Central
to distributism is decentralization.
Instead of few owning much, many should own little, especially regarding
land. Private property provides a “stable condition of things [man] finds
solely in the earth and its fruits.“ The land’s produce can be consumed or
sold, providing sustenance and potentially income. “Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth,
but also the very soil…” This is very different from the large agricultural system today
where immense tracts of land are privately owned and in production of a few
crops like corn or soybeans. Many
men with small acreage working in a local economy would generate a greater
variety in each farm. This
image of a community of small farms is idealized in the village. If land
ownership, however, is not a reality for many, private agreements may help to
create stable rights to land that
will reach the same ends as ownership, perhaps even the creation of
village-like communities. In
fact, firm contracts between farmers and landowners would mirror the village
systems of the Middle Ages more than each farmer owning the land. Looking to the slow rise of medieval
villages (and considering their lasting grip on the imagination) can provide
individuals with direction and lessons for moving to the land in a lasting
arrangement, overcoming the property barrier.
Why The Village?
The
medieval village carries with it a caricature of savagery and
superstition. The truth, however,
is even more fantastic than the caricature. The villages of the Middles Ages are
the richest example thriving culture rooted in land, tradition and faith that
peaked in the thirteenth century, the “culmination of the middle ages.” The fruits defend this truth: The thirteenth century birthed
representative governments, guilds of master craftsmen (from where we still
retain the word “mister,” or master); there were saintly kings like St. Louis
of France and St. Ferdinand of Spain; saints like Francis and Dominic;
theologians like Aquinas, Scotus and Bonaventure; masters of the arts like
Giotto and Dante. Some testaments, perhaps the most
amazing, are carved in stone: the gothic Cathedral.
Faith
was literally central in the village hub, the parish church, and in the
thirteenth century alone twenty Cathedrals
were erected in England. Modern
man, master of useful and tall office space, conceives an awe in his heart at
the site of these testaments of a culture. Yet it was not a traveling team of experts and officials
erecting them, but each village and its inhabitants. “The men who worked around
the Cathedrals were given opportunities to express themselves and the best that
was in them as no class of workmen before or since have ever had the
opportunity.” From the
intricate ironwork of door handles to the sacred art to the bells in the
tallest tower to the sea of hand made tiles on the floor – each piece was
crafted locally. To duplicate one today would necessitate experts the world
over.
Cathedrals
were possible because small villages were teaming with craftsman, artists and
farmers. Village harmony did not
merely produce a reasonable and sustainable economy, but joyful men. This was a time when rainy England was “Merrie
England.” James J. Walsh, commenting
on the men that build the Cathedrals, compares the workman of a medieval
village with those of today, and considers what made them so merry:
“It is easy to understand that workman
would be profoundly merry at heart when they had the consciousness of
accomplishing such good work. Men
must have almost tardily quitted their labor in the evening while they hoped
and strove to accomplish something that would be worthy of the magnificent building
in which so many of their fellow workman were achieving triumphs of
handcraftsmanship. Each went home
to rest for the night, but also to dream over what he might be able to do and
awoke in the morning with the thought that possibly to-day would see some
noteworthy result. This represents
the ideal of the workman’s life.
He has an interest quite apart from the mere making of money. The picture of the modern workman by
contrast looks vain and sordid.
The vast majority of our workmen labor merely because they must make
enough money to-day, in order that they may be able to buy food enough so as to
get strength for work to-morrow.
Of interest there is very little.
Day after day there is the task of providing for self and others. Only this and nothing more. Is it any wonder that there should be
social unrest and discontentment?
How can workmen be merry unless with the artificial stimulus of strong
drink, when there is nothing for them to look forward to except days and weeks
and years of labor succeeding one another remorselessly, and with not surcease
until Nature puts in her effective demand for rest, or the inevitable comes.”
Some
may claim the village is romanticized – that romance clouds truth; that they
were superstitious, fearful and filthy.
But these accomplishments and the social memory of the village proves
that, like the love of a marriage, the romantic was the true and the trepidation
is the exception. Those who
dismiss medieval villagers as superstitious serfs “know nothing at all of the
lives of the towns of the Middles Ages and are able to appreciate not even the
slightest degree the wonderful system … that made life so much fuller of
possibilities … for all classes and for happiness in life, than any other
period of which we know. This
phase … is at once the most interesting, the most significant for future
generations, and the most important in its lessons for all time.”
Steps
towards a cultural renewal, however, cannot start with merely founding a
village. The founding of anything
great is the end of many steps, not the first. Thus, in reality the village is not a pattern to be
mimicked, but a sign of hope, a testament to what man does when man thrives as
man. A true distributist is not
placing his hope in villages made by men, but in men that make villages:
“So
if I am told at the start: ‘You do not think Socialism or reformed Capitalism
will save England; do you really think Distributism will save England?’ I answer, ‘No, I think Englishmen will
save England, if they begin to have half a chance.’”
It
is right, therefore, to say that what is described below is a looking to the
wisdom of ages past, and knowing that men of today are men of at least similar
substance, and therefore capable of learning from their fathers.
Wake
again, Teutonic Father-ages,
Speak
again, beloved primeval creeds;
Flash
ancestral spirit from your pages,
Wake
the greedy age to noble deeds.
(Epmietheus.)
There
will we find laws which shall interpret,
Through
the simpler past, existing life;
Delving
up from mines and fairy caverns
Charmed
blades to cut the age’s strife.
(Rev. Charles Kingsley)
The Fall of Rome and Rise
of the Village
With
the image of the village in mind, with its craftsmen and small farms,
considering the history of its creation is in order. Moving forward, it must again be noted that what is sought
in learning about the village is the ends
that property provides: free cultivation of the fruits of the earth in an
economic and social arrangement lasting enough to produce culture.
A
fact often missed in discussions about private property and villages is that most
of the property that was cultivated in places like England was not actually
owned by the farmers. Their arrangement with landowners was, however, mutually
enriching and as rooted as an ancient vineyard. Though today all social and economic systems of the Middle
Ages are swept into the definition of “feudalism,” this fails to acknowledge the
variety of arrangements and the clear benefit this afforded the peasants, as these
arrangements between classes were the basis of the village. This mutual
agreement, however, was born from a much less mutual though somewhat agreed
arrangement: slavery.
In
fact, the word village is derived
from the Latin word villae, which was
a Roman system that remained in place even after the fall of Rome and the rise
of Byzantium between the fourth and sixth centuries. Villas (the English version of the word) were large estates
owned by a sole proprietor (a dominus, or
“lord”) and worked by slaves.
The agrarian life, however, was not primarily for local sustainability, but for
export and the general wealth of the lord. What was given the slaves was given
so that they might produce more, not thrive as men. Slavery and other forms of servitude were often undesirable,
but they afforded a certain sense of stability in the world of constant war and
invasion that follows the fall of Rome. The peasant class was “at once
exploited and protected,”
but their stability was lasting enough for culture to develop and they helped
build the foundation of Christendom itself. Slavery prior to the rise of
Christianity was an assumed part of life. Few questioned it. Jesus freely speaks of slavery as a
matter-of-fact human institution (Matthew 25:45-51). St. Paul even provides moral guidelines
for those living in this state.
As
Rome declined the Church’s influence grew. This influence reached deep into rural life as the sees of
bishops became less centered around cities and more of a countryside reality,
with monasteries gaining significant sway. In fact, if cities remained at all
after the fall of Rome it was because the bishop was there.
Western Europe was transforming as
monastic influences from Ireland, but even more so from Benedictine Italy,
compounded in places like England. The Church’s anthropological philosophies
grew roots in more and more minds.
Rulers and inhabitants tasted the grace of sacraments, and traditional
slavery became distasteful. Landowners did not have to free their slaves, but
they had to answer for their treatment and acknowledge they were indeed men
like themselves, and that
for Christians the deepest reality (deeper than the economic system of the
time) was that there was “no more slave and freemen”
even when their was.
The
second move towards freeing the slaves of the giant estate was more pragmatic.
As Rome fell and Moslem imperialism cut off the Mediterranean (the main trade
route from West to East), economies became more localized and dependent upon
themselves. From this came a more communal agrarian state. Replacing international trade as a
source of wealth for estate owners, land became “the sole source of subsistence
and the sole condition of wealth,”
and all relied on what could be produced and traded locally, as opposed to
produced in large quantities by slaves and shipped to Byzantium. Lords of the land became dependant on
the slaves and a more closed economy developed, requiring more sustainable and
mutually enriching practices for men and the land. Merchant traders became husbands (“house-bounds”) of the
land and estate owners, cutoff from international trade, did the same. “[They] did not do so because of choice
but from necessity…” No longer
could proprietors keep slaves in production for the sake of export, but he
became, in a sense, enslaved to his slaves. He needed them to reap the fruits of the land and they
needed him for protection from foreign invaders.
“By
the ninth century, when this process had been gradually at work for … three
hundred years, one fixed form of productive unit began to be apparent throughout
Western Christendom.”
This unit was the village. The
lord still owned the land, but the inhabitants were no longer slaves. In fact, the dependence of the lord on
his people gave rise to the people themselves having permanent rights to
cultivate the land and later even owning small parts of it. The lands had distinct divisions of
rights and customs that ensured that the lord of the land and the peasants had
sufficient produce and that the land itself was cared for and not worked as to
deplete its fruitfulness.
The
first of three divisions was the domain
(the lord’s land), which was privately reserved to the landowner, though still
often worked by the peasants in a form of employment. The second division, though still legally the lord’s, was
reserved in apparent perpetuity for the villagers, who had now worked the land
for generations. The land reserved
for them was completely for their own private cultivation and sustenance. Modern
equivalents would call them “homesteads,” though there is still remnants of the
tradition in the English word “yard,” derived from name of these lands: “yardlands.” The yardlands
were essentially small farms set aside for support of the family.
A third division of land was the “common lands” where both the lord and the
people had rights. These lands helped
sustain villages and the lord and had specific guidelines for what could be
produced on it. “For instance, in
a certain village, if there was a beech pasture for three hundred swine, the
lord might put in but fifty: two hundred and fifty were the rights of the ‘village.’” Overgrazing or mistreating the land was
a direct threat to food security and was not tolerated.
Thus
the villae became a village, and the
slave a yeoman. To this day the word village brings to mind images of harmony
and simplicity. The community was
strong and vibrant and the sustainable agrarian culture grew other needs that
were filled locally: metal-working, clothing, construction, etc. This came about in stages, the most
important of which was the rights to farm
the land. Even if later land
was purchased and privately owned by the farmer, while this was of course
better, it was of little change.
What was important was the ability to cultivate the fruits of the earth
freely.
The
dismantling of this culture took much less time than building. There were a
succession of revolutions that took apart each key piece: The Protestant
Reformation removed the deep religious unity and in some cases removed the land
and power from villages and guilds; the French revolution further removed
religion from the public square and moved man into a spirit of contempt for the
past (rejection of tradition); the industrial revolution took men from their
homes and crafts, hurting the family deeply; the sexual revolution completed
the breakdown of the family and healthy sexuality.
How to Build a Village
The
Church now continues to insist that revivals of culture depend completely on
the revival of families, and even the rural character of the past. “The rural family,” said Pope Benedict,
“needs to regain its rightful place at
the heart of society.”
Culture based on families can be developed by following the process of building
that brought us to places like Merrie England. This process can be divided and turned into four guiding
principles. The first principle is
the most critical, because it answers the problem of land ownership, but the
second two are integral to thriving on the land after families arrive.
The
first principle is the development of landowner and farmer relationships. Land is the critical ingredient to
regaining a culture of rural families, but it is also the biggest hurdle. When
economies closed after the rise of Islam in the seventh century, those who
owned the land and those who were formerly slaves (and sometimes still) created
the mutually enriching relationship that became villages. Today, as economic
conditions worsen, a return to the land for many of the masses that work in the
industrialized system seems viable and almost inevitable. Large estate owners may be very
interested in having small farms checker their land. This principle also assumes that the recovery of agrarian
culture is necessary. Just as the
village had its start in farming, the same is true today for cultural renewal. Traditions of leasing land are already
present in the US, but much more creative leases may be needed to help answer
other issues. However, this
approach does not require any legal or political adjustment in many rural
settings where codes and ordinances already favor agriculture.
The
nascent village of medieval times and the rights they worked out can serve as a
model. A landowner can retain
certain land for himself alone (which could perhaps be worked in a part-time
employment of those living on the land).
The other divisions would be the “common lands” where a percentage of
produce is given to the landowner (perhaps the lease agreement is a cash value,
but is paid with produce at market price). Then those living on the land could have permanent homes and
yardlands for their own “homesteading.”
In essence, the landowner would be keeping the land, but giving part of
it away in the form of farming rights to the permanent families (and the
agreement would need to be able to survive if the land was sold). Along with permanent families there
could easily be programs of apprenticeships and interns that would help
cultivate the land in exchange for food and experience.
Legal
and contractual foundations will need building, but the hope present in these
arrangements is truly exciting.
Despite Marxist and politically motivated assertions of class warfare,
history shows that these relationships can prove fruitful for all. In fact, there are already
examples of a coop approach (between farmer and owner) to land in place in the
West, and the ideas should be more circulated amongst ditributist circles. The
Church has "has always supported the model of
cooperatives"
and since land is the biggest hurdle, creative methods are in order. In the UK there is a program called
Landshare, which links up landowners and small farmers for this very idea. Another example is the Community Land
Trusts of the New Economic Institute which are forms “of common land ownership
with a charter based on the principles of sustainable and ecologically-sound
stewardship and use... Individual leaseholders own the buildings and other
improvements on the land created by their labor and investment, but do not own
the land itself."
Farmers assume all liability for
the operations and the lease is even transferable to heirs. By living in the home they are
guaranteed the rights to farm the land, even if they do not technically own it.
This arrangement of a trust or lease with a proprietor is very reminiscent of
medieval villages and their legal and customary divisions of land.
The
second principle is the emphasis on local economy. The relationship of landowners and workmen (and other
landowners and other workmen), especially if seperated from other economies for
imposed or chosen reasons, will naturally create local economy. Because “every economic decision has a moral consequence,” local systems
must have consistent moral foundations, and “the canons of justice must be
respected from the outset, as the economic process unfolds, and not just
afterwards or incidentally.” As they did for the process of
transforming slaves into yeoman, local economies of this sort can transform
factory workers to agrarian craftsmen provided there is consistent and
compatible philosophy and theology, though the religious uniformity of the
villages of the Middle Ages would prove difficult. Yet medieval principles of the “common good” (another
extract from the vocabulary of “common lands”) are very important as well as
belief in men of good will.
This
economy depends on the land being in sustainable use, and this is the third
principle. Though environmentalist
demand ecological stewardship for the sake of nature, sustainable stewardship in
this discussion is primarily for the sake of man. In harmony with nature, as part of creation himself, man is
at peace. Again, sustainable agriculture can help
to bring men into harmony if they agree that the land is a treasure to be
cultivated virtuously.
For
this to happen, there must be a firm establishment of the workmen on the land,
and that is the fourth principle: permanency. Even if this permanency varies in the future, there must be
at least long-term agreements (in the case of a workman working a landowners
land) that maintain a dependency on the land. This permanency will help to create sustainable attitudes,
even in those who lack virtue because, as the medieval philosopher Duns Scouts
pointed out: “a distinction of property is decidedly in accord with a peaceful
social life. For the wicked take
care only of what is their own…”
He was speaking, of course, about the very villages and divisions of rights
described above. If a man is
permanent, and needs the land healthy so it will produce, he will be more
likely to use sustainable practices.
In Conclusion
The
villages of the Middle Ages are not repeatable, but the events and
circumstances that gave them birth have many parallels today. Like Rome, there
are large world powers that appear increasingly unstable (the economic
collapses of 2008 seem very repeatable, even likely so). Like the huge land
estates during the fall of Rome, there are giant pieces of property that are
not able to be fully realized by the landowner alone. Like the closing of the Mediterranean, there is even the
parallel of a surge in Islamic power that creates instability in global markets.
Centralized
power and wealth has proven unworkable, but as they fall men may cheerfully
pick up the tools of their fathers and realize that they really don’t need
banks that cannot fail and giant governments that wont admit failure. In other words, the fall of the giants
may be the rise of the lowly. Men
are creative, need friendship, and men need to eat - and in this are the basic
ingredients of the village. These
ingredients, like the fruits of the earth, simply need to be cultivated and
harvested. Current economic
disasters may be just the catalyst to this cultivation. The decline of the
dollar may see to the raising of more barns. And herein is the most exhilarating hope: the associating of
men for the common good. This “habit of cooperation”
is part of the nature of man as a relational and communal creature.
Sadly,
cooperation it is often coerced by the grace of disaster, as in the case of a
hurricane (or flood or terrorist attack, etc.) when power goes off and screens
don’t project anymore and men are forced to go outside to live and serve. The hurricane honeymoon of community
seems to wane as fast as it waxes.
However, the slow cultivation of the village ideal is not a honeymoon,
but a cultural renewal. Workmen
will associate with landowners to find land to cultivate; workmen will
associate together to share costs of equipment and production; families will
associate in leisure and festivity. When the big entities fall and can no longer hand out what is
wanting or enslave men to wanting,
men will hold hand out to neighbor and not to the distributer. Many speak today of answering needs, of
ending the loneliness of suburbia and the boredom of the machine. But the need might actually be to
simply need a neighbor again. The
village is essentially an association of men that need each other, not merely
for raising barns, but also to inhabit the pubs together.
Bibliography
Benedict. Charity in Truth: Caritas in Veritate.
San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009.
Benedict,
Pope. “Message to UN Director General of Food and Agriculture.” Lecture, United
Nations, Rome, 2012.
Chesterton,
G.K. Outline of Sanity. Norfolk: IHS
Press, 2002. Amazon Kindle edition.
Hilaire
Belloc. The Serville State. Central:
Forgotten Books, 2012.
Jerret, Bede.
Social Theories of the Middle Ages.
Tacoma: Angelico Press, 2012.
Pirenne,
Henri. Economic and Social History of
Europe. New York: Harvest Books, 1933.
Pirenne,
Henri. Medieval Cities: Their Origins and
the Revival of Trade. New York: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Walsh, James
J. The Thirteenth: Greatest of Centuries.
New York: Catholic Summer School Press, 1913.
James J. Walsh, The Thirteenth: Greatest of Centuries
(New York: Catholic Summer School Press, 1913), 5.
Henri Pirenne, Economic and Social History of Europe (New York: Harvest Books,
1933), 12.
Benedict, Charity in Truth: Caritas in Veritate (San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 2009), 37.
Bede Jerret, Social Theories of the Middle Ages (Tacoma: Angelico Press, 2012),
125.
