些相当富有，可是因为宗教障碍，无缘经由上述婚姻渠道向上爬升，因而长期处于受歧视和欺辱的地位，他们的职业构成清楚的展示了中世纪欧洲人对职业与地位之间关系的看法，正是因为这些职业受歧视，它们才被留给了地位低下的犹太人，反过来，也正是因为犹太人长期从事这些职业，才更加受欺凌，这是一个相互强化的过程。
注释：（其中所引文献详见〈参考文献〉）
[1] Paul Fussell (1983) 《格调》。
[2] Carles Boix & Frances Rosenbluth, “Bones of Contention: The Political Economy of Height Inequality,” in American Political Science Review , Volume 108, Issue 1, February 2014, pp.1-22.
[3] Chris White, “Head Space: Behind 10,000 Years of Artificial Cranial Modification,” Atlas Obscura , 26 May 2015.
[4] Richard Dawkins (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth , ch.3, color page 5.
[5]学界一般用“分工”（division of labour）来指称这里说的情况，但该术语往往暗示了一种自愿性质，而这是我在此处特别需要避免的，所以我决定采用“生计分化”这一新术语。
[6]持这一观点的学者极多，仅举一例：Jared Diamond (1999) Guns, Germs, and Steel , ch.12-14.
[7] Bruce Winterhalder & Douglas J. Kennett, “Behavioral Ecology and the Transition from Hunting and Gathering to Agriculture” in Douglas J. Kennett & Bruce Winterhalder (2006.ed) ch.1.
[8] Peter Watson (2012) 《大分离》，第4章。
[9] Alan H. Simmons (2007) The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East , pp.15-16.
[10]该时期大型动物的大批消失跟气候变化和人类狩猎活动可能都有关系，各占多大份量尚无定论，可参考：Gary Haynes (2009.ed) American Megafaunal Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene.
[11] Douglas J. Kennett & Bruce Winterhalder (2006.ed) ch.5-7.
[12] Alan H. Simmons (2007) ch.2; Wikipedea: broad spectrum revolution.
[13]有关食谱拓展、技术创新、人口增长、游动性和领地化这几个因素之间的关系，我在题为〈食物与人类〉的系列文章中曾有更细致的讨论，见其中第6篇“向下开拓”（HS:7954）。
[14]这段逻辑的更详细叙述可见我的博客文章〈马尔萨斯弹簧〉（HS: 6798）。
[15] Timothy K. Earle (1997) ch.4; Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus (2012) part.4.
[16] Wikipedea: Human sacrifice; Bruce G. Trigger (2003) 第12，21章；Peter Watson (2012) 第21章。
[17] Marc Bloch (1939) 《封建社会》，第21-22章。
[18]有关早期首领或君主对扈从的依赖，可参考：Marc Bloch (1939) 第11章；Peter Heather (2007) The Fall of the Roman Empire , ch.2; Timothy K. Earle (1997) ch.4.
[19] Marc Bloch (1939) 第4章；Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus (2012) ch.16.
[20] Michael Dietler, “Driven by Drink: The Role of Drinking in the Political Economy and the Case of Early Iron Age France”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology , 352-406 (1990); Peter Heather (2007) ch.2.
[21] Christopher Dyer (1998) Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages, ch.3,5, pp.278-283; Ian Mortimer (2010) The Time Traveler’s Guide to Medieval England , ch.5; Marc Bloch (1939) 第11章。
[22] Murray Johnston (2018) The Watford Knight’s Fee .
[23] Frederic W. Maitland (1908) 《英格兰宪政史》，第1.B章。
[24] Gregory Clark (2007) A Farewell To Alms , ch.6. 须注意的是，这里说的穷人只是相对而言，是遗嘱金额分组中最低两组，绝非底层潦倒者，他们至少能留下几英镑遗产且值得为此专门订立书面遗嘱并在遗嘱法庭备案。
[25] Christopher Boehm (2001) ch.1-4.
[26]我在《群居的艺术》中曾解释了宗族内的合作需要如何创造了祖先神，见辉格（2017）第II.8章。
[27] Kent Flannery & Joyce Marcus (2012) ch.8,9.
[28] Bruce G. Trigger (2003) ch.21,22; Wikipedia: Trifunctional hypothesis.
[29]这一转变的更多分析，见辉格（2017）第II.8章。
[30] Brian A. Pavlac (2015) A Concise Survey of Western Civilization , Vol.1, 2nd ed., ch.4；Oswyn Murry (1993)《早期希腊》，第8，10章。
[31] Oswyn Murry (1993) 第7章。
[32] Peter Heather (2009) Empires and Barbarians , ch.2.
[33] landed gentry是个分类而非实际采用的头衔，包括两种特定绅士：纹章绅士（esquire）和一般绅士（gentleman），前者有资格拥有自己的纹章，大约是因为他们有着贵族血统，参见Ian Mortimer (2010) ch.2.
[34] Christopher Dyer (2000) Everyday Life in Medieval England , ch.1.
[35] David H. Fischer (1989)《阿尔比恩的种子》，第1部。
[36] Azar Gat & Alexander Yakobson (2013) Nations , ch.1,4.
[37] David W. Anthony (2007) The Horse, the Wheel, and Language , ch.6.
[38] Nancy Howell (2010) ch.2; Kevin Duffy (2013) Children of the Forest , ch.4.
[39] David Reich (2018) ch.10.
[40]经君健(2009) 《清代社会的贱民等级》，第8章。
[41] Isabel Fonseca (1996) Bury Me Standing ; Wikipedia: Yenish, Irish Travellers; 经君健（2009）第8章。
[42] Oswyn Murry (1993) 第13章；Robert Garland (2008) Daily Life of the Ancient Greeks , ch.6.
本文转自： http://headsalon.org/archives/9007.html
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.