Experience vs. Pedigree

SteveR

Member
In considering Frodo's actions around the singing of the song, and Strider's questioning of him following that, I am wondering about the sense we get about hobbit gentry. From the beginning, Sam seems to be the only one who has much common sense. The aristocrats (Merry, Pippin, and Frodo) all must be taught to be wary through experience, whereas Sam has sort of an innate nobility to him, as well as being suspicious of everyone, even to the point of pretending to sleep as Frodo talks with the elves in Woodhall.

My own tendency, as an American who has grown up with the pervasive anti-aristocratic rhetoric of the U.S. in his ears, and as a reader, in my younger days, of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe books (and their implied and overt criticism of the commission purchase system in the British Army and some of the truly terrible results of that system), is to see these foppish hobbits as stand-ins for the foolishness of aristocrats in general. Throughout all of Tolkien's work, the aristocrats who gain or maintain their nobility through hard-won experience, even torment, are those that are truly noble. The rash, the inexperienced, and the hasty cause almost as much trouble as the truly evil:
  • Fëanor with his oath
  • Fëanor's sons with their pursuit of that oath, even after gaining experience for (a few thousand years?)
  • Thorin, who Corey has previously discussed on his podcast as hardly an experienced adventurer, despite his position as a prince of dwarves
  • I'm sure there are others I can't think of at the moment
  • And now Frodo is on the verge of causing perhaps the worst trouble of all with his foolishness
I don't know if this outlook on aristocracy is a view Tolkien himself held, but I do see that pattern in the text. What do you think?
 
Thank you for taking my question! Sorry I missed (most of) class last night and didn't catch it until this morning!

(We have a snow day here in DC as a result of the storm you mentioned, so I get a chance to catch up ;))
 
This question and the discussion from last night's class have been buzzing through my head ever since it came up. One of the most fundamental questions was, "What type of government do they have in The Shire?"

Prof. Olsen said the Shire's style of government was anarchy, with a nod toward the family-centered oligarchies. I would have said that The Shire is ruled by very strong societal rules bound up in mutual assent and universally accepted tradition. They clearly accepted a code of law and nearly everyone abided by it (even if they did sometimes steal each other's spoons and go treasure-hunting in other's basements). The whole community of The Shire seems to be as solidly functional as any large, well-run family. How the hobbits of The Shire got to be that way is an unexplained mystery, but it is nevertheless apparently true of the Shire hobbits at the time we meet them.

Now, fifty years ago, almost to the day, my Econ 201 prof said: "The government is that entity which has a monopoly on violence."

Period. End of story. No exceptions. Back then, my rebellious 18-year-old mind did not want to accept this, but well before the semester was over, I had to agree that it was true; and I have never discovered a real-life exception in the ensuing 50 years. Those who control the ability to do violence are the government, no matter what other label you might apply to them or what methods or intrigues they might be using to attain and maintain that control. Even on the personal scale, one on one: If you are accosted by a mugger in a dark alley, the guy with the club and the attitude is the government for as long your relationship lasts. And on the large scale: A thing might call itself the government, but if it does not have a monopoly on violence, its existence will be very short-lived.

All of which leads to think about the Fourth Age, and how the hobbits' experiences will affect the government of The Shire. After generations of accepting their mutually-agreed-upon adherence to tradition, the Shire hobbits saw, through Sharkey, what happens when somebody from outside arrives to take the monopoly on violence; and then what happens when hobbits, led by Frodo, band together to take it back.

I am sure that Mayor Samwise will understand and take these lessons to heart. Having seen all that he has seen, he will most likely institute programs to assure that The Shire is never again vulnerable to a foreign invader like Sharkey.
 
fifty years ago, almost to the day, my Econ 201 prof said: "The government is that entity which has a monopoly on violence."
Similar to "Money is whatever you can give the tax collector to make him go away and stop bothering you.", eh?
--
"If the money the state gets from the lottery are used for education,
why aren't we raising a generation who knows better than to play the
lottery?" -- Wildepad
 
"The government is that entity which has a monopoly on violence." This is a concept stated by Max Weber in the early 20th century, on the basis of some quite broad (and in my opinion inaccurate) assumptions about how society and capitalism work. There have been many thoughtful responses and criticism to Weber's outlok, from thinkers far greater than I. I wish to add my own small voice to that conversation.

While I see the point regarding the government and violence, and I recognize the sense of realpolitik in that statement, I find it a really disturbing outlook. Modern government is responsible for so much more than law and order, and in fact supports public safety through many non-violent channels. The government is (and should be) responsible for education, public infrastructure and transportation, public safety, public health, and regulating commerce in the interests of the people. Violence, as our American criminal punishment system has demonstrated, rarely solves the problem, and more often creates additional ones.

Tolkien's sympathy for anarchists (or libertarians, as it seems would be close to the 21stC term for what he was describing) seems to me to be exceptionally short-sighted and, perhaps unsurprisingly given his immersion in Medieval literature, best suited to European communities of the 6th-14th centuries far more than those in the 20th or 21st, or in other parts of the world. Anarchist libertarianism, in which we all simply keep to ourselves and play by the unwritten rules, is simply not possible with the specialization required of various modern professions. If my house caught fire tonight, I would not expect my neighbors to come and help me fight the fire to prevent it spreading to other houses. I would expect them (and they expect me) to pay taxes to support the local fire department, which provides professional firefighters to fight the fire.

In perhaps an even better example, three weeks ago I was on a business trip in Florida, and I came down with appendicitis. The local government provided funds for the ambulance that took me to the hospital. (I did later receive a bill, but I am confident it does not include the full cost of the trip). Various levels of government also provided funding for the hospital where my appendix was surgically removed, and where I stayed for about 36 hours in total. I am certainly not capable of performing an appendectomy on myself, and I do not expect my neighbors to do so for me either! I do expect them to provide those services by pooling their tax dollars, though, just as they expect me to do the same if they are visiting Arlington, VA.

In short: we are all responsible for ourselves, but we are also all responsible for each other, and one of the ways we fulfill that responsibility is through supporting a government that provides for the health and well-being of its citizens. To boil this down to who gets to exact violence on others is disturbing indeed.

I'm not sure how to relate this back to hobbits and the Shire, but I at least wanted to get on the record as disagreeing with your old econ prof, Harnuth. ;)


This question and the discussion from last night's class have been buzzing through my head ever since it came up. One of the most fundamental questions was, "What type of government do they have in The Shire?"

Prof. Olsen said the Shire's style of government was anarchy, with a nod toward the family-centered oligarchies. I would have said that The Shire is ruled by very strong societal rules bound up in mutual assent and universally accepted tradition. They clearly accepted a code of law and nearly everyone abided by it (even if they did sometimes steal each other's spoons and go treasure-hunting in other's basements). The whole community of The Shire seems to be as solidly functional as any large, well-run family. How the hobbits of The Shire got to be that way is an unexplained mystery, but it is nevertheless apparently true of the Shire hobbits at the time we meet them.

Now, fifty years ago, almost to the day, my Econ 201 prof said: "The government is that entity which has a monopoly on violence."

Period. End of story. No exceptions. Back then, my rebellious 18-year-old mind did not want to accept this, but well before the semester was over, I had to agree that it was true; and I have never discovered a real-life exception in the ensuing 50 years. Those who control the ability to do violence are the government, no matter what other label you might apply to them or what methods or intrigues they might be using to attain and maintain that control. Even on the personal scale, one on one: If you are accosted by a mugger in a dark alley, the guy with the club and the attitude is the government for as long your relationship lasts. And on the large scale: A thing might call itself the government, but if it does not have a monopoly on violence, its existence will be very short-lived.

All of which leads to think about the Fourth Age, and how the hobbits' experiences will affect the government of The Shire. After generations of accepting their mutually-agreed-upon adherence to tradition, the Shire hobbits saw, through Sharkey, what happens when somebody from outside arrives to take the monopoly on violence; and then what happens when hobbits, led by Frodo, band together to take it back.

I am sure that Mayor Samwise will understand and take these lessons to heart. Having seen all that he has seen, he will most likely institute programs to assure that The Shire is never again vulnerable to a foreign invader like Sharkey.
 
The government is (and should be) responsible for education...

I have to disagree with this portion of your statement. The government certainly provides useful resources for education (especially public schools), but ultimately education is the responsibility of the parents and the students themselves.
 
I have to disagree with this portion of your statement. The government certainly provides useful resources for education (especially public schools), but ultimately education is the responsibility of the parents and the students themselves.

This is a tricky question, because I am certainly not in favor of, for example, the Texas legislature having power to affect school textbooks that are used throughout the country which for many decades referred to "The War of Northern Aggression" (some might still, for all I know). However, an educated populace is an engaged populace, so I am in favor of government being proactive in the education of the citizenry. When I say educated, I don't mean 2+2=4; I mean teaching people how to engage their brains and use critical thinking skills, and educating them about the role they play in the world and the connection they have to other people, as I outlined in simple fashion above. Any government that does not want to descend into a Hobbesian anarchy, in which the lives of its citizens are "nasty, brutish, and short", would do well to educate those citizens on their responsibilities and connection to other people, and to teach them how to critically evaluate the choices before them. The current state of US federal politics is an example of what happens when government ignores this responsibility for the better part of 50 years.
 
When I say educated, I don't mean 2+2=4; I mean teaching people how to engage their brains and use critical thinking skills, and educating them about the role they play in the world and the connection they have to other people

This is precisely why I say it's the job of parents and (when older) the students themselves. Students are in class for what, 40 hours a week (maximum)? If they learn these skills and then come home to parents who have them just shut off their brains all evening, the students will just learn to retain information for tests and ignore the rest. Students either need parents/other-authority-figures who will encourage them to engage in critical thinking and wider awareness of the world, or else they need to be very strongly motivated to seek such things out on their own.

The government should not hinder this growth, but neither is it their responsibility to see that it happens. There's only so much they can do if the family isn't committed to starting and keeping the ball rolling.
 
As you point out, though, far too many families fail to encourage critical thinking in their kids. If we are to move forward as a society, someone has to step in.
 
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If families don't step up, I don't see that the government has enough influence to take up the slack on their own, and neither would I be willing to give them that much influence, for that throws wide the way to indoctrination!

If the current state of US politics is an example of anything, it's an example of what happens when families neglect their responsibilities and trust too much in the government to solve all their problems for them.
 
I'm not sure it's a question of disagreement. I think it's a "both/and" question rather than an "either/or" question. Better decisions need to be made at both the governmental and the individual level (as well as all levels in between). It can't lie entirely on one or another.
 
Modern government is responsible for so much more than law and order, and in fact supports public safety through many non-violent channels.

I certainly agree with this, but other functions of government don't have any bearing on the fact that "the government is that entity which has a monopoly on violence." If a government fails to maintain a monopoly on violence, whoever does attain a monopoly on violence will supplant it.
 
I came across the Weberian definition of "government" several years ago. I'm pretty sure Barack Obama also invoked at some point during his presidency. As a pacifist, I naturally find this model of government disturbing.

There have been many thoughtful responses and criticism to Weber's outlok, from thinkers far greater than I. I wish to add my own small voice to that conversation.
Well, we're even then. There have been many thoughtful defenses of Weber's outlook from thinkers far greater than I; I too, wish to add my small voice to the conversation.

First, a minor point of clarification: I understand Weber's monopoly of violence to refer externally as well as internally. i.e., only the government has the authority to declare war, or a police action, or whatever other Orwellian euphemisms they're using these days, against another country or people. Unless I am a high-ranking government official, I am not empowered to send the army to war with Belgium, no matter how much they deserve it.

As to the main point, Harnuth has already provided a reasonable response, related to the above point about external violence.

Furthermore, as I understand the Weberian model, the government's ability to guarantee these useful and necessary services you cite, rests ultimately on its monopoly of violence.

How does the government ensure that we pay our taxes to fund hospitals? It tells us that if we don't, it will put us in jail. If a hospital doesn't operate to code, the government forces it to change its performance, or shuts it down. And if either we or the people in charge of the hospital resist the government, it sends in people with uniforms and weapons to subdue us by force - lethal force, if we're sufficiently belligerent in our resistance. So in that sense, it can be said that a government is ultimately "the entity which has a monopoly on violence."

We can take the Weberian argument further. You've cited a couple of practical, useful services the government provides which no one in their right mind could object to. But, we may ask, is an entity with a monopoly on violence the only way to guarantee those services? Difficult to say for certain, but I suspect not.

To bring us back to the discussion of the Shire, we know they have a postal service, and to pick up on another of your examples, I think it's reasonable to suppose they have a fire brigade. This one's a stretch, but we could even speculate that under Pippin and Merry's influence, they might even open up their own Houses of Healing some day.

The Shire hobbits have no need of an entity with the monopoly of violence to force them to support such institutions, and I don't think that's pure fantasy on Tolkien's part. There are other motivations we can easily point to, such as intelligent self interest, social bonds, and even altruism: people, whether human or hobbit, like to help make sure that others are doing well, so long as they don't feel said wellbeing comes at their own expense. In our highly atomized society, this probably wouldn't go over well, but in a more communal society such as the Shire's, I could see it working.
Now, if you had an entity which guarantees all the services governments provide, but didn't have a monopoly on violence, could we call that entity a government? Honestly, I'm not sure; it's an interesting notion.

I'm not 100% sure of any of this, but I'm reasonably convinced not only that Weber is correct in saying government is an entity with a monopoly on violence; but that this is the sole defining feature of government. In other words, all other functions which we attribute to government could, in some times and places under some circumstances, be provided by other means.

In short: I am in complete agreement with you that we are all responsible for each other, as well as ourselves. In our current society, many (though not all) of the ways we meet our responsibilities to each other is through institutions which rest ultimately on a monopoly of violence. This is not inevitable, it just happens to be how our society functions.


Any government that does not want to descend into a Hobbesian anarchy, in which the lives of its citizens are "nasty, brutish, and short", would do well to educate those citizens on their responsibilities and connection to other people, and to teach them how to critically evaluate the choices before them.
Can I get a citation for that? I mean, we're certainly told often enough that people are naturally Hobbesian and have to have values of responsibility and connection to other people inculcated into us by some sort of higher authority. In my observations and my research into the subject, people are actually more naturally inclined to responsibility and connection with others, and it's the Hobbesian values of nastiness and "look out for number one at the expense of everyone else" which have to be inculcated into us. (It's more complicated than that, as both tendencies and many more exist within all humans, but there seems to be a strong intrinsic tug toward the former values as opposed to the latter in most instances).

If the current state of US politics is an example of anything, it's an example of what happens when families neglect their responsibilities and trust too much in the government to solve all their problems for them.
Definitely have to agree to disagree here. What we see in the current state of US policies is a systemic failure to provide for the needs of a significant portion of the country's residents (this has always been the case to an extent, but even more so in recent years/decades). Faced with that kind of breakdown, it's hideously unreasonable for individual families with very limited resources to pick up all the slack.

There's a lot of truth to the old cliché maxim that it takes a village to raise a child, and it also takes a village to educate one. It takes a village to do most things, actually. And when the village breaks down due to incompetent management by the leadership, it's ridiculous to blame families for being unable to do the entire village's work themselves.
 
Back
Top