gentry or clergy of the ottomans?

Question: Is there any justification for Weber’s view that “the gentry class, one of the professional politicians, prevented the transition to bureaucracy”?

Gentry is actually a concept that expresses a certain stratum of the people that can be defined differently in each century, but it also refers to the class formed by the aristocrats serving the monarch after the ruler took the political power of the aristocracy. Gentry, a gender neutral expression, identifies the class that is noble by birth in the past. Although aristocracy and gentry are similar to the concept of nobility, they are not exactly the same, but gentry denotes the section earning income from the land. The gentry, which can be explained as the landed elite, is the historical English social class of landowners living entirely on rental income. The landowning elites are below and different from the nobility, although some are wealthy, and work as managers on their own land. I will discuss how this class hindered the bureaucracy process, in Weber’s words “saved” England from bureaucracy, and we will look at how the gentry or a layer similar to this class affects the bureaucratic process in the state, not only in England but also in other states We will be able to see to what extent it is limited.

First, let’s look at how the gentry hindered the bureaucratic process, or in other words, how it freed England from bureaucratization. Dictionary definition of bureaucracy is organized in a structure that narrows as it rises from the bottom up in a society; the administration, especially the executive branch, together with the bureaucratic rules, is overly effective in the conduct of state-related affairs. I think what Weber says here that because of bureaucracy, injustice in the state administration has been caused and the problem has arisen that is inconsistent with the concept of professional politicians. The gentry’s existence can be explained simply by the path: “This stratum remained in possession of all the offices of local government that it took over gratis in the interests of its own social power” (Weber 49). Since the ruling power in the landed elite is the landlord, the working peasant has two sovereigns, the landlord and the ruler of his state. The peasant, who has two sovereigns, cannot give himself entirely to one sovereign. There is another sentence to remind you of this: “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.” (Hobbes 184) The landed elite will be able to claim political power as the aristocrats used to have, thanks to the obedience of the peasants and their own prestige, and may want some control and authority mechanisms in their own hands. however, it turns out that these elites in the gentry stratum prevent the administration from becoming overpowered. Thus, this layer prevented the administration from becoming overpowered and monopolized in affairs related to the state.

Secondly, I would like to talk about the influence of the gentry not only in England but also in other states and how this influence is shaped on the basis of bureaucracy. I will give the Ottoman Empire as an example of a state with more contrasting traditions than in continental Europe and as a striking example of how the same result was achieved despite differences in political traditions. In the early times of the Ottoman Empire — denoting its rise and golden age — an economic system called the timar system was integrated. In this system, the lands belonged to the state, namely the sultan. In the lands belonging to the sultan, people appointed by the sultan were working, not born nobles like the gentry. Therefore, while it is difficult to see injustice in the timar system and a power confusion, during the decline of the Ottoman Empire, a transition to the tax farming system was made in the seventeenth century. To tax farming, the grooming system was updated. (iltizam=tax farming, multezim=tax farmer) There were no longer any tımar holders, and individuals purchased land at auction for a specific amount of time. This individual gave the most money to collect taxes and had to pay the treasury for the taxes he gathered. It was the difference between tımar and this system. Multezims would have to make a cash deposit in advance (down payment). The majority of tax farmers had no knowledge how to collect taxes. This system was only 3 years long at the start of the era, but by the end of the period, it had become a lifetime condition. New tax farmers were supposed to take the position of former tımar owners who would be in charge of monitoring peasants, although this did not materialize. Thus, taxpayers became a special layer like the gentry in England, and a political power mechanism against the sultan was formed besides their economic and social power. This historical process in the Ottoman Empire led to system changes, and system changes again led to variable processes. “This category includes, in particular, officials concerned with the general “administration of home affairs”; and the “political” element in this is above all the task of maintaining “law and order” in the land, in other words, upholding the existing system of rule” (Weber 48). While the existence of the existing system is politically positive and beneficial for the administration, changing systems for economic or social reasons also cause political fluctuations.

To sum up, although Weber’s view of the gentry class as liberators from bureaucracy is in line with the historical process, it is valid not only for England but also for the Ottoman Empire, which is an example from the East. While I agree with Weber’s view, I do not think that gentry is the only reason preventing bureaucratization as Weber did. There are issues that differ from state to state for other reasons.

WORKS CITED

Hobbes and, David Lynn Golemon. Leviathan. Penguin Books, 2015.

Weber, Max, et al. The Vocation Lectures: “Science as a Vocation, “Politics as a Vocation”. Hackett Pub., 2004.