Historical Sociology Vs. History

Julia Adams. The Familial State: Ruling Families and Merchant Capitalism in Early Modern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. xi + 235 pp. $35.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8014-3308-5. Reviewed by Susan R. Boettcher Published on H-Low-Countries (November, 2007) Historical Sociology vs. History discipline, gender relations) developed by practi‐ Two fundamental concerns of historical soci‐ tioners of the "new cultural history."[2] In her ology have always been the origin and nature of new book on the relationship of gender to devel‐ modernity. In response to modernization and de‐ oping states, Adams claims to be "charting ... new pendency theory, which seemed to present territory in the study of the formation of Euro‐ modernity as an objectively describable condi‐ pean states" (p. 12). However, while Adams adds tion, previous generations of historical sociolo‐ some elements to her account, especially gender gists studied comparative issues in early modern and the colonial economy, if this work is indica‐ European history, especially themes emphasized tive of the "new" historical sociology, it provides in that body of theory, such as democratic revolu‐ us primarily with another version of the story tion and the emergence of the nation-state. Those rather than new questions, different approaches, sociologists (one thinks of Charles Tilly, Theda or perhaps most importantly, new characteriza‐ Skocpol, Barrington Moore, and Immanuel tions of the genesis and trajectory of the early Wallerstein) enriched not only the questions his‐ modern state. torians asked but substantially influenced the so‐ Adams's book is organized in an introduction cial history written in response. Yet sociology's in‐ and six chapters. Her introduction outlines her in‐ fluence faded in the face of disillusionment with terest in the Netherlands, as an example not ex‐ quantitative and economic approaches (including plained effectively by world-systems analysis and but not limited to Marxism) and the wave of cul‐ one that challenges an alleged oversimplicity in tural history influenced by anthropology and lin‐ feminist theories of early modern politics. She in‐ guistic theory.[1] Among younger historical sociol‐ troduces the term "familial state" to mean a state ogists, a new wave of interest in the early modern that ties paternal rule to particular political and state-society relationship seems to be emerging, economic arrangements made between the heads one that moves more strongly into issues (social of families. These arrangements, she asserts H-Net Reviews throughout the book, allowed both the Dutch eco‐ via the Raad van State. About 1500 families partic‐ nomic upswing in the sixteenth and seventeenth ipated in these arrangements, which were held to‐ centuries by cementing family authority and eco‐ gether by the leading role taken by Holland's re‐ nomic interest to that of the developing state--and gents, who supported the state with their fnan‐ caused its downfall after the late seventeenth cen‐ cial clout. Adams minimizes the role of Calvinism tury insofar as its connection to patriarchal con‐ as a unifying factor, particularly for the period af‐ cerns meant that the developed state limited their ter 1620, an odd choice given that Calvinism ability to respond to a changing economic and served as one of the major tools for putting this geopolitical situation. The remainder of the chap‐ particular group of families on the political map. ter is concerned with statements on the utility of One outcome of the success of the Amsterdam pa‐ her methodology for the book's theme. Chapter 1 triciate in unifying Dutch families was the char‐ introduces the term "patrimonial nexus." Drawing tering of the East Indies Company (VOC) in 1602 on Max Weber, Adams asserts that patrimonial with a twenty-one-year monopoly. At the same governance "parcellize(s) downward," is "cross- time, this success carried the seeds of its own dis‐ cut by peculiarly patterned tensions," and "is a integration in the form of inter-corporate compe‐ fixed form that paradoxically allows for institu‐ tition, as when the Amsterdam city council and tional innovation" (pp. 17-18). In such systems, the VOC directorate sabotaged the West India governmental legitimacy is based on notions of Company, a decision characterized here as prema‐ tradition, so that any novelty or innovation re‐ ture and in effect damaging to the familial state's quires significant justification. Sovereign trading interests. Thus it is not enough to trace the even‐ companies, seen by contemporary governments tual decline of the Netherlands as a hegemonic as a means to hegemony, were one such innova‐ power as a consequence of economic difficulty, tion, though their influence was mitigated by ex‐ since the by-that-point increasingly inflexible pa‐ isting property relations and elite corporate orga‐ triarchal structure of the state was a major con‐ nizations, as well as the often problematic rela‐ tributing factor to the loss of political and eco‐ tionships between corporations. Patriarchy, on nomic power. At the height of the Golden Age, a the other hand, "an image or ideology of paternal gradual transformation of the merchant elite into rule that may link familiar with macropolitical, a rentier elite occurred, as members of the patri‐ economic, or other sociocultural practices" (p. 32), ciate lent capital to the state, thus securing their was a legitimating move, one that could be made incomes (because they decided rates of interest on by merchant elites as well as monarchs, and an government bonds), even as they continued to de‐ essential aspect of early modern political authori‐ termine who would stay in power. Chapter 3 ex‐ ty. Chapter 2 discusses the mercantile features of amines the familial aspect of this system of gover‐ Dutch rule, as well as threats to it from different nance in an atmosphere of struggle for control be‐ corporations within the Dutch polity and the tween various actors who wanted to constitute transformative effect of ruling on the groups that the state. In particular, Dutch families sought to ruled. The story begins after the Dutch Revolt, pass on political privilege by conserving or ex‐ when Amsterdam replaced Antwerp as the major panding it via marital alliances and inheritance Dutch trading port and after which Dutch elites practices that focused on producing and support‐ first attempted to replace the Habsburgs, initially ing the single male heir. Such practices produced by reverting to the tradition of the Stadholder as feuds between competing families that could manifested in the House of Orange, then by at‐ block state development as much as enhance it. tempting to constitute a state by prohibiting ve‐ Chapter 4 applies the model of the familial state to nality of office and concentrating political control England and France, where inter-familial rela‐ 2 H-Net Reviews tionships and commercial interests were also vital and France, for instance). Readers familiar with to the constitution of the state. It seems odd to as‐ that literature will only be able to accept Adams's sert as a novel argument that various aspects of claim if they are ready to assume that "family" is a the French system of venality impinged negative‐ different category than "nobility" while "family" ly on French economic development (Colbert not‐ and "gender" mean the same thing. The restate‐ ed this at the time) and created a political invest‐ ment of gender as "patriarchy" does not really ment in the state among participating families (p. mitigate this problem, because the primary conse‐ 113), since these are classic, albeit contested, quence of patriarchy in Adams' view is a (detri‐ claims of a great deal of secondary literature al‐ mental) inertial tendency in dealing with new ready, of which Adams' apparatus suggests she is economic or political challenges in view of politi‐ at least partially aware.[3] Chapter 5 treats the cal arrangements that privilege tradition over in‐ economic decline of the Dutch Republic in view of novation. Laying Max Weber aside, Adams the transformation of Dutch elites to a rentier demonstrates no inherent relationship between class; Adams argues that this decline was caused such privileging and gender arrangements; in‐ neither by war nor fscal crisis, but by a govern‐ deed, European elites often behaved in value-con‐ ing elite incapable of responding to such chal‐ servative ways with regard to matters that appear lenges because (as a patriarchal group) it was in‐ to have little relationship to gender. In War, Reli‐ vested in maintaining the very familial identities gion and Court Patronage in Habsburg Austria that had supported the rise of the Dutch commer‐ (2003), for example, Karin J. MacHardy used cial empire in the frst place. Chapter 6 returns to Pierre Bourdieu's notion of habitus to explain the French/English/Dutch comparison to argue why Bohemian Protestant nobles felt unable to that families were key to shaping state, commer‐ convert to Catholicism when it would clearly have cial, and colonial projects in all three settings. been in their political interest to do so. Insofar as Although Adams repeatedly stresses the nov‐ Adams's "patriarchy" describes Dutch families as elty of her account, many of these claims will working together to pursue a common interest, it sound familiar to historians. Adams's chief contri‐ bears a strong resemblance to what historians bution in her own view is that of adding "gender" used to call "class." And "class" explanations for to the mix via the discussion of family, patriarchy, early modern political change are rife, especially and patrimonialism. She charges that up until in the works of the previous generation of histori‐ now scholars of early modern state development cal sociologists. have "miss[ed] the potential political importance Because Adams emphasizes the role of coun‐ of familial coalitions of male officeholders im‐ terfactuals in argumentation, it seems to fair to planted in the wider apparatus of rule" (p.

Load more