The Division of Labor"...Social harmony comes essentially from the division of labor. It is characterized by a cooperation which is automatically produced through the pursuit by each individual of his own interests. It suffices that each individual consecrate himself to a special function in order, by the force of events, to make himself solidary with others."(Durkheim, 1933, p.200) 

The division of labor is simply the separation and specialization of work among people. As industry and technology proliferate, and population increases, society must be become more specialized if it is to survive. In modern society, this is especialy evident. Labor has never before been as specialized as it is now, and the current trend is toward even further increased specialization. 

Durkheim was not merely concerned with what the division of labor was, but how it changed the way people interreacted with one another. He was concerned with the social implications of increased specialization. As specialization increases, Durkheim argued, people are increasingly separated, values and interests become different, norms are varied, and subcultures (both work-related and social-related) are formed. People, because they are increasingly performing different tasks than one another, come to value different things than one another. Durkheim didn't see the division of labor as the downfall of social order, however. He recognized that, in reality, the division of labor gave rise to a distinct type of social order, or solidarity:organic solidarity. Organic solidarity is social order built on the interdependence of people in society. Because people are forced to perform distinct, separate, and specialized tasks, they come to rely on others for their very survivial. While shoemakers and carpenters may be functioning fine, if farmers stop working, everyone starves. If the carpenters quit, no one has any shelter. If the garbage haulers don't show up, the streets become dumps and diseases spread. Durkheim saw that without one another in a highly specialized society, no one can survive. This interdependence is why the division of labor does not destroy social order. 

The division of labor is not without problems of course, and an industrial utopia does not form simply out of interdependence, for specialization has been seen to set people not only apart, but against each other. Interests often collide and conflict exists. Karl Marx spent a great deal of effort identifying the problems that arise due to the division of labor. Durkheim did not fool himself into believing that the changes happening around him as a result of industrialization would bring about total harmony, but he did recognize that though specialization sets us apart, it does, in certain ways, bind us together. 

One theme seems to be identical among all of the most important social theorists---Marx, Comte, Spencer, C. Wright Mills, and especially Durkheim---the division of labor is almost always the most important concept in understanding societies. It is the foundation upon which most sociological thought is built. 

"As the progress of the division of labor demands a very great concentration of the social mass, there is between the different parts of the same tissue, of the same organ, or the same system, a

more intimate contact which makes happenings much more contagious. A movement in one part rapidly communicates itself to others."(1933, p.224) 

"If work becomes progressively divided as societies become more voluminous and dense, it is not because external circumstances are more varied, but because struggle for existence is more acute."(Giddens, 1972, p.153 [excerpt from The Division of Labor in Society]) 

"...It is easy to understand that any condensation of the social mass, especially if it is accompanied by an increase in population, necessarily stimulates an advance in the division of labor."(1972, p. 154 [excerpt from The Division of Labor in Society]) 

"But if the division of labor produces solidarity, it is not only because it makes each indivdual an exchangist, as the economists say; it is because it creates among men an entire system of rights and duties which link them together in a durable way."(1933, p. 406) 

"In one case as in the other, the structure derives from the divison of labor and its solidarity. Each part of the animal, having become an organ, has its proper sphere of action where it moves independently without imposing itself upon others. But, from another point of view, they depend more on one another than in a colony, since they cannot separate without perishing."(1933, p. 192) 

The following is what I consider the most important passage of Durkheim'sDivision of Labor in Society. 

"But not only does the division of labor present the character by which we have defined morality; it more and more tends to become the essential condition of social solidarity. As we advance in the evolutinary scale, the ties which bind the individual to his family, to his native soil, to traditions which the past has given to him, to collective group usages, become loose. More mobile, he changes his environment more easily, leaves his people to go elsewhere to live a more autonomous existence, to a greater extent forms his own ideas and sentiments. Of course, the whole common conscience does not, on this account, pass out of existence. At least there will always remain this cult of personality, of individual dignity of which we have just been speaking, and which, today, is the rallying-point of so many people. But how little a thing it is when one contemplates the ever increaisng extent of social life, and, consequently, of individual consciences! For, as they become more voluminous, as intelligence becomes richer, activity more varied, in order for morallity to remain constant, that is to say, in order for the individual to remain atached to the group with a force equal to that of yesterday, the ties which bind him to it must become stronger and more numerous. If, then, he formed no others than those which come from resemblances, the effacement of the segmental type would be accompanied by a systematic debasement of morality. Man would no longer be sufficiently obligated; he would no longer feel about and above him this salutary pressure of society which moderates his egoism and makes him a normal being. This is what gives moral value to the division of labor. Through it, the individual becomes cognizant of his dependence upon society; from it come the forces which

keep him in check and restrain him. In short, since the division of labor becomes the chief source of social solidarity, it becomes, at the same time, the foundation of the moral order."(1933, p. 400-401) 

Sources: Durkheim, Emile. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society Translated by George Simpson. New York: The Free Press. 

Solidarity is the integration, and degree and type of integration, shown by a society or group with people

and their neighbours.[1] It refers to the ties in a society - social relations- that bind people to one another.

The term is generally employed in sociology and the other social sciences.

What forms the basis of solidarity varies between societies. In simple societies it may be mainly based

around kinship and shared values. In more complex societies there are various theories as to what

contributes to a sense of social solidarity.[1]

Durkheim

According to Émile Durkheim, the types of social solidarity correlate with types of society. Durkheim

introduced the terms "mechanical" and "organic solidarity" as part of his theory of the development of

societies in The Division of Labour in Society (1893). In a society exhibiting mechanical solidarity, its

cohesion and integration comes from the homogeneity of individuals—people feel connected through

similar work, educational and religious training, and lifestyle. Mechanical solidarity normally operates in

"traditional" and small scale societies.[4] In simpler societies (e.g., tribal), solidarity is usually based

on kinship ties of familial networks. Organic solidarity comes from the interdependence that arises from

specialization of work and the complementarities between people—a development which occurs in

"modern" and "industrial" societies.[4] Definition: it is social cohesion based upon the dependence

individuals in more advanced societies have on each other. Although individuals perform different tasks

and often have different values and interest, the order and very solidarity of society depends on their

reliance on each other to perform their specified tasks. Organic here is referring to the interdependence of

the component parts. Thus, social solidarity is maintained in more complex societies through the

interdependence of its component parts (e.g., farmers produce the food to feed the factory workers who

produce the tractors that allow the farmer to produce the food).

The two types of solidarity can be distinguished by morphological and demographic features, type

of norms in existence, and the intensity and content of the conscience collective.[4]

Mechanical and organic solidarity[5]

Feature Mechanical solidarity Organic solidarity

Morphological (structural) basis

Based on resemblances (predominant in less advanced societies)Segmental type (first clan-based, later territorial)Little interdependence (social bonds relatively weak)Relatively low volume of populationRelatively low material and moral density

Based on division of labour (predominately in more advanced societies)Organized type (fusion of markets and growth of cities)Much interdependency (social bonds relatively strong)Relatively high volume of populationRelatively high material and moral density

Types of norms (typified by law)

Rules with repressive sanctionsPrevalence of penal law

Rules with restitutive sanctionsPrevalence of cooperative law (civil, commercial, procedural, administrative and constitutional law)

Formal features of conscience collective

High volumeHigh intensityHigh determinatenessCollective authority absolute

Low volumeLow intensityLow determinatenessMore room for individual initiative and reflection

Content of conscience collective

Highly religiousTranscendental (superior to human interests and beyond discussion)Attaching supreme value to society and interests of society as a wholeConcrete and specific

Increasingly secularHuman-orientated (concerned with human interests and open to discussion)Attaching supreme value to individual dignity, equality of opportunity, work ethic and social justiceAbstract and general

"...if I have properly understood gesellschaft is supposed to be characterised by a progressive

development of individualism, the dispersive effects of which can only be prevented for a time, and by

artificial means by the action of the state, it is essentially a mechanical aggregate."

Durkheim believed that Ferdinand Tönnies saw individualism as working against moral order,

people become unattached like atoms flowing in space suggesting that the only thing holding people

together, prevented relationships from fracturing, and holds people to society was the imposition of

order and coherence of the state.

Durkheim asserted that the life of social agglomerates is just as natural, and is no less internal as

that of small groupings.

He characterised preindustrial societies as mechanical and industrial societies as organic (thus

opposing Toennies theories by using opposite terminology)

Although the bonds of mechanical solidarity were based on "a more or less organized totality of

beliefs and sentiments common to all the members of the group," this gave way in industrial society to

potent new forces that were characterised by heightened complexity and differentiation, an increased

dependence on society, and, seemingly paradoxically at first glance, a growing level of individual

autonomy.[6]

Class conflict refers to the concept of underlying tensions or antagonisms which exist in society due to

conflicting interests that arise from different social positions. Class conflict is thought to play a pivotal role

in history of class societies (such as capitalism and feudalism) by Marxists [1]  who refer to its overt

manifestations as class war, a struggle whose resolution in favor of the working class is viewed by them

as inevitable under capitalism.

Class conflict can take many different shapes. Direct violence, such as wars fought for resources and

cheap labor; indirect violence, such as deaths from poverty, starvation or unsafe working conditions;

coercion, such as the threat of losing a job or pulling an important investment; or ideology, either

intentionally (as with books and articles promotinganti-capitalism) or unintentionally (as with the promotion

of consumerism through advertising).

It can be open, as with a lockout aimed at destroying a labor union, or hidden, as with an informal

slowdown in production protesting low wages or unfair labor practices.

[edit]Definition

Class conflict is a term long-used mostly by socialists, communists, and many anarchists, who define a

class by its relationship to the means of production--such as factories, land, and machinery. From this

point of view, the social control of production and labour is a contest between classes, and the division of

these resources necessarily involves conflict and inflicts harm.

[edit]In pre-capitalist societies

Where societies are socially divided based on status, wealth, or control of social production and

distribution, conflict arises. This conflict is both everyday, such as the common Medieval right of lords to

control access to grain mills and baking ovens, or it can be exceptional such as the Roman Conflict of the

Orders, the uprising of Spartacus, or the various popular uprisings in late medieval Europe. One of the

earliest analysis of these conflicts is Frederick Engel's German Peasants War [2] . One of the earliest

analyses of the development of class as the development of conflicts between emergent classes is

available in Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. In this work, Kropotkin analyzes the disposal of goods after

death in pre-class societies, and how inheritance produces early class divisions and conflict[3].

[edit]In capitalism

The typical example of class conflict described is class conflict within capitalism. This class conflict is

seen to occur primarily between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and takes the form of conflict over

hours of work, value of wages, cost of consumer goods, the culture at work, control

over parliament or bureaucracy, and economic inequality. The particular implementation of government

programs which may seem purely humanitarian, such as disaster relief, can actually be a form of class

conflict.[4] Apart from these day-to-day forms of class conflict, during periods of crisis or revolution class

conflict takes on a violent nature and involves repression, assault, restriction of civil liberties, and

murderous violence such as assassinations or death squads.

[edit]In the Soviet Union and similar societies

A variety of predominantly Marxist and anarchist thinkers argue that class conflict exists in Soviet-style

societies. These arguments describe as a class the bureaucratic stratum formed by the ruling political

party(known as the Nomenklatura in the Soviet Union)--sometimes termed a "new class".[5] --that controls

the means of production. This ruling class is viewed to be in opposition to the remainder of society,

generally considered the proletariat. This type of system is referred to by its detractors as state

capitalism, state socialism, bureaucratic collectivism, coordinatorism, or new class societies.

[edit]Opinions of Karl Marx and Max Weber

Karl Marx and Max Weber are both critical to the development of the study of class conflict. In The

Communist Manifesto, Marx describes his ideas about class conflict. Marx gives his own interpretation of

what can be defined as a class. He states that a class is formed when its members achieve class

consciousness and solidarity [6] This largely happens when the members of a class become aware of

their exploitationand the conflict with another class. A class will then realize their shared interests and a

common identity. According to Marx, a class will then take action against those that are exploiting the

lower classes. Marx largely focuses on the capital industrialist society as the source of social stratification,

which ultimately results in class conflict [6]. He states that capitalism creates a division between classes

which can largely be seen in manufacturing factories. The working class, or the proletariat, is separated

from the bourgeoisie because production becomes a social enterprise. Contributing to their separation is

the technology that is in factories. Technology deskills and alienates workers as they are no longer

viewed as having a specialized skill [6]. Another effect of technology is a homogenous workforce that can

be easily replaceable. Marx believed that this class conflict would result in the overthrow of the

bourgeoisie and that the private property would be communally owned [6]. The mode of production would

remain, but communal ownership would eliminate class conflict [6].

Max Weber agrees with the fundamental ideas of Marx about the economy causing class conflict, but

claims that class conflict can also stem from prestige and power [6]. Weber argues that classes come from

the different property locations. Different locations can largely affect one’s class by their education and

the people they associate with [6]. He also states that prestige results in different status groupings. This

prestige is based upon the social status of one’s parents. Prestige is an attributed value and many times

cannot be changed. Weber states that power differences led to the formation of political parties [6]. Weber

disagrees with Marx about the formation of classes. While Marx believes that groups are similar due to

their economic status, Weber argues that classes are largely formed by social status [6]. Weber does not

believe that communities are formed by economic standing, but by similar social prestige [6]. Weber does

recognize that there is a relationship between social status, social prestige and classes [6].

Bourgeoisie is a French word that was borrowed directly into English in the specific sense described

above. In the French feudal order pre-revolution, "bourgeois" was a class of citizens who were wealthier

members of the Third Estate. The French word bourgeois evolved from the Old French word burgeis,

meaning "an inhabitant of a town" (cf. Middle English burgeis, Middle Dutch burgher and German Bürger).

The Old French word burgeis is derived from bourg, meaning a market town or medieval village, itself

derived from Old Frankish burg, meaning "town".[1]

The term bourgeoisie has been widely used as an approximate equivalent of upper class under

capitalism. The word also evolved to mean merchants and traders, and until the 19th century was mostly

synonymous with the middle class (persons in the broad socioeconomic spectrum

between nobility and peasants or proletarians). As the power and wealth of the nobility faded in the

second half of the 19th century, and that of the merchant and commercial classes came to be dominant,

the bourgeoisie emerged, by definition, as the replacement of the deposed nobility and the new ruling

class.[citation needed]

[edit]Academic concepts

This section requires expansion with:

non Marxist theoretical frameworks

of the bourgeoisie, Veblen's leisure

class?.

[edit]Within Marxism and historical materialism

Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist

society. As such, the core of the modern bourgeoisie is industrial bourgeoisie, which obtains income by

hiring workers to put in motion their capital, which is to say, their means of production - machines, tools,

raw material, etc. Besides that, other bourgeois sectors also exist, notedly the commercial bourgeoisie,

which earns income from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares, and

services.

In medieval times, the bourgeois was typically a self-employed proprietor, small employer, entrepreneur,

banker, or merchant. In industrial capitalism, on the other hand, the bourgeoisie becomes the ruling class

- which means it also owns the bulk of the means of production (land, factories, offices, capital, resources

- though in some countries land ownership would still be a monopoly of a different class, landed

oligarchy), and controls the means of coercion (national armed forces, police, prison systems, court

systems). Ownership of the means of production enables it to employ and exploit the work of a large

mass of wage workers (the working class), who have no other means of livelihood than to sell their labour

to property owners; while control over the means of coercion allows intervention during challenges from

below.[2] Marx distinguished between "functioning capitalists" actually managing enterprises, and others

merely earning property rents or interest-income from financial assets or real estate (rentiers).[3]

Marxism sees the proletariat (wage labourers) and bourgeoisie as directly waging an ongoing class

struggle, in that capitalists exploit workers and workers try to resist exploitation. This exploitation takes

place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must seek employment in

order to make a living. They get hired by a capitalist and work for him, producing some sort of goods or

services. These goods or services then become the property of the capitalist, who sells them and gets a

certain amount of money in exchange. Part of this money is used to pay workers' wages, another part is

used to pay production costs, and a third part is kept by the capitalist in the form of profit (or surplus

value in Marxist terms). Thus the capitalist can earn money by selling the surplus (profit) from the work of

his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work. Marxists argue that new

wealth is created through work; therefore, if someone gains wealth that he did not work for, then someone

else works and does not receive the full wealth created by his work. In other words, that "someone else"

is exploited. In this way, the capitalist might turn a large profit by exploiting workers.

Marx himself primarily used the term "bourgeois", with or without sarcasm, as an objective description of a

social class and of a lifestyle based on ownership of private capital, not as a pejorative. He commended

the industriousness of the bourgeoisie, but criticised it for its moral hypocrisy. This attitude is shown most

clearly in the Communist Manifesto. He also used it to describe the ideology of this class; for example, he

called its conception of freedom "bourgeois freedom" and opposed it to what he considered more

substantive forms of freedom. He also wrote of bourgeois independence, individuality, property, family,

etc.; in each case he referred to conceptions of these ideals which are compatible with condoning the

existence of a class society.

Serfdom is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates

to Manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during

the High Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom was the enforced labour of serfs on the fields of landowners, in

return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.

Serfdom involved not only work in fields, but also various other activities, like forestry, mining,

transportation (both land and river-based), and crafts. Manors formed the basic unit of society during this

period, and the lord and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs were labourers

who were bound to the land; they formed the lowest social class of the feudal society. Serfs were also

defined as people in whose labour landowners held property rights. Before the 1861 abolition of serfdom

in Russia, a landowner's estate was often measured by the number of "souls" he owned. Feudalism in

Europe evolved from agricultural slavery in the late Roman Empire and spread through Europe around

the 10th century; it flourished in Europe during the Middle Ages but lasted until the 19th century in some

countries. The Black Death broke the established social order and weakened serfdom. For example,

serfdom was de facto ended in France by Philip IV, Louis X (1315), and Philip V (1318).[1][2] With the

exception of a few isolated cases, serfdom had ceased to exist in France by the 15th century. In Early

Modern France, French nobles nevertheless maintained a great number ofseigneurial privileges over the

free peasants that worked lands under their control. Serfdom was formally abolished in France in 1789.[3]

After the Renaissance, serfdom became increasingly rare in most of Western Europe but grew strong

in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had previously been less common (this phenomenon was known

as "later serfdom"). In England, the end of serfdom began with Tyler’s Rebellion and was fully ended

when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574.[2] There were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799,

when coal miners previously kept in serfdom gained emancipation. However, most Scottish serfs had

been freed before this time. In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. It

persisted in Austria-Hungary till 1848 and was abolished in Russia in 1861.[4] In Finland, Norway and

Sweden feudalism was not established, and serfdom did not exist. But serfdom-like institutions did exist in

both Denmark (the stavnsbånd, from 1733 to 1788) and its colony Iceland (the much more

restrictive vistarband, from 1490 until the late 1800s).

According to the census of 1857 the number of private serfs in Russia was 23.1 million.[5]

Feudalism, according to Joseph R. Strayer, can be applied to the societies of Iran,

ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt (Sixth to Twelfth dynasty), Muslim India, China (Zhou Dynasty, and end

of Han Dynasty) and Japan during the Shogunate. James Lee and Cameron Campbell describe the

Chinese Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) as also maintaining a form of serfdom.[6] According to Pierre

Bonnassie, feudalism could also be seen in Spain. Although serfdom is believed to exist in all these

regions, it was not uniform throughout them. Tibet is described by Melvyn Goldstein[7][8] to have had

serfdom until 1959, but whether or not the Tibetan form of peasant tenancy qualified as serfdom was

widespread is contested.[9][10] Bhutan is described by Tashi Wangchuk, a Bhutanese civil servant, as

abolishing serfdom officially by 1959, but Wangchuk believes less than or about 10% of poor peasants

were in copyhold situations.[11]

[edit]Etymology

Costumes of slaves or serfs, from the sixth to the twelfth centuries, collected by H. de Vielcastel from original documents in

European libraries.

The word "serf" originated from the Middle French "serf", and can be traced further back to

the Latin servus, meaning "slave". In Late Antiquity and most of theMiddle Ages, what we now call serfs

were usually designated in Latin as coloni (sing. colonus). As slavery gradually disappeared and the legal

status of theseservi became nearly identical to that of coloni, the term changed meaning into our modern

concept of "serf". The term "serfdom" was coined in 1850.

[edit]Dependency and the lower orders

The serfs had a specific place in feudal society, as did barons and knights: in return for protection, a serf

would reside upon and work a parcel of land held by his lord. There was thus a degree of reciprocity in

the manorial system.

The rationale was that a serf "worked for all," while a knight or baron "fought for all" and a churchman

"prayed for all"; thus everyone had his place. The serf worked harder than the others, and was the worst

fed and paid, but at least he had his place and, unlike in slavery, he had his own land and property.

A manorial lord could not sell his serfs as a Roman might sell his slaves. On the other hand, if he chose to

dispose of a parcel of land, the serf or serfs associated with that land went with it to serve their new lord.

Further, a serf could not abandon his lands without permission, nor could he sell them.

[edit]Becoming a serf

A freeman became a serf usually through force or necessity. Sometimes freeholders or allodial owners

were intimidated into dependency by the greater physical and legal force of a local baron. Often a few

years of crop failure, a war or brigandage might leave a person unable to make his own way. In such a

case a bargain was struck with the lord. In exchange for protection, service was required, in payment

and/or with labour. These bargains were formalized in a ceremony known as "bondage" in which a serf

placed his head in the seigneur's hands, parallel to the ceremony of "homage" where a vassal placed his

hands between those of his lord. These oaths bound the seigneur to their new serf and outlined the terms

of their agreement.[12] Often these bargains were severe. A 7th centuryAnglo Saxon "Oath of Fealty"

states "By the Lord before whom this sanctuary is holy, I will to N. be true and faithful, and love all which

he loves and shun all which he shuns, according to the laws of God and the order of the world. Nor will I

ever with will or action, through word or deed, do anything which is unpleasing to him, on condition that he

will hold to me as I shall deserve it, and that he will perform everything as it was in our agreement when I

submitted myself to him and chose his will." To become a serf was a commitment that invaded all aspects

of the serf’s life.

Moreover, serfdom was inherited. By taking on the duties of serfdom, serfs bound not only themselves but

all of their future heirs.

[edit]Serfdom's class system

The class of peasant was often broken down into smaller categories. The distinctions between these

classes were often less clear than would be suggested by the different names encountered for them.

Most often, there were two types of peasants - freemen and villeins. Lower classes of peasants, generally

taken from the second and third sons of villeins known as cottars [13][14] or bordars in the British Isles, and

slaves, made up the final percentage of workers.

[edit]Freemen

Freemen, or free tenants, were essentially rent-paying tenant farmers who owed little or no service to the

lord. In parts of 11th century England these freemen made up only 10% of the peasant population, and in

the rest of Europe their numbers were small.

[edit]Villeins

A villein was the most common type of serf in the Middle Ages. Villeins had more rights and higher status

than the lowest serf, but were under a number of legal restrictions that differentiated them from the

freeman. Villeins generally rented small homes, with or without land. As part of the contract with

their landlord, they were expected to use some of their time to farm the lord's fields and the rest of their

time was spent farming their own land. Like other types of serfs, they were required to provide other

services, possibly in addition to a rent of money or goods. These services could be very onerous. Villeins

were tied to the land and could not move away without their lord's consent. However, in other regards,

they were free men in the eyes of the law. Villeins were generally able to have their own property, unlike

slaves. Villeinage, as opposed to other forms of serfdom, was most common in Western European

feudalism, where land ownership had developed from roots in Roman law.

A variety of kinds of villeinage existed in the European Middle Ages. Half-villeins received only half as

many strips of land for their own use and owed a full complement of labor to the lord, often forcing them to

rent out their services to other serfs to make up for this hardship. Villeinage was not, however, a purely

exploitative relationship. In the Middle Ages, land guaranteed sustenance and survival, and being a villein

guaranteed access to land. Landlords, even where legally entitled to do so, rarely evicted villeins because

of the value of their labour. Villeinage was much preferable to being a vagabond, a slave, or an unlanded

labourer.

In many medieval countries, a villein could gain freedom by escaping to a city and living there for more

than a year; but this avenue involved the loss of land and agricultural livelihood, a prohibitive price unless

the landlord was especially tyrannical or conditions in the village were unusually difficult. Villeins newly

arrived in the city in some cases took to crime for survival, which gave the alternate spelling "villain" its

modern meaning.

[edit]Bordars

A bordar was person ranking below a villein and above a serf in the social hierarchy of a manor, holding

just enough land to feed a family (about 5 acres) and required to provide labour on the demesne on

specified days of the week.

[edit]Slaves

The last type of serf was the slave. Slaves had the fewest rights and benefits from the manor and were

also given the least. They owned no land, worked for the lord exclusively and survived on donations from

the landlord. It was always in the interest of the lords to prove that a servile arrangement existed, as this

provided them with greater rights to fees and taxes. The legal status of a man was a primary issue in

many of the manorial court cases of the period. Also, runaway slaves could be beaten if caught.

[edit]The serf's duties

The usual serf (not including slaves or cottars) paid his fees and taxes in the form of seasonally

appropriate labour. Usually a portion of the week was devoted to plowing his lord's fields (demesne),

harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, and often working in the manor house. The

lord’s demesne included more than just fields: it included all grazing rights, forest produce (nuts, fruits,

timber, and forest animals) and fish from the stream; the lord had exclusive rights to these things. The

rest of the serf’s time was devoted to tending his or her own fields, crops and animals in order to provide

for his or her family. Most manorial work was segregated by gender during the regular times of the year;

however, during the harvest, the whole family was expected to work the fields.

A major difficulty of a serf's life was that his work for his lord coincided with, and took precedence over,

the work he had to perform on his own lands: when the lord's crops were ready to be harvested, so were

his own. On the other hand, the serf could look forward to being well fed during his service[citation needed]; it

was a poor lord who did not provide a substantial meal for his serfs during the harvest and planting times.

In exchange for this work on the lord's property, the serf had certain privileges and rights. They were

allowed to gather deadwood from their lord’s forests. For a fee, the serfs were allowed to use the

manor’s mills and ovens. These paid services were called banalities in France during this time.

In addition to service, a serf was required to pay certain taxes and fees. Taxes were based on the

assessed value of his lands and holdings. Fees were usually paid in the form of foodstuffs rather than

cash. The best ration of wheat from the serf’s harvest always went to the landlord. For the most part,

hunting on the lord’s property was prohibited for the serfs. On Easter Sunday the peasant family owed an

extra dozen eggs, and at Christmas a goose was expected as well. When a family member died, extra

taxes were paid to the manor for the cost of that individual's labour. Any young woman who wished to

marry a serf outside of her manor was forced to pay a fee for the lost labour.

Often there were arbitrary tests to judge the worthiness of their tax payments. A chicken, for example,

was required to be able to jump over a fence of a given height to be considered old enough or well

enough to be valued for tax purposes. The restraints of serfdom on personal and economic choice were

enforced through various forms of manorial common law and the manorial administration and court.

It was also a matter of discussion whether serfs could be required by law in times of war or conflict to fight

for their lord's land and property.

[edit]Benefits of serfdom

Within his constraints, a serf had some freedom. Though the common wisdom[citation needed] is that a serf

owned "only his belly" — even his clothes were the property, in law, of his lord[citation needed] — a serf might

still accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became wealthier than their free

neighbors, although this was rather an exception to the general rule. A well-to-do serf might even be able

to buy his freedom.

Serfs could raise what they saw fit on their lands (within reason — a serf's taxes often had to be paid

in wheat, a notoriously difficult crop) and sell the surplus at market. Their heirs were usually guaranteed

aninheritance.

The landlord could not dispossess his serfs without cause and was supposed to protect them from the

depredations of outlaws or other lords, and he was expected to support them by charity in times

of famine.

[edit]Variations

Specifics of serfdom varied greatly through time and region. In some places, serfdom was merged with or

exchanged for various forms of taxation.

The amount of labour required varied. In Poland, for example, it was a few days per year per household in

the 13th century; one day per week per household in the 14th century; four days per week per household

in the 17th century and six days per week per household in the 18th century. Early serfdom in Poland was

mostly limited on the royal territories (królewszczyzny).

"Per household" means that every farm had to give a worker for the required number of days.[15] For

example, in the 18th century, six people: a peasant, his wife, three children and a hired worker would be

required to work for their lord one day a week, which would be counted as six days.

Sometimes, serfs served as soldiers in the event of conflict and could earn freedom or

even ennoblement for valour in combat. In other cases, serfs could purchase their freedom,

be manumitted by their enlightened or generous owners, or flee to towns or newly-settled land where few

questions were asked. Laws varied from country to country: in England a serf who made his way to a

chartered town and evaded recapture for a year and a day obtained his freedom.

"Galician slaughter" 1846, by Jan Lewicki (1795-1871); "directed against manorial property (for example, the manorial

prisons) and rising against serfdom[16]; Galician, mainly Polish, peasants killed over 1000 noblemen and destroyed 500

manors in 1846."

Grain pays

Grain doesn't pay. Those two pictures illustrate the notion that agriculture, once extremely profitable to the nobles (szlachta)

in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, became much less profitable from the second half of seventeenth century onwards

[edit]History of serfdom

Social institutions similar to serfdom were known in ancient times. The status of the helots in the ancient

Greek city-state of Sparta resembled that of the medieval serfs. By the 3rd century AD, the Roman

Empire faced a labour shortage. Large Roman landowners increasingly relied on Roman freemen, acting

as tenant farmers, instead of slaves to provide labour. These tenant farmers, eventually known as coloni,

saw their condition steadily erode. In 332 AD Constantine issued legislation that greatly restricted the

rights of the coloni and tied them to the land. Some see these laws as the beginning of medieval serfdom

in Europe.

However, medieval serfdom really began with the breakup of the Carolingian Empire[citation needed] around the

10th century. The demise of this empire, which had ruled much of western Europe for more than 200

years, was followed by a long period during which no strong central government existed in most of

Europe.

During this period, powerful feudal lords encouraged the establishment of serfdom as a source of

agricultural labor. Serfdom, indeed, was an institution that reflected a fairly common practice whereby

great landlords were assured that others worked to feed them and were held down, legally and

economically, while doing so.

This arrangement provided most of the agricultural labour throughout the Middle Ages. Slavery persisted

right through the Middle Ages,[17] but it was rare, diminishing and largely confined to the use of household

slaves.[citation needed] Parts of Europe, including much of Scandinavia, never adopted many feudal institutions,

including serfdom.

In the later Middle Ages serfdom began to disappear west of the Rhine even as it spread through eastern

Europe. This was one important cause for the deep differences between the societies and economies of

eastern and western Europe.

In Western Europe, the rise of powerful monarchs, towns, and an improving economy weakened

the manorial system through the 13th and 14th centuries, and serfdom was rare following

the Renaissance.

Serfdom in Western Europe came largely to an end in the 15th and 16th centuries, because of changes in

the economy, population, and laws governing lord-tenant relations in Western European nations. The

enclosure of manor fields for livestock grazing and for larger arable plots made the economy of serfs’

small strips of land in open fields less attractive to the landowners. Furthermore, the increasing use

of money made tenant farming by serfs less profitable; for much less than it cost to support a serf, a lord

could now hire workers who were more skilled and pay them in cash. Paid labour was also more flexible

since workers could be hired only when they were needed.

At the same time, increasing unrest and uprisings by serfs and peasants, like Tyler’s Rebellion in England

in 1381, put pressure on the nobility and the clergy to reform the system. As a result serf and peasant

demands were accommodated to some extent by the gradual establishment of new forms of land leases

and increased personal liberties.

Another important factor in the decline of serfdom was industrial development — especially the Industrial

Revolution. With the growing profitability ofindustry, farmers wanted to move to towns to receive higher

wages than those they could earn working in the fields, while landowners also invested in the more

profitable industry. This also led to the growing process of urbanization.

Serfdom reached Eastern European countries later than Western Europe — it became dominant around

the 15th century. Before that time, Eastern Europe had been much more sparsely populated than

Western Europe, and the lords of Eastern Europe created a peasantry-friendly environment to encourage

migration east[citation needed]. Serfdom developed in Eastern Europe after the Black Death epidemics, which

not only stopped the migration but depopulated Western Europe.

The resulting large land-to-labour ratio combined with Eastern Europe's vast, sparsely populated areas

gave the lords an incentive to bind the remaining peasantry to their land. With increased demand for

agricultural produce in Western Europe during the later era when Western Europe limited and eventually

abolished serfdom, serfdom remained in force throughout Eastern Europe during the 17th century so

that nobility-owned estates could produce more agricultural products (especially grain) for the profitable

export market.

Such Eastern European countries included Prussia (Prussian Ordinances of

1525), Austria, Hungary (laws of the late 15th and early 16th centuries), thePolish-Lithuanian

Commonwealth (szlachta privileges of the early 16th century) and the Russian Empire (laws of the late

16th and first half of the 17th century). This also led to the slower industrial development and urbanisation

of those regions. Generally, this process, referred to as 'second serfdom' or 'export-led serfdom', which

persisted until the mid-19th century, became very repressive and substantially limited serfs' rights.

In many of these countries serfdom was abolished during the Napoleonic invasions of the early 19th

century. Serfdom remained in force in most of Russia until the Emancipation reform of 1861, enacted on

February 19, 1861, though in Russian Baltic provinces it had been abolished at the beginning of the 19th

century. Russian serfdom was perhaps the most notable Eastern European institution, as it was never

influenced by German law and migrations, and serfdom and the manorial system were enforced by the

crown (Tsar), not the nobility.

[edit]The decline of serfdom

End of serfdom: a German „Freilassungsbrief“ (Letter for the End of a serfdom) from 1762

Serfdom became progressively less common through the Middle Ages, particularly after the Black

Death reduced the rural population and increased the bargaining power of workers. Furthermore, the

lords of many manors were willing (for payment) to manumit ("release") their serfs. Serfdom had largely

died out in England by 1500 as a personal status, but land held by serf tenure (unless enfranchised)

continued to be held by what was thenceforth known as a copyhold tenancy, which was not abolished

until 1925. During the Late Middle Ages, peasant unrest led to outbreaks of violence against landlords. In

May 1381 the English peasants revolted because of the heavy tax placed upon them by Parliament.

There were similar occurrences at around the same time in Castille, Germany, northern France, Portugal,

and Sweden. Although these peasant revoltswere often successful, it usually took a long time before legal

systems were changed. In France this occurred on August 11, 1789 with the "Decree Abolishing the

Feudal System". This decree abolished the manorial system completely. It abolished the authority of

manorial courts, outlawed pigeon houses, eliminated and altered tithes (set taxes), and freed those who

were enslaved. The majority of the population consisted of peasants. This social system was no longer

viable. The eradication of the feudal system marks the beginning of an era of rapid change in Europe. The

change in status following the enclosure movements beginning in the later 18th century, in which various

lords abandoned the open field farming of previous centuries and, essentially, took all the best land for

themselves in exchange for "freeing" their serfs, may well have made serfdom seem more desirable to

many peasant families.

In his book Das Kapital, in Chapter 26 entitled "The Secret of Primitive Accumulation" and Chapter 27,

"Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land", Marxclaimed that the feudal relationships of

serfdom were violently transformed into private property and free labour: free of possession and free to

sell their labour force on the market. Being liberated from serfdom meant being able to sell one's land and

work wherever one desired. "The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the

historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive,

because it forms the pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it." In

a case history of England, Marx described how the serfs became free peasant proprietors and small

farmers, who were, over time, forcibly expropriated and driven off the land, forming a property-less

proletariat. He also claimed that more and more legislation was enacted by the state to control and

regiment this new class of wage workers. In the meantime, the remaining farmers became capitalist

farmers operating more and more on a commercial basis; and gradually, legal monopolies preventing

trade and investment by entrepreneurs were broken up.

Taxes levied by the state took the place of labour dues levied by the lord. Although serfdom began its

decline in Europe in the Middle Ages, it took many hundreds of years to disappear completely. In addition,

the struggles of the working class during the Industrial Revolution can often be compared with the

struggles of the serfs during the Middle Ages. In parts of the world today, forced labour is still used.

Serfdom is an institution that has always been commonplace for human society; however, it has not

always been of the same nature.