sign in sign up
<<
Home , Historical sociology, Social history

Julia Adams. The Familial : 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 vs. discipline, gender relations) developed by practi‐ Two fundamental concerns of historical soci‐ tioners of the "new ."[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" , 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, diferent approaches, sociologists (one thinks of , 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 infuenced 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‐ fuence faded in the face of disillusionment with terest in the Netherlands, as an example not ex‐ quantitative and economic approaches (including plained efectively by world-systems analysis and but not limited to Marxism) and the wave of cul‐ one that challenges an alleged oversimplicity in tural history infuenced by 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- 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 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 , 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‐ fxed 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 efect damaging to the familial state's quires signifcant justifcation. 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 difculty, tion, though their infuence was mitigated by ex‐ since the by-that-point increasingly infexible 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 diferent nance in an atmosphere of struggle for control be‐ corporations within the Dutch polity and the tween various actors who wanted to constitute transformative efect 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‐ frst 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 ofce 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‐ diferent 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 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 ofceholders im‐ terfactuals in argumentation, it seems to fair to planted in the wider apparatus of rule" (p. 33) and ask two questions in response to her incorpora‐ consequently understated the gendered character tion of patriarchy as an explanatory factor for the of states. Thus "bringing in the component [of] behavior of Dutch elites: frst, were these govern‐ family elucidates what theorists of state forma‐ ing families either risk-averse or hostile to inno‐ tion have previously treated as purely politico- vation because they were patriarchal (and, by ex‐ economic patterns and problems" (p. 104). It is tension, is patriarchy really the factor that made hard to understand the frst claim, given that early modern governments infexible)? Secondly, most of an entire generation of European histori‐ had the Dutch state not been "familial," i.e., patri‐ ans devoted their energies to studying the partici‐ archal, would the decline of the Dutch economy pation and activities of nobilities and civic elites and empire have been preventable because the in early modern European governmental projects families would have been conditioned to behave (these themes are especially well studied for Italy diferently (that is, would the absence of patri‐

3 H-Net Reviews archy somehow have eliminated their interests as does not pursue. Adams's familial state thus ap‐ a class as well)? The reader of this book will be in‐ pears to have had only one gender. While gender clined to answer "no" to both questions, so it do not necessarily have to focus on wom‐ seems that the factor of patriarchy as introduced en, it is hard to see why a gendered account of po‐ here is not a sufcient explanatory factor for un‐ litical or class behavior is necessary if the gender derstanding either the development of the Dutch of the participants appears to hold little or no de‐ state or Dutch economic decline. Adams would cisive bearing on that behavior. probably respond here that the point is not a sin‐ Another factor of this account that Adams gle-factor explanation, but the confuence of fac‐ deems important is her comparative approach, tors; still, the inclusion of the term of patriarchy which is intended to reveal alternative paths of as employed here--not as a means of distinguish‐ early modern state development. Of course, the ing between the behavior of diferent groups or results of a comparison depend strongly on what classes or actors, but as a pure descriptor--leaves is being compared. The choice of England and the reader at a loss as to the novelty of the insight France is key because until fairly recently, mod‐ that actors and groups involved in trying to im‐ ern historians considered them to be nearly sin‐ pinge upon the state struggled for power, or that gular models of successful state development. families used particular dynastic strategies (pur‐ Adams seems unaware of debates conducted over suit of marital alliances and attempts to close the the last decade concerning the nature of the state elite) in their attempts to pass on political privi‐ in the Holy Roman Empire and its subsidiary enti‐ lege. These were staple arguments in the histori‐ ties.[4] Indeed, she seems trapped in a historiogra‐ ography of European in the 1970s phy of western Europe that, in a peculiar early and 80s, which suggested that such behaviors modern twist on the superseded , in‐ were typical of nobilities and burger elites sists on the primacy of the English and French ex‐ throughout western Europe. amples as sole models for the development of the Adams may have more of a point in noting nation-state. Ironically, such assumptions rest on the neglect of "family" issues in the work of femi‐ just the stereotypes cultivated by the moderniza‐ nist political theorists of the early modern state, tion literature Adams wants to leave behind. whose works have tended to focus on gender as a Given that merchant elites of the sort Adams political or philosophical category (Carol Pate‐ examines were common in central and southeast‐ man) or as a cultural code for certain political be‐ ern Europe, many historical readers will fnd haviors associated with gender that changed over themselves confused about the book's neglect of a time (Joan Landes) rather than as an issue of fam‐ comparative project that would have had a much ily, per se. Still, without a defnition of the "gen‐ stronger potential to challenge our received no‐ der" category that distinguishes it convincingly tions about the emergence of the European na‐ from "family interest among a particular social tion-state once we leave behind, as the current segment," it is hard to see from this account why does, that the nation-state as it it should supersede class theories of the emer‐ emerged in England and France, was some sort of gence of the early modern state. Because they be‐ ideal. One suspects that a comparison to German- have in ways that beneft their , speaking areas was not undertaken because, by Adams's "patriarchal" or "patrimonial" actors the sixteenth century, the German cities and terri‐ could just as well have been women as men. tories taken separately or together did not consti‐ Moreover, both Landes and Pateman treated gen‐ tute a leading unifed economic force in early der as a perceived distinguishing factor among modernity, nor did they create a colonial empire potential political actors, a project that Adams

4 H-Net Reviews at the time. A caution about the relevance of the of the Reich.[6] That these cities also formed coali‐ colonial comparison: if the lack of an early mod‐ tions for the pursuit of common political interest ern colonial empire was the reason for the choice is also well known. If we look away from the cities of England and France over the burgher elites of as non-constitutive of states and insist on limiting German cities, it makes the portions of Adams's comparisons to German territorial states as fur‐ argument relating to colonialism--as the defnitive ther on the path to the nation-state in the period, reason for picking this comparison--much more still Adams seems unaware of the long tradition of important than they seem at frst glance.[5] The research on the relationship of the representation rise of the Dutch empire, moreover, was condi‐ of gender to governance in the German dynastic tioned on the defeat or decline of its two major states exemplifed in the work of Heide Wunder, competitors, the Hanseatic League and Venice--a for example, or Ulrike Strasser's arguments in piece of the story not included in this book that State of Virginity (2004) about the role of gender not only points out the abrupt beginning of its factors to the establishment and stabilization of narrative but also raises questions in the reader's the early modern Bavarian state. A developing lit‐ mind about which comparisons might be most erature--one thinks of the work of Rebekka useful. Prehistory of its subject is not a strength of Habermas--treats gender in the German bour‐ this book. Its picture of state arrangements before geoisie of the eighteenth century; and of course the period it describes neglects the results of the extensive focus has been devoted to the relation‐ last ffty years of research on medieval constitu‐ ship of the developing urban bourgeoisie to Ger‐ tional history: according to Adams, feudal recipro‐ man national politics after the Napoleonic Wars. cal governmental arrangements were a "hoary To outline briefy the comparative potential of practice" (p. 16) and pre-modern monarchs were another series of cases that reveals just how fa‐ "predatory" (p. 20). We read further that "rulers in miliar Adams's argument will be to historical feudal and early modern Europe ... profered or readers, we can also turn to the long historiogra‐ withdrew favors at will," and that "property rights phy of that bear on dynastic and ... were liable to systematic violation" (p. 26). Cyn‐ political relations in Venice (Stanley Chojnacki's ics will wonder, on the basis of this description, work, which indeed distinguishes between the what distinguished these regimes from modern roles of women and men as political actors, is sug‐ democratic states. gestive). Adams might also have drawn upon an But back to the general problem raised by po‐ older literature on the decline of Venice (most of it tential comparisons to the Holy Roman Empire: published before 1962) that refected on aspects of once we acknowledge the extremely limited the outlook of the Venetian patriciate (strongly meaning of Adams's defnition of "patriarchy" or closed, heavily patriarchal) as a factor in this de‐ "gender" and then go on to acknowledge other velopment.[7] Her brief gesture toward Florence models of early modern state development be‐ to argue that it is not a useful comparison will yond that associated with France and England-- need to be read in dialogue with two recent arti‐ another one of the claims Adams wants to push-- cles that relate early modern Florentine networks from the perspective of research on the Holy Ro‐ and patrilineage to the development of credit man Empire and Italy, the issues that Adams out‐ practices.[8] Experts on Italy will also take with a lines about civic elites and familial matters are all grain of salt her claim that "the VOC was one of familiar. Hers is hardly the frst work to examine the frst examples of a limited liability company" the efects of family relations in the burgher elites (p. 50). of trading cities on governmental arrangements, a matter studied heavily for the free imperial cities

5 H-Net Reviews

Although it is potentially interesting to com‐ Gorski, The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism pare the Dutch Republic to England and France, and the Disciplinary Revolution in Early Modern particularly since the Netherlands hardly receive Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, the attention they deserve in the secondary litera‐ 2003). ture, very little of Adams's argumentation will [3]. For aspects and variations on this argu‐ strike readers of historical literature on Italy and ment, see, among a sea of literature (on families, the Reich as novel; her questions will be standard venality, and support of the state): Barbara fare for scholars who have studied early modern Diefendorf, Paris City Councillors in the Sixteenth civic elites and their trading, political, and eco‐ Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, nomic practices. French historians will also be 1983); (on venality and its consequences): Hilton surprised by her claims of novelty with regard to Root, _The Political Foundation of Privilege in Ear‐ the matter of family-sustaining behaviors. ly Modern England and France (Berkeley: Univer‐ Strangely, however, Adams describes her explana‐ sity of California Press, 1994). One thinks as well tion as an alternative to a "purely historical event- of the magisterial works of Robert Forster. based style of narrative explanation" (p. 10). In [4]. Summarized in one of the most important our age of , it is time to stop us‐ recent contributions to the discussion: Georg ing our interlocutors' disciplinary assumptions as Schmidt, Geschichte des alten Reiches: Staat und straw men for arguments, especially in cases Nation in der frühen Neuzeit, 1495-1806 (Munich: where they prevent us from making the argument Beck, 1999). in the frst place. Just as historians know that soci‐ ologists understand that details, anomalous [5]. For a convincing discussion of the por‐ events, and contingent factors can be important tions of Adams's argument that relate to the role factors in historical explanations, surely sociolo‐ of the VOC, see Leslie Price, "The Dutch Republic gists understand by now that historians do more and the Familial State," Comparative & Historical than simply explain things by telling their readers Sociology 17, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 7-11. Adams' re‐ what happened via a chronological narrative. The ply appears in the same issue, pp. 15-18. ample number of historical studies that have al‐ [6]. A nice comparative summary of this mat‐ ready plowed the terrain Adams traverses should ter written at a level accessible to students is be taken as proof of the ability of historians to as‐ found in Christopher R. Friedrichs, The Early semble and assess structural factors as a role in Modern City, 1450-1750 (London: Longman, 1995); their explanations. In the past, they were helped in the same vein, see also his Urban Politics in out and encouraged in this task by historical soci‐ Early Modern Europe (London: Routledge, 2000). ologists. It's hard to understand what Adams's [7]. James C. Davis, The Decline of the Vene‐ brand of sociology has to add. tian Nobility as a (Baltimore: Johns Notes Hopkins University Press, 1962), which followed [1]. Traced most recently in Geof Eley, A upon works by Massimo Petrocchi, Marino Beren‐ Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the Histo‐ go, Giovanni Tobacco, and Gaetano Cozzi. ry of Society (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan [8]. John F. Padgett and Paul D. McLean, "Or‐ Press, 2005). ganizational Invention and Elite Transformation: [2]. Signaled by the book under review as well The Birth of Partnership in Flo‐ as by works such as Paula Miller, Transforma‐ rence," American Journal of Sociology 111 (2006): tions of Patriarchy in the West, 1500-1900 (Bloom‐ 1463-1568; John F. Padgett and Paul D. McLean, ington: Indiana University Press, 1998); and Philip "Economic Credit and Elite Transformation in Re‐

6 H-Net Reviews naissance Florence," American Journal of Sociolo‐ gy (forthcoming).

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-low-countries

Citation: Susan R. Boettcher. Review of Adams, Julia. The Familial State: Ruling Families and Merchant Capitalism in Early Modern Europe. H-Low-Countries, H-Net Reviews. November, 2007.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13867

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

7