Strayer 6, Consolidating Social Inequality

12/9/2014

Okay, so now it's time to listen to what I'm telling you to do. 1. Get this chapter read and annotated this weekend. 2. Answer all the margin and big picture questions in your own hand. #. reorganize the information using T-charts, timelines, mind maps and outlines.

I will definitely ask you to contrast Classical/Ancient slavery with the Atlantic slave trade version.

51 Comments

bingham

13/9/2014 13:02:32

"come back with your shield...or on it!" - Bingham

Lorenz

14/9/2014 08:53:35

THIS...IS...WHAP!!!

Bethany

13/9/2014 16:26:56

Does this chapter seem really dense to anyone else? For some reason, to me this chapter seems to have had the most info. crammed into it of any of the ones we've read so far. I mean there's six BP questions for this chapter instead of the usual four! There are so many t charts and timelines to be made from this! I can see why you told us to get all the margin and BP questions done early on Mr. Bingham.

I'm gonna go ahead and attempt the first margin question: How would you describe the social hierarchy of classical China?

The social hierarchy of China was composed of four strata: Elite Officials, Landlords, Peasants, and Merchants.
Elite Officials gained their positions by attending school and scoring well on exams. Though in theory open to all men, in general only the wealthy could afford to send their kids to school. Nonetheless, a village community or local landowner might sponsor a boy from a common family, enabling him to enter into the elite circle. Thus the examination system allowed for a modest degree of social mobility. Proximity to the capital and family connections to the imperial court could also help one enter the circle of elites.
The Landlord class emerged when small scale peasant farmers were pressured into selling their land to their prosperous neighbors. These neighbors accumulated large amounts of land, and thus wealth, in large estates. State authorities were opposed to this, as these Landlords were able to avoid paying taxes, which decreased state income and forced peasants to pay higher taxes. In some cases, Landlords could raise a military force and challenge the emperor. Large landowning families soon came to be known as scholar-gentry, as they were both wealthy and powerful.
The majority of Chinese civilization was composed of peasants. Some peasants could own enough land to support their families and sell something on the local market, but many struggled just to survive. Peasants were plagued by nature, the state, and landlords. Many peasants were forced to sell their land and become sharecroppers. These horrible conditions generated periodic peasant rebellions, the most notable of which was the Yellow Turban Rebellion, which was supported by Daoist beliefs. Though suppressed, the rebellion devastated the economy, weakened the state, and led to the overthrow of the dynasty, a recurring cycle in Chinese history.
While peasants, though exploited, were honored by the scholar-gentry for their hard work and endurance in the face of difficulty, merchants were despised by the elites. Merchants were seen as unproductive, greedy, materialistic, and luxury loving, making a shameful profit by selling others' works. They were also a social threat as their wealth which was gained by illegitimate methods impoverished others, deprived the state of income, and cultivated growing resentment. Though they were discriminated against, most merchants became very wealthy. They attempted to achieve higher social status by purchasing landed estates or educating their sons for the civil service exams. Many were involved in covert relationships with state officials and landlords who were not opposed to doing business with merchants, finding them useful.

Hope that wasn't too long. I know I got kinda specific in places.

Bingham

14/9/2014 01:56:56

I agree, it is dense. I have some theories about that, one is that for most of us, social history is unfamiliar. I think this prompts Strayer to flesh out these topics more thoroughly. I have another theory I'll bring up in class.

You've done an excellent job here, but I think you need to tighten up your summaries a bit to make them useful in preparation for the test.

Bethany

14/9/2014 07:00:24

Yeah, it is a bit lengthy. I'll revise it.

Bingham

14/9/2014 07:34:35

By the way, I chided you over the summer for being too literal. I cautioned you that this material is not black and white, that you needed to "get" that this class deals in a fluid middle ground.

Bingham

14/9/2014 07:36:12

Darn glitchy iPad! I want to compliment you for making the adjustment to this class so rapidly. Well done, I'm proud of you!

Glitchy iPad

14/9/2014 08:55:15

You ol' softy you!

Lorenz Lope

14/9/2014 08:58:05

Just for anyone listening, when strayer use the phrase " The case of ... (i.e. Rome, China, etc.)" what does he mean? Does It pretty much just mean find what made _ different than the other people/societies/places that explored the same theme.

Bethany

14/9/2014 09:10:15

Thanks, Mr. Bingham! :)

Augi

15/9/2014 10:41:15

Could someone describe to me the difference between the landlords and the elite in the Chinese social structure? Later when reflecting Strayer groups them together in the scholar-gentry, but he takes the time to write two separate sections for each.

Cristina Micci

15/9/2014 10:50:22

The elites are the actual men that are the bureaucrats/political officials (who are the highest of the upper class), while the landlords account for everyone else in the upper class. These are the wealthy families that usually are the ones able to send their sons for education for the examination system. They have the connections to the elite through their sons. And I'm pretty sure Strayer does not consider both classes to be the scholar-gentry, just the landlords. I kind of assume that both classes kind of hang out in the same social circle, it's just that the elites have the political position while the landlords are just a bunch of rich dudes that benefit from having a connection to the elites as well as the profit from their estates.

Bridget Fenner

16/9/2014 13:35:46

Also, the elites in China had to go through an academy to be considered to be officials, so they had a position that they earned through attending this school (established by emperor Wu Di, though I don't think his name is that important to remember, just the fact that these academies existed and that's how you became a bureaucratic elite in China). Usually the wealthy sent their sons, but every now and then a talented and bright commoner boy could be sent there by a village sponsor, accounting for some social mobility in classical China.

Allie

16/9/2014 13:49:33

Strayer says that landlords "benefited from the power and prestige that accompanied membership in the official elite". So I do think that some landlords did have political power. Also Christina is right in that just the landlords were the scholar-gentry.

Cristina Micci

15/9/2014 11:03:15

How did the Greco-Roman slavery differ from that of other classical civilizations?
(I'm abbreviating Greco-Roman with GR)
The GR world was a slave society- dependent of slaves as their sources of labor, while the other civilizations depended more of their lower classes to do all the work. In Greece and Rome, slaves made up almost a third of the total population, while in other civilizations slaves had them as a minority. Lastly, in the GR civilizations (mostly Rome) slaves did all sorts of jobs: from farmers to doctors to servants of the emperor, from low and degraded work to high and prestigious occupations. In contrast, the slaves in other civilizations tended to be limited to domestic service/servitude.

So yeah thats all i got for this one at the moment let me know if im missing stuff

Elizabeth BB

15/9/2014 13:21:17

For the question "In what ways did the expression of Chinese patriarchy change over time, and why did it change?" I got:

Chinese patriarchy changed from strictly defined with Confucianism ideologies of thinking in now gendered terms of pairs of opposites to a more loosely defined patriarchy with fewer restrictions on women because of the collapse of the Han Dynasty that led to the vanishing of central authority, discrediting of Confucianism (and growth of Buddhism and Daoism), invasions and cultural influence by pastoral and nomadic peoples. The discrediting of Confucianism caused the discrediting of the idea of males being the superior gender who should participate in public and political life while women were the inferior gender who should only participate in domestic life. The reign of Empress Wu and Daoism changed this idea as well, since Empress Wu was a woman who exercised significant political power and Daoism and Buddhism placed women in high spiritual positions rather than subordinating them to their fathers, husbands, and sons. The invasions by nomadic peoples whose women were less restricted brought new roles for women that depicted elite women with political power and further weakened the “three obediences” idea.

Is this too long? Am I forgetting anything?

Bingham

15/9/2014 14:23:13

Elizabeth, this is good, but not much differently organized that Strayer. Tighten this up by clearly addressing the two parts of this question. List 1. What changed regarding Chinese patriarchy, ie, fewer restrictions on women after the Han, Empress We as a female example, Buddhist opportunities for women, declining view of men as superior. 2. Why did it change, ie, invader's more equal practices, collapse of Central authority, discrediting of confucianism, increased interest in Daoism /Buddhism.

Bethany

15/9/2014 14:40:20

This is what I've got for the first Big Picture question: What is the difference between class and caste?

The caste system allowed for even less social mobility than the class system. The caste system defined social order more clearly then the class system. While the caste system had many specific social groupings, the class system had only a few, broad levels of social organization. Unlike the class system, the caste system was justified by religion.

Am I missing anything?

Bridget Fenner

16/9/2014 13:41:46

Instead of saying "the caste system defined social order more clearly than the class system" I'd say it defined social hierarchy more rigidly, since both systems were clear, but the caste system was more detailed then the broad social class system. Just a tiny fix, but it could be substantial in understanding the systems, or I'm just being too detailed. Everything else looks great!

Bethany

16/9/2014 13:58:12

That makes sense. Thanks!

James O.

18/9/2014 12:57:39

Also, the class system's version of social mobility was more individualistically based (Lower class chinese men could become high ranking officials) Whereas the caste's version of social mobility was based on the subdivision or jati as a whole (the whole jati, not an individual could move higher up in the hierarchy of jatis)

Also, the class system's social mobility (the lower class chinese men becoming high officials through education) could take ONLY a few years, whereas the social mobility of caste (jatis moving higher up) took centuries

Allie

16/9/2014 13:44:33

I would also suggest adding that in the class system political leaders have the most power and prestige in the society whereas in a caste system religious leaders and religion in general are the priority. I think this would just help expand your last point.

Also I found big picture question number 1 and margin question number 5 to be very similar. There answers would be closely related correct or am I looking at these questions incorrectly?

Bethany

16/9/2014 13:59:23

Thanks for the input, I'll add that to my answer. To me they look like the same question just phrased differently. But I don't know.... Mr. Bingham?

Bethany V.

16/9/2014 14:00:31

The one difference I see is they specify the Chinese class system in the margin question, but not in the BP question

Bethany V.

16/9/2014 14:27:35

My take on BP?3: What philosophical, religious, or cultural ideas served to legitimate the class and gender inequalities of classical civilizations?

In China, Confucianism justified class inequalities, asserting that it was natural to have unequal relationships. As is illustrated in Ban Zhao's writings, Confucianism also supported patriarchy, believing that women should serve men. It was asserted that women should occupy the role of the inferior in domestic life, with them being subordinate to their fathers, husbands, and sons.
Hinduism justified Indian class inequality (caste system) through notions such as karma, rebirth, and moksha, as well as through the concept the varna were formed out of the body of the god Parusha. It was asserted that people were superior to others because they had done good deeds in past lives.
Christianity justified slavery in the Roman empire as it is said in the bible that slaves should obey their masters, whether they are gentle or harsh.
Greek rationalists such as Aristotle justified slavery and patriarchy. Aristotle asserted that slaves were "slaves by nature." He also asserted that women were just "infertile men" who were inadequate because they lacked the important component in making a baby, sperm. Greek culture and rationale saw women as instinctive, passionate, and without rationale, and were compared with domestic animals.

Jackson Wagner

16/9/2014 14:27:48

So for BPQ #2 : Why was slavery more prominent in Greco-Roman civilization than in China and India. I was thinking the answer would be that both China and India had a social level already cut out for the work that slaves would do, for the Indians it was the untouchables, and the Chinese had the peasant class. Am i interpreting it wrong?

Elizabeth BB

16/9/2014 14:31:08

I agree with you, but I think you could add more to it. For example, Greco-Roman slavery was practiced on a much larger scale than in classical India and China. Also, slaves in the G-R societies occupied a diversity of jobs ranging from the most prestigious to the most degrading.

Bethany

16/9/2014 14:35:44

I also agree.The economies of the Greco-Roman civilizations relied more on slavery than the economies of India or China, most likely for the reason you specified above Jackson. That would make sense to me.

Jackson Wagner

16/9/2014 14:34:59

But isn't the question asking for why it was more prominent in G-R societies rather than just the differences between them. I feel like that stuff on this question would fall into the related not relevant category, but i could be wrong.

Bethany V.

16/9/2014 14:38:31

I see what you're saying. I guess we have to ask questions like why was slavery practiced on a huge scale in Greco-Roman societies? and why did slaves in G-R societies occupy all occupations when they didn't in China or India?

Bingham

19/9/2014 00:37:04

Here's what I have...

• There were far more slaves in the Greco-Roman world.
• Slaves played a critical role in the economy of the Greco-Roman civilization.
• Slaves participated in a more diverse array of occupations in the Roman Empire than they did in other classical civilizations—from among the highest and most prestigious positions to the lowest and most degraded ones.

Jackson Wagner

16/9/2014 14:47:28

I agree with the first question, and maybe I'm being picky, but from what i can see, all the question is asking, is why was slavery more prominent. Still I agree that those are good questions to think about

Bethany

16/9/2014 14:57:22

Slavery was more prominent in G-R societies due to the many available sources of slaves. The expansive nature of Rome meant that there were many prisoners of war that had to be put to use somehow. Their position on the Mediterranean also meant that pirates were constant sources of slaves (I don't know whether India or China had pirates).

That's just my shot in the dark haha.

Libby Carr

16/9/2014 16:41:11

We could also add that in India, b/c of the caste system, everyone had a right to demand pay for the work they did, which caused no slavery to develop.

Libby Carr

16/9/2014 16:45:36

Sorry, I understand that that was more or less the original answer, I was just giving an example.

Bridget Fenner

17/9/2014 13:37:16

That's not a shot in the dark at all; I was about to mention that in case no one else did. That is a huge part of the answer; and for Jackson, the question is in fact asking why slavery was more prominent, but if you look at that question closely, it's asking you to tell why there were more slaves in G-R society, not so much how they came to be in G-R societies and less in India and China.
It's all about G-R economy being substantially dependent on slaves, the vast quantity of slaves there, and the availability of any occupation for slaves (think back to the example of a slave being an advisor to the king because the king could trust his slave to act in his best interest, instead of the king's bureaucratic equals, because they were always vying for power), wether that be working in the fields or fighting as a gladiator or being an advisor to the king. I wouldn't write down all of that, but it's good to know for your own understanding of the question.

Bethany

16/9/2014 15:08:14

I'm stuck on the 5th BP?: What changes in the patterns of social life of the classical era can you identify? What accounts for these changes?

To me it seems like there wasn't much consequential change. I mean there was the Yellow Turban Revolution and Spartacus' revolt, but both succumbed to state authority. The Yellow Turban Revolution weakened the state and led to the collapse of the Han Dynasty, but it didn't really affect class inequality in the following dynasties (I don't think it did at least). Chinese patriarchy loosened after the collapse of the Han Dynasty, but that wasn't a pattern that occurred in the other societies as far as I can tell. It kinda seems like mainly what happened during the classical era was that religious and philosophical ideas were strengthened, and these in turn reinforced class inequality and patriarchy.

Libby Carr

16/9/2014 16:10:21

I agree that the rebellions are both changes, because in Classical Civilizations before we hadn't seen slave revolts.
I also agree that the post-Han patriarchy deteriorated partly because of adoption nomadic cultures and Empress Wu and the adoption of Daoism (which promoted women), but China also changed after the Han collapse as centralized government disappeared and Daoism and Buddhism flourished a little more.

I'm moving backwards in this answer, but I believe that there was social change patriarchally, in slavery, and even in the caste/class systems.

The Athens patriarchy was tightening while the Chinese and Spartan patriarchies loosened, and we know that Indian patriarchies were very present, but they did not change, so that can't be accounted for. (correct me if I'm wrong). So those are the patriarchal patterns.

For slaves, the social patterns of domestication of animals, prisoners of war, class inequalities, and male dominance led to the development of slavery, though it changed throughout the world.
In Greece and Rome, slavery developed into a massive society as democracy developed in Athens and as Sparta gathered more and more POWs. That definitely accounted for changes in social life, as now even modest people owned 2 or 3 slaves, and rich people could own thousands. This huge slave society led to slave rebellions (Spartacus).

The class system of China changed social life as men of each province could be sent to take the exams to become elite officials, leading to more wealth for them and their families, which led to a development of the Landlord Class, who were able to avoid taxes and even challenge the emperor. The landlords led to a larger number of peasants selling out their land and being forced to work as peasant farmers and they became more impoverished --> peasant revolts (Yellow Turban Rebellion).
The caste system evolved from an already-deep heirarchial system (as varna) into an even more changeless, rigid group of distinctions as jatis were layered on top. The social changes as the Indian caste system developed included mobility and even organized resistance becoming nearly impossible, more social security and support for the people, and continued oppression of the poor.

[Shorten this please!]

Bethany

17/9/2014 00:00:37

Thanks, I guess I thought that when Strayer said changes in patterns, I thought he meant like patterns that encompassed all of the civilizations, so that's what was screwing me up.

Sarah T.

18/9/2014 14:05:36

I'd argue against any big changes in social structure. This era had cultural traditions that only strengthened patriarchy and inequality. For example, belief systems like the varnas, confucian and legalist philosophy, and greek rationalism added to the solidification and legitimization of these unequal social systems.

Bingham

19/9/2014 00:39:16

I'm with Sarah...

• The classical era brought no dramatic changes in the social structures of societies. Rather, it brought further strengthening of cultural traditions and institutions that reinforced social inequality and patriarchy.
• Strong states like China or Rome served to strengthen social inequality and patriarchy.
• Also underpinning these changes were the development of classical belief systems, including the caste system in India, Confucian and Legalist philosophies in China, and Greek rationalism in the Mediterranean region.

Bingham

16/9/2014 15:09:38

Great conversation... two days late!

Libby Carr

16/9/2014 16:55:34

I just noticed that we always talk about (or at least we're told that we will talk about) how the Mongols are the exception, but for the last two/three chapters, I feel like India and Hindu civilizations have been most of the current exceptions.

Ana Larrazolo

17/9/2014 14:11:57

I noticed that in India that the native darker hued people of India were typically placed lowest in the caste system, but were tribal medicine men the only exception to this?

aidan

18/9/2014 11:52:15

so today in class i came up with the comparison between the varnas and the jatis, because some people were confuzlled about the difference between the two. think of a modern beehive there are pallets that you can pull out and on each pallet are the honeycombs. each pallet is a varna and the honeycombs on it are the jatis. a bee must fly out of the hive and back in to enter a different pallet(varna) depicting the reincarnation process which is the only way to change varnas

Bethany

18/9/2014 13:44:29

Mr. Bingham, today after class you told me you were going to answer the fifth big picture question on the forum. Can you please post before it gets too late to study?

Sarah T.

18/9/2014 14:31:15

Taking a shot at BP #6:

Cultural and social patterns endure longer than political frameworks of states/empires. None of the classical empires survived past 550 C.E. Cultural traditions, philosophies, and religions have persisted, some to this day such as ideas of confucianism, daoism, and buddhism; religions like hinduism, judaism, and christianity are present and persistent. Social hierarchies have also persisted long after the classical empires, such as the caste system and patriarchy.

Augi

18/9/2014 15:03:55

In the reflection section Strayer normally answers a big picture question, and he answers this one there. He says that the scholar gentry class retained its prominence in China, India still has its caste based social system, slavery was revived in the European American colonies, and patriarchy has been present and only was challenged in the 20th century.

Bethany

18/9/2014 14:59:30

I might also mention how Greco-Roman values and belief systems shaped Western society. I might also mention that slavery is still evident in the world today in the form of human trafficking.

Bethany V.

18/9/2014 15:13:06

But I mean there's tons of examples you could use to justify that stance.

15/1/2017 17:06:34

Strayer 6, Consolidating Social Inequality

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories