Oriental Despotism
Author | Karl August Wittfogel |
---|---|
Country | United States |
Publisher | Yale University Press |
Publication date | 1957 |
Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power is a book of political theory and
The book was both welcomed as an historically grounded analysis of despotism that warned the West against the expansion of Communist totalitarianism and criticized as a Cold War polemic. The materialist and ecological theories in Oriental Despotism influenced ecological anthropologists and global economic historians even though some of them found fault with its methodology and empirical basis or questioned Wittfogel's political motives.[1]
Background
Wittfogel, who was educated in German centers of sinology and joined the
Wittfogel suggested Asia was immobile because rulers controlled society but there were no slaves, as in Marx's slave society, nor serfs, as in feudal society: there were no classes, no class conflict, and thus no change. This proposition did not explain how rulers gained their absolute power and why no forces in society opposed them. Wittfogel asked whether there was an explanation found only in these societies. Marxists in both the Soviet Union and in Western countries explored these questions as important in themselves, but with special heat because both liberals and conservatives in the West wanted to decide whether Stalin's Russia was an authentic communist system in Marx's sense or whether it was itself an example of oriental despotism. One historian of the concept remarks that for Wittfogel, "the analysis of Asia was actually intended as a discussion of political relationships within the 'West'". [3]
In the late 1920 and early 1930s, orthodox theorists in Moscow spurned Wittfogel's views because they differed from Stalin's and Chinese Marxists rejected them also because they implied that China did not have the capability to develop. On a trip to Moscow, however, Wittfogel met the young Chinese scholar
Publication
Beginning in the 1930s, Wittfogel pursued research projects that formed a background and preparation for Oriental Despotism and published articles presenting aspects of its argument. He finished a manuscript in 1954, but for several years publishers turned it down. Perhaps the topic did not seem attractive or perhaps the political atmosphere seemed hostile to a book with a Marxist argument even if that argument was strongly critical of the Soviet Union and the communist government in China. Wittfogel may have had to supply a publication subsidy to Yale University Press.[citation needed]
The structure and argument of the book
The book has ten chapters:
- Chapter 1. "The Natural Setting Of Hydraulic Society," explains the geographical settings of Moghul empire, Incan Peru, and 20th century Marxist-Leninist regimes. He prefers the term "hydraulic" rather than "Oriental," but uses the terms interchangeably.
- Chapter 2. "Hydraulic Economy,- A Managerial And Genuinely Political Economy"
- Chapter 3. "A State Stronger Than Society"
- Chapter 4. "Despotic Power, - Total And Not Benevolent": The absence of effective constitutional and societal checks and "beggars' democracy.
- Chapter 5. "Total Terror, Total Submission, Total Loneliness" argue that "hydraulic government" is despotic by its very nature. This was a form of "total power" because there were no social, legal, or cultural constraints. Wittfogel also denies that in the case of imperial China there were "rights of rebellion", such as other Chinese and foreign scholars have seen, but he does hold that a "law of diminishing administrative returns" kept rulers from controlling all aspects of their subjects' lives, so that "genuine elements of freedom remained." [6] This freedom, however, amounted only to a "beggar's democracy." [7] The "rationality coefficient of hydraulic society" means the society's ability to get things done, operating at three levels at which the government must be effective: managing the agrarian economy, ("managerial"); using corvee and taxes, ("consumptive"); and maintaining peace and order, ("judicial) [8]
- Chapter 6. "The Core, The Margin, And The Submargin Of Hydraulic Societies,"
- Chapter 7. Patterns Of Proprietary Complexity In Hydraulic Society
- Chapter 8. Classes In Hydraulic Society
- Chapter 9. The Rise And Fall Of The Theory Of The Asiatic Mode Of Production
- Chapter 10. Oriental Society In Transition
Reception
The initial reaction to Oriental Despotism in the American press was wide and warm. Reviewers noted that Wittfogel had been working on these questions in some form since the 1930s but that the book was important for understanding the post-war world. The reviewer in
Area specialist scholars, however, questioned the concept for their particular regions.
The British anthropologist Edmund Leach objected that most of the hydraulic civilisations of the past were in semi-arid regions where irrigation "did not require a despotic monarch to build vast aqueducts and reservoirs; it simply called for elementary and quite localised drainage construction and perhaps the diversion of river flood water into the flat lands on either side of the main stream." Leach further objected that Wittfogel did not deal with India, the state which Marx saw as the ideal type of "Asiatic society", and ignored the other states of South and Southeast Asia, which were all "hydraulic societies."[12]
The sociologist
The reception among scholars of China was especially skeptical. The
Gregory Blue of the University of Toronto commented that "despite its analytical sweep and evident learning, Wittfogel's model made it difficult to understand why government involvement in Chinese social life seemed to have been distinctly limited during the imperial era (221 B.C.E. - 1911 CE.) or how Chinese society could have ever flourished at all". Wittfogel's reading of China as a hydraulic despotism, Blue speculated, also aimed to undermine John Fairbank's "Grand Alliance distinction between 'fascist-conservative and communist-progressive forms of totalitarianism'..." [16] Another historian of the Ming dynasty, Timothy Brook, wrote that historians were burdened with the task of responding to Wittfogel's charge that the dynasty was "despotic," one that he did not think was justified.[17]
Perry Anderson objected that the concept of the Asiatic Mode of Production was too broad to be meaningful:
- A ubiquitous ‘Asiatism’ [sic] represents no improvement on a universal ‘feudalism’: in fact, it is even less rigorous as a term. What serious historical unity exists between Ming China and Megalithic Ireland, Pharaonic Egypt and Hawaii? It is perfectly clear that such social formations are unimaginably distant from one another. [18]
Anderson continued that “this vulgar charivari, devoid of any historical sense, jumbles together pell-mell Imperial Rome, Tsarist Russia, Hopi Arizona, Sung China, Chaggan East Africa, Mamluk Egypt, Inca Peru, Ottoman Turkey, and Sumerian Mesopotamia – not to speak of Byzantium or Babylonia, Persia, or Hawaii.” [19]
Wittfogel's biographer Gary Ulmen replied to these criticisms that to focus on "hydraulic despotism" was to misunderstand Wittfogel's general thesis. In fact, Ulmen continued, Wittfogel had considered a number of alternative ways to frame his proposition and there were many more demonstrations of the theory than "hydraulic" despotism. [20]
Wittfogel wrote in 1960 that the People's Republic of China was not a "hydraulic society," but that it represented a "stronger form of oriental despotism." [21]
Influence
Oriental Despotism was influential for its methodology and its findings.
The water-control thesis encouraged the development of the field of
The political geographer
Political implications
David Price, a scholar of Cold War social science, declared that Wittfogel's writings "become so mired in his personal anti-communist crusade that it can be difficult to disentangle his anti-totalitarian vehemence from his theoretical contributions." Price argued that Wittfogel took advantage of the fact that he was one of the few Asia scholars to cooperate with Cold War investigations and that this cooperation protected his Marxist analysis from criticism; Wittfogel's ecological materialism escaped criticism even in the
David Landes, a Harvard historian of comparative East/West economic and social development, struck back: the "hydraulic thesis has been roundly criticized by a generation of Western sinologists zealous in their political correctness (Maoism and its later avatars are good) and quick to defend China’s supposed commitment to democracy. Wittfogel is the preferred target." Landes explained these criticisms by saying that "almost all these critics of the water connection are courting the favor of an umbrageous regime, dispenser of invitations and access.”[35]
Notes
- ^ Robbins (2010), pp. 56-57.
- ISBN 9780429855344.
- ^ a b Stanziani (2014), pp. 17-18.
- ^ Rowe (1985), p. 264.
- ^ Chi (1936).
- ^ Wittfogel (1957), p. 124.
- ^ Mote (1961), p. 1.
- ^ Mote (1961), p. 2.
- ^ Jones (1958), p. 306.
- ^ Offner (1981), p. 43.
- ^ Abrahamian (1974).
- ^ Tambiah (2002), p. 211 ff.
- ^ Eisenstadt (2003), p. 418.
- ^ Mote (1961), p. 5.
- ^ Mote (1961), p. 36.
- ^ a b Blue (2000), p. 22.
- ^ Timothy Brook, Chinese State in Ming Society
- ^ Anderson (1979), p. 486.
- ^ Anderson (1979), pp. 487 n. 4.
- ^ Ulmen (1978).
- ^ Wittfogel (1960), p. ??.
- ^ Needham (1959), p. 59.
- .
- ^ Hsiao (1967), p. 108.
- ^ Miller
- ^ Robbins (2010).
- ^ a b Price (2013), p. 936.
- ISBN 978-0759101326. pp. 671- 674
- ^ "Hydraulic Civilization" Encyclopedia Britannica (Online)
- ^ a b Blaut (1993), p. 83- 90.
- ^ Jones, Eric L. (1987). The European Miracle: Environments, Economies, and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia. Cambridge University Press. e.g. pp. xxxi, 9-10, 203, 206, 211
- ^ Masubuchi (1966).
- ^ Robbins (2010), p. 57.
- ^ Wittfogel (1957), p. 449.
- ISBN 978-0393040173.
Wittfogel.
, p. 27.
Sources
Wittfogel's writings on Oriental Despotism
- Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas, Versuch der wissenschaftlichen Analyse einer großen asiatischen Agrargesellschaft, (Hirschfeld: Leipzig, Schriften des Instituts für Sozialforschung der Universität Frankfurt am Main, No. 3; 1931)
- —— (1936). "Key Economic Areas in Chinese History (Review)". Pacific Affairs. 9 (3): 449–450. JSTOR 2750659.
- —— (1938). "New Light on Chinese Society: An Investigation of China's Socio-Economic Structure". NY: International secretariat Institute of Pacific relations.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - with Jiasheng Feng (1949). History of Chinese Society: Liao, 907-1125. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, with the cooperation of the American Institute of Pacific Relations.
- —— (1955). "Oriental Society in Transition with Special Reference to Pre-Communist and Communist China". The Far Eastern Quarterly. 14 (4): 469–478. S2CID 165540094.
- —— (1956–1957). "Chinese Society: A Historical Survey". Journal of Asian Studies. 16 (3): 343–364. S2CID 161204356.
- —— (1957). Oriental Despotism; a Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven: Yale University Press – via Internet Archive.
- —— (1958). "(Review) Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China". American Anthropologist. 60 (2): 398–400. JSTOR 665188.
- —— (1960). "A Stronger Oriental Despotism". The China Quarterly (1): 29–34. JSTOR 763342.
- —— (1969). "Results and Problems of the Study of Oriental Despotism". Journal of Asian Studies. 38 (2): 357–365. S2CID 147186184.
Major reviews
- JSTOR 2088810.
- S2CID 163098192.
- Jones, Stephen B. (1958). "Oriental Despotism (Review)". Geographical Review. 48 (2): 306–308. JSTOR 212153.
- JSTOR 43382295.
- JSTOR 40400613.
- Palerm, Angel (1958). "Review". American Antiquity. 23 (4): 440–441. S2CID 164066742.
- S2CID 162716357
- Sherman, A. V. (1959). "(Review) Oriental Despotism". Commentary. January 1.
- Toynbee, Arnold J. (1958), "Review of Oriental Despotism", The American Political Science Review, 52 (1)
- Venturi, Franco (1968). "Oriental Despotism". Journal of the History of Ideas. 24 (1): 133–142. JSTOR 2707864.
Further reading
- Anderson, Perry (1979). Lineages of the Absolutist State. London; New York: Verso Editions. ISBN 978-0860917106.
- Abrahamian, Ervand (1974). "Oriental Despotism: The Case of Qajar Iran". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 5 (1): 3–31. S2CID 154871428.
- ISBN 978-0898623499.
- Blue, Gregory (2000). China and the Writing of World History in the West (PDF). (Conference paper) XIXth International Congress of Historical Sciences. Oslo.
- Brook, Timothy (1989). The Asiatic Mode of Production in China. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0873325424.
- Chi, Chʻao-ting (1936). Key Economic Areas in Chinese History, as Revealed in the Development of Public Works for Water-Control. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Eisenstadt, Shmmuel Noah (2003), "Civil Society, Public Sphere, The Myth of Oriental Despotism and Political Dynamic in Islamic Societies", Comparative Civilizations and Multiple Modernitities Pt. 1, Leiden: Brill, pp. 418–434
- Hsiao, Kung-ch'üan (1967). Rural China: Imperial Control in the Nineteenth Century. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
- Karl, Rebecca E. (2017), The Magic of Concepts : History and the Economic in Twentieth-Century China, Durham: Duke University Press, Ch 2, "Thr Economic and the State: The Asiatic Mode of Production."
- Masubuchi, Tatsuo (1966). "Wittfogel's Theory of Oriental Society (or Hydraulic Society) and the Development of Studies of Chinese Social and Economic History in Japan" (PDF). The Developing Economies. 4 (3): 316–326. .
- Offner, Jerome A. (1981). "On the Inapplicability of" Oriental Despotism" and the" Asiatic Mode of Production" to the Aztecs of Texcoco". American Antiquity. 46 (1): 43–61. S2CID 163992626.
- Price, David (2013). "Karl Wittfogel". In McGee, R. Jon; Warms, Richard L. (eds.). Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. pp. 935–936.
- Robbins, Paul (2010). Political Ecology : A Critical Introduction. Wiley. ISBN 9780470657324.
- Rowe, William T. (1985). "Chinese Social History". In Zunz, Olivier (ed.). Reliving the Past: The Worlds of Social History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. pp. 236–294. ISBN 978-0807816585.
- Rubiés, Joan-Pau (2005). "Oriental Despotism and European Orientalism: Botero to Montesquieu". Journal of Early Modern History. 9 (1–2): 109–180. .
- Stanziani, Alessandro (2014). After Oriental Despotism: Eurasian Growth in a Global Perspective. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1472523532.
- Tambiah, Stanley Jayaraja (2002). "'Hydraulic Society in Ceylon': Contesting Wittfogel's Thesis and Sri Lankan Mytho-history". Edmund Leach: An Anthropological Life. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press. pp. 210–234. ISBN 9780521521024.
- Ulmen, G. L. (1978). The Science of Society: Toward an Understanding of the Life and Work of Karl August Wittfogel. The Hague; New York: Mouton. ISBN 978-9027977663.
External links
- David Cosandey, "Karl Wittfogel (1896-1988)," The Rise of the West
- "Oriental Despotism" by Rolando Minuti Published: 2012-05-03
- Marxist Geopolitics: Oriental Despotism A Comparative Study of Total Power