Feudalism, Power, and Violence

To understand organizations and society today—especially the current problems—we must understand feudalism.

Now you’re probably thinking, “What about feudalism? That hasn’t existed for ages.”

And that’s true. The systems have changed, but the ways of thinking have remained the same. Much of what we consider to be “laws of nature” are simply habits. Things we’ve been doing in a certain way for so long that they’ve become part of our collective worldview, and we’ve forgotten that there are alternatives.

My criticism

Feudalism is, at its core, immoral and antisocial. That is its “strength,” its function, its defining characteristic. It is also important to understand this. After all, there is a difference between something being a central feature or an undesirable side effect.

In the context of an invasive approach (we saw this particularly well in European colonization of the world), it works great. If I want to overrun other peoples or cultures, then immoral (unscrupulous) behavior is useful.

For the purpose of a happy and stable society (“What is best for the system?”), it is unsuitable. We will see why.

How does it work, essentially?

Feudalism is based on the assumption that there are a select few and everyone else. The select few are allowed to rule over the others. There are those who hold power and those who must serve. Some make the decisions; others are exploited. This is the “divine order,” so it’s okay.

And strictly speaking, only the privileged were truly considered human. The others were something else.

For the nobility, this was based on birth; later, education or some other justification was added.

Violence was institutionalized

Before we start criticizing everything, we might as well look at the reasons why it’s so stable and functional.

In systems based on fear, violence, and insecurity, it’s beneficial to give violence a structure. Some are allowed to use violence, others are not. For Europe, we can say: about 1% were privileged. That is, 1% nobility. And they were allowed to use violence. They were supposed to maintain order. They devised and enforced the rules. (Then there was a small clergy and free citizens. But even there, a similar distinction can be made: a few rich people, and the majority had to enslave themselves.)

So we have 1–2% who benefit directly but also bear the responsibility (these are the “parents” of the system), and the other 98% are infantilized or legally treated more like animals (especially the serfs). It is thus a trade-off of freedom and value for order and a certain degree of protection.

But since they weren’t really valuable (as human beings), the protection was also rather abstract. (Yes, there is a bit of criticism implied here. Especially from the perspective of the Basic Law and our conception of freedom. But those didn’t exist back then.)

The habit of dehumanization

We can see that the key to success is dehumanization. I can only exploit others if I dehumanize them first.

And even though the form has changed completely in the meantime, patterns of thought that have remained stable for 70 or 90 generations persist for a long time.

And we find this dehumanization in various forms. In one instance, it involves denying people their worth based on misconduct, background, or stereotypes. This doesn’t even have to be an absolute loss of value, as we know it from feudalism or as we repeatedly read in some feminist posts. Currently, the subtle gradations in value are more critical. And often they stem from one’s own feelings or worldview.

The second is our constant struggle against “human nature.” For us, it is completely normal for rules to take precedence over physical and emotional needs. We have a deep-seated belief that our society will collapse if we do not work against our humanity and suppress it. This begins, at the latest, in school. We find it completely normal to follow the dubious rule of punctuality like machines. That’s just a simple example.

Relics

Wherever we still see these structures, we know that we still have these patterns of thought. They may be hidden behind a pleasant facade, but they are there.

In the military, we have officers and soldiers. And it’s all about obedience (orders). “You must do what I say, simply because I have power over you.”
In companies, we have the CxOs, who are also officers. We have management and the staff. And the idea of “disciplinary” superiors is feudalistic.

Take a look around you and you’ll see that we have feudal structures almost everywhere, even though we “supposedly” live in a democracy.
We find it in most families and even in schools and churches. Feudalism is a worldview. And the first thing that shapes it is which side I’m on. Do I experience someone having power over me?

To recognize feudal thinking, we can use our concept of power and violence as markers—as warning lights.

Power & Violence

“Power is the ability to impose one’s will even in the face of resistance.” (Max Weber) This is a neutral description. It does not yet contain any judgment as to whether this is good or bad.

“Power is present wherever behavior is influenced—often invisibly, through norms, expectations, and structures.” (Michel Foucault)

And when we look at it neurologically, emotionally, and socially, we find that power goes hand in hand with violence. So we can easily distinguish between two basic forms of coexistence: violence-based or not.

Now the first question: Does anyone know a word for this “not”? Do we know of any examples of it? Do we believe that such a thing can exist?

It should be clear where I’m going with this. Feudalist thinking has become the collective worldview. We no longer even realize that things can be different. (Even when people tried to build socialism and communism, they did so within the framework of feudalist thinking. What remained were systems of violence.)

So that we can learn a very useful definition of violence, let’s take a quick look at how these concepts build upon one another.

• Purpose, or our shared goal: “What is best for the system?” This goal (in its specific form) represents a global optimum (from the system’s perspective). In a functional system, individuals do not each seek their own personal optimum; rather, we seek the mutual optimum because we know that this is the best state for all of us. Furthermore, this purpose also defines the system’s boundaries. We need something that defines the inside and the outside.
• Once the goal is set, we should understand human (emotional, psychological, social) basic needs and shape our lives so that they are fulfilled. The basic needs are connectedness and self-expression. And unsurprisingly, we see that both are socially meaningful basic needs, because they promote community actualization—that is, the development of the system (the group, the pack) into its natural best state.
• Connection requires a genuine relationship, and a relationship requires trust. We need enough secure reference points—especially those moments when it really matters, when we find ourselves in challenging or stressful situations.
• Trust requires boundaries. In a feudal mindset, we often confuse boundaries with rules. Rules tell others what to do so that I feel good. Boundaries, on the other hand, are entirely my responsibility. I know what I want and what I don’t want. I have a clear picture of my safe space or room to grow. Others know this too, and my boundaries are defined in such a way that I can maintain them at all times without having to control others (i.e., no rules).

Borders: the same freedom for everyone.

Rules: the same violation for everyone.

• Violence occurs when I am prevented from protecting my boundaries. “Violence is a violation of my basic needs that I cannot avoid. I cannot protect my boundaries.” I define boundaries in such a way that I can enforce them at any time. If I am prevented from doing so, then violence begins. Example: I want to leave a situation and am being held back. (In contrast, saying “Stop annoying me now or I’ll hit you” is not a boundary. That is violence itself.)
  Note: Violence always comes in two forms. In one case, I can actively force someone; in the other, I can withhold something. In terms of food, this would be overfeeding or starving someone. We primarily see the active form, but it accounts for only about 10%. Ninety percent of abuse takes place through deprivation, withholding, avoidance, or protection. We are starving. It looks harmless because no one is “doing” anything, but the internal effect is the same. Often, it’s even worse.
• Social development (through relationships) occurs when the boundaries of two people come into contact. It is a process of polishing that transforms a raw diamond into a brilliant one (see 3x Diamond). Violence, therefore, is the violation or infringement of my boundaries, as opposed to testing, examining, and adjusting my boundaries through my relationships with others.

And that gives us the answer to the question above: We can build systems that are violence-based or relationship-based. In the triadic model of the brain, the violence-based system would be the Gecko (brainstem, reptilian brain), and the relationship-based system would be the Limbi (the limbic system, or rather its seven subsystems). This is because social intelligence resides in the Limbi. We have, so to speak, a brain that allows us to build functional systems. In violent environments, this part is suppressed and operates in the negative realm. Our limbic system does not disappear when it is suppressed; rather, it becomes destructive.

Tension is good

Let’s keep this in mind: Violence = any situation in which I cannot effectively protect my boundaries, and: A healthy relationship = the friction of boundaries that I can regulate myself. So boundaries are not absolute.

And contrary to current perceptions, not every tension is violence; rather, it is only a forced violation of boundaries with no room for maneuver.

On the contrary, tension is an important element: “Everyone has the right to the free development of their personality, provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others and do not violate the constitutional order or the moral code.” (German Basic Law, Article 2)
A relationship is a negotiation. A process of friction and adjustment, a learning experience. My boundaries and your boundaries. Everything is valid at the same time. And a relationship works when there is a common intersection. Perhaps not on the surface, but at a deeper level. At the core. Otherwise, we are not part of a system.

Our new model has three major strengths:

1. It is experience-based
   • We do not start from external categories (“legal/illegal”), but rather from: agency, self-protection, and autonomy. We are therefore closely attuned to people. (No longer opposed to people and humanity, but rather, we integrate the essence of what it means to be human.)
   • This brings to light things that are often overlooked: emotional dependence, subtle pressure, and structural constraints.
2. It automatically integrates the three forms of violence
   • We bring together what Johan Galtung distinguished in his definition of violence: direct violence → I am being held back; structural violence → I am effectively unable to leave; cultural violence → I am not “allowed” to leave in my heart
   • In our model, all of these fall under the same category: prevented border security
3. It makes development understandable
   • The image of the “diamond” and the polishing process is interesting: development = boundaries clash, but remain manageable. This is quite close to modern psychological models: growth arises from tension + security, not from coercion

Challenge

Of course, a new model should also be viewed critically. We say: “I define my boundaries in such a way that I can uphold them at all times.” That’s a high standard. But we also want to expose feudalist thinking. So here are two questions to test that:

Question 1: Is that realistic in social systems?

In reality, there are always situations where boundaries cannot be fully controlled: children vs. parents; employees vs. employers; citizens vs. the state
If one takes the new definition strictly, then these systems would be inherently violent. That isn’t necessarily wrong—but it is a very strong statement.

Answer: Yes. Because in social systems, there is no “versus.” Either we are not part of the same system because we have different purposes, or we have a friction that we could utilize. Only in “asocial” systems is it about one side being right. The goal of this new definition of violence is to make exactly that visible. What we call feudalism or patriarchy are systems based on fear and violence because we are in a state of insecurity. But security comes only through relationships. Both systems are okay, but it must be clear where I stand. And there must be choices.

At the moment, society is structured in such a way that there is no alternative for people who do not want to live within systems of fear. We do not offer any alternatives or safe systems. If both options were available, then we would have a choice, and it would be interesting to see what happens.

Question 2: What about internal boundaries?

Often, boundaries are blocked not only externally but also internally: by fear, attachment, dependence, and conditioning. This raises the question: Is violence present even when I could act but am unable to do so internally? The new model tends to include this as well—and this makes it very far-reaching.

Answer: Absolutely yes. That is precisely the strength of the model. We also want to make this aspect visible. The cost of trauma lies precisely in the fact that it perpetuates violence over time. From this perspective, we can then determine what trauma truly is and have a vested interest in resolving it.

And it also becomes clear how and why trauma is often “imposed” from the outside. So if I impose my worldview, my trauma, on someone else based on laws, rules, norms, or morality, then that is violence. From this perspective, we can easily see that we have many defense mechanisms that exert violence.

What now?

It’s not easy to break 1,600 years of ingrained patterns. Things aren’t going to change overnight. What’s interesting is that, when we look more closely, we arrive at similar conclusions even though we start from different points: “Patriarchy is good”, Two perspectives on the world—and little overlap, Defensiveness – simply childish, So what is man really like? Good or evil?.

And, of course, everything about Gecko and Limbi.

At first, though, it’s all about you. It’s about realizing, “Hey, there’s an option. I’ve never experienced this before, but I feel that part of me wants it. And I realize there are some questions I’ve never asked because I thought, ‘That’s just the way the world is.’”

So ask those questions. Let’s ask questions together and try out alternatives.

(We’ve already touched on this topic in Feudalism: A Majority’s Perspective)