The Division of Labor

"...Social harmony comes essentially from the division of labor. It is characterized by a

cooperation which is automatically produced through the pursuit by each individual of his own
interests. It suffices that each individual consecrate himself to a special function in order, by the
force of events, to make himself solidary with others."
(Durkheim, 1933, p.200)

The division of labor is simply the separation and specialization of work among people. As
industry and technology proliferate, and population increases, society must be become more
specialized if it is to survive. In modern society, this is especialy evident. Labor has never before
been as specialized as it is now, and the current trend is toward even further increased
specialization.

Durkheim was not merely concerned with what the division of labor was, but how it changed the
way people interreacted with one another. He was concerned with the social implications of
increased specialization. As specialization increases, Durkheim argued, people are increasingly
separated, values and interests become different, norms are varied, and subcultures (both work-
related and social-related) are formed. People, because they are increasingly performing different
tasks than one another, come to value different things than one another. Durkheim didn't see the
division of labor as the downfall of social order, however. He recognized that, in reality, the
division of labor gave rise to a distinct type of social order, or solidarity:organic solidarity.
Organic solidarity is social order built on the interdependence of people in society. Because
people are forced to perform distinct, separate, and specialized tasks, they come to rely on others
for their very survivial. While shoemakers and carpenters may be functioning fine, if farmers
stop working, everyone starves. If the carpenters quit, no one has any shelter. If the garbage
haulers don't show up, the streets become dumps and diseases spread. Durkheim saw that
without one another in a highly specialized society, no one can survive. This interdependence is
why the division of labor does not destroy social order.

The division of labor is not without problems of course, and an industrial utopia does not form
simply out of interdependence, for specialization has been seen to set people not only apart, but
against each other. Interests often collide and conflict exists. Karl Marx spent a great deal of
effort identifying the problems that arise due to the division of labor. Durkheim did not fool
himself into believing that the changes happening around him as a result of industrialization
would bring about total harmony, but he did recognize that though specialization sets us apart, it
does, in certain ways, bind us together.

One theme seems to be identical among all of the most important social theorists---Marx, Comte,
Spencer, C. Wright Mills, and especially Durkheim---the division of labor is almost always the
most important concept in understanding societies. It is the foundation upon which most
sociological thought is built.

"As the progress of the division of labor demands a very great concentration of the social mass,
there is between the different parts of the same tissue, of the same organ, or the same system, a
more intimate contact which makes happenings much more contagious. A movement in one part
rapidly communicates itself to others."
(1933, p.224)

"If work becomes progressively divided as societies become more voluminous and dense, it is
not because external circumstances are more varied, but because struggle for existence is more
acute."
(Giddens, 1972, p.153 [excerpt from The Division of Labor in Society])

"...It is easy to understand that any condensation of the social mass, especially if it is
accompanied by an increase in population, necessarily stimulates an advance in the division of
labor."
(1972, p. 154 [excerpt from The Division of Labor in Society])

"But if the division of labor produces solidarity, it is not only because it makes each indivdual an
exchangist, as the economists say; it is because it creates among men an entire system of rights
and duties which link them together in a durable way."
(1933, p. 406)

"In one case as in the other, the structure derives from the divison of labor and its solidarity.
Each part of the animal, having become an organ, has its proper sphere of action where it moves
independently without imposing itself upon others. But, from another point of view, they depend
more on one another than in a colony, since they cannot separate without perishing."
(1933, p. 192)

The following is what I consider the most important passage of Durkheim'sDivision of Labor in
Society.

"But not only does the division of labor present the character by which we have defined
morality; it more and more tends to become the essential condition of social solidarity. As we
advance in the evolutinary scale, the ties which bind the individual to his family, to his native
soil, to traditions which the past has given to him, to collective group usages, become loose.
More mobile, he changes his environment more easily, leaves his people to go elsewhere to live
a more autonomous existence, to a greater extent forms his own ideas and sentiments. Of course,
the whole common conscience does not, on this account, pass out of existence. At least there will
always remain this cult of personality, of individual dignity of which we have just been speaking,
and which, today, is the rallying-point of so many people. But how little a thing it is when one
contemplates the ever increaisng extent of social life, and, consequently, of individual
consciences! For, as they become more voluminous, as intelligence becomes richer, activity
more varied, in order for morallity to remain constant, that is to say, in order for the individual to
remain atached to the group with a force equal to that of yesterday, the ties which bind him to it
must become stronger and more numerous. If, then, he formed no others than those which come
from resemblances, the effacement of the segmental type would be accompanied by a systematic
debasement of morality. Man would no longer be sufficiently obligated; he would no longer feel
about and above him this salutary pressure of society which moderates his egoism and makes
him a normal being. This is what gives moral value to the division of labor. Through it, the
individual becomes cognizant of his dependence upon society; from it come the forces which
keep him in check and restrain him. In short, since the division of labor becomes the chief source
of social solidarity, it becomes, at the same time, the foundation of the moral order."
(1933, p. 400-401)

Sources:
Durkheim, Emile. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society Translated by George Simpson. New
York: The Free Press.

Solidarity is the integration, and degree and type of integration, shown by a society or group with people
and their neighbours.[1] It refers to the ties in a society - social relations- that bind people to one another.
The term is generally employed in sociology and the other social sciences.

What forms the basis of solidarity varies between societies. In simple societies it may be mainly based
around kinship and shared values. In more complex societies there are various theories as to what
contributes to a sense of social solidarity.[1]

Durkheim
According to Émile Durkheim, the types of social solidarity correlate with types of society. Durkheim
introduced the terms "mechanical" and "organic solidarity" as part of his theory of the development of
societies in The Division of Labour in Society (1893). In a society exhibiting mechanical solidarity, its
cohesion and integration comes from the homogeneity of individuals—people feel connected through
similar work, educational and religious training, and lifestyle. Mechanical solidarity normally operates in
"traditional" and small scale societies.[4] In simpler societies (e.g., tribal), solidarity is usually based
on kinship ties of familial networks. Organic solidarity comes from the interdependence that arises from
specialization of work and the complementarities between people—a development which occurs in
"modern" and "industrial" societies.[4] Definition: it is social cohesion based upon the dependence
individuals in more advanced societies have on each other. Although individuals perform different tasks
and often have different values and interest, the order and very solidarity of society depends on their
reliance on each other to perform their specified tasks. Organic here is referring to the interdependence of
the component parts. Thus, social solidarity is maintained in more complex societies through the
interdependence of its component parts (e.g., farmers produce the food to feed the factory workers who
produce the tractors that allow the farmer to produce the food).

The two types of solidarity can be distinguished by morphological and demographic features, type
of norms in existence, and the intensity and content of the conscience collective.[4]

Mechanical and organic solidarity[5]

 Feature Mechanical solidarity Organic solidarity

Morphological Based on resemblances (predominant in less Based on division of labour (predominately in

(structural) basis advanced societies)
Segmental type (first clan-based, later
territorial)
Little interdependence (social bonds relatively
weak)
Relatively low volume of population
Relatively low material and moral density
more advanced societies)
Organized type (fusion of markets and growth
of cities)
Much interdependency (social bonds relatively
strong)
Relatively high volume of population
Relatively high material and moral density

Types of norms Rules with repressive sanctions Rules with restitutive sanctions
(typified by law) Prevalence of penal law Prevalence of cooperative law (civil,
commercial, procedural, administrative and
constitutional law)

Formal features of High volume Low volume

conscience High intensity Low intensity
collective High determinateness Low determinateness
Collective authority absolute More room for individual initiative and
reflection

Content of Highly religious Increasingly secular

conscience Transcendental (superior to human interests Human-orientated (concerned with human
collective and beyond discussion) interests and open to discussion)
Attaching supreme value to society and Attaching supreme value to individual dignity,
interests of society as a whole equality of opportunity, work ethic and social
Concrete and specific justice
Abstract and general

"...if I have properly understood gesellschaft is supposed to be characterised by a progressive

development of individualism, the dispersive effects of which can only be prevented for a time, and by
artificial means by the action of the state, it is essentially a mechanical aggregate."

 Durkheim believed that Ferdinand Tönnies saw individualism as working against moral order,
people become unattached like atoms flowing in space suggesting that the only thing holding people
together, prevented relationships from fracturing, and holds people to society was the imposition of
order and coherence of the state.

 Durkheim asserted that the life of social agglomerates is just as natural, and is no less internal as
that of small groupings.
  He characterised preindustrial societies as mechanical and industrial societies as organic (thus
opposing Toennies theories by using opposite terminology)

 Although the bonds of mechanical solidarity were based on "a more or less organized totality of
beliefs and sentiments common to all the members of the group," this gave way in industrial society to
potent new forces that were characterised by heightened complexity and differentiation, an increased
dependence on society, and, seemingly paradoxically at first glance, a growing level of individual
autonomy.[6]

Class conflict refers to the concept of underlying tensions or antagonisms which exist in society due to
conflicting interests that arise from different social positions. Class conflict is thought to play a pivotal role
in history of class societies (such as capitalism and feudalism) by Marxists[1] who refer to its overt
manifestations as class war, a struggle whose resolution in favor of the working class is viewed by them
as inevitable under capitalism.

Class conflict can take many different shapes. Direct violence, such as wars fought for resources and
cheap labor; indirect violence, such as deaths from poverty, starvation or unsafe working conditions;
coercion, such as the threat of losing a job or pulling an important investment; or ideology, either
intentionally (as with books and articles promotinganti-capitalism) or unintentionally (as with the promotion
of consumerism through advertising).

It can be open, as with a lockout aimed at destroying a labor union, or hidden, as with an informal
slowdown in production protesting low wages or unfair labor practices.

[edit]Definition

Class conflict is a term long-used mostly by socialists, communists, and many anarchists, who define a
class by its relationship to the means of production--such as factories, land, and machinery. From this
point of view, the social control of production and labour is a contest between classes, and the division of
these resources necessarily involves conflict and inflicts harm.

[edit]In pre-capitalist societies

Where societies are socially divided based on status, wealth, or control of social production and
distribution, conflict arises. This conflict is both everyday, such as the common Medieval right of lords to
control access to grain mills and baking ovens, or it can be exceptional such as the Roman Conflict of the
Orders, the uprising of Spartacus, or the various popular uprisings in late medieval Europe. One of the
earliest analysis of these conflicts is Frederick Engel's German Peasants War[2]. One of the earliest
analyses of the development of class as the development of conflicts between emergent classes is
available in Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. In this work, Kropotkin analyzes the disposal of goods after
death in pre-class societies, and how inheritance produces early class divisions and conflict[3].

[edit]In capitalism
The typical example of class conflict described is class conflict within capitalism. This class conflict is
seen to occur primarily between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and takes the form of conflict over
hours of work, value of wages, cost of consumer goods, the culture at work, control
over parliament or bureaucracy, and economic inequality. The particular implementation of government
programs which may seem purely humanitarian, such as disaster relief, can actually be a form of class
conflict.[4] Apart from these day-to-day forms of class conflict, during periods of crisis or revolution class
conflict takes on a violent nature and involves repression, assault, restriction of civil liberties, and
murderous violence such as assassinations or death squads.

[edit]In the Soviet Union and similar societies

A variety of predominantly Marxist and anarchist thinkers argue that class conflict exists in Soviet-style
societies. These arguments describe as a class the bureaucratic stratum formed by the ruling political
party(known as the Nomenklatura in the Soviet Union)--sometimes termed a "new class".[5] --that controls
the means of production. This ruling class is viewed to be in opposition to the remainder of society,
generally considered the proletariat. This type of system is referred to by its detractors as state
capitalism, state socialism, bureaucratic collectivism, coordinatorism, or new class societies.

[edit]Opinions of Karl Marx and Max Weber

Karl Marx and Max Weber are both critical to the development of the study of class conflict. In The
Communist Manifesto, Marx describes his ideas about class conflict. Marx gives his own interpretation of
what can be defined as a class. He states that a class is formed when its members achieve class
consciousness and solidarity [6] This largely happens when the members of a class become aware of
their exploitationand the conflict with another class. A class will then realize their shared interests and a
common identity. According to Marx, a class will then take action against those that are exploiting the
lower classes. Marx largely focuses on the capital industrialist society as the source of social stratification,
which ultimately results in class conflict [6]. He states that capitalism creates a division between classes
which can largely be seen in manufacturing factories. The working class, or the proletariat, is separated
from the bourgeoisie because production becomes a social enterprise. Contributing to their separation is
the technology that is in factories. Technology deskills and alienates workers as they are no longer
viewed as having a specialized skill [6]. Another effect of technology is a homogenous workforce that can
be easily replaceable. Marx believed that this class conflict would result in the overthrow of the
bourgeoisie and that the private property would be communally owned [6]. The mode of production would
remain, but communal ownership would eliminate class conflict [6].

Max Weber agrees with the fundamental ideas of Marx about the economy causing class conflict, but
claims that class conflict can also stem from prestige and power [6]. Weber argues that classes come from
the different property locations. Different locations can largely affect one’s class by their education and
the people they associate with [6]. He also states that prestige results in different status groupings. This
prestige is based upon the social status of one’s parents. Prestige is an attributed value and many times
cannot be changed. Weber states that power differences led to the formation of political parties [6]. Weber
disagrees with Marx about the formation of classes. While Marx believes that groups are similar due to
their economic status, Weber argues that classes are largely formed by social status [6]. Weber does not
believe that communities are formed by economic standing, but by similar social prestige [6]. Weber does
recognize that there is a relationship between social status, social prestige and classes [6].

Bourgeoisie is a French word that was borrowed directly into English in the specific sense described
above. In the French feudal order pre-revolution, "bourgeois" was a class of citizens who were wealthier
members of the Third Estate. The French word bourgeois evolved from the Old French word burgeis,
meaning "an inhabitant of a town" (cf. Middle English burgeis, Middle Dutch burgher and German Bürger).
The Old French word burgeis is derived from bourg, meaning a market town or medieval village, itself
derived from Old Frankish burg, meaning "town".[1]

The term bourgeoisie has been widely used as an approximate equivalent of upper class under
capitalism. The word also evolved to mean merchants and traders, and until the 19th century was mostly
synonymous with the middle class (persons in the broad socioeconomic spectrum
between nobility and peasants or proletarians). As the power and wealth of the nobility faded in the
second half of the 19th century, and that of the merchant and commercial classes came to be dominant,
the bourgeoisie emerged, by definition, as the replacement of the deposed nobility and the new ruling
class.[citation needed]

[edit]Academic concepts

This section
requires expansion with:
non Marxist theoretical
frameworks of the
bourgeoisie, Veblen's leisure
class?.
[edit]Within Marxism and historical materialism
Marxism defines the bourgeoisie as the social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist
society. As such, the core of the modern bourgeoisie is industrial bourgeoisie, which obtains income by
hiring workers to put in motion their capital, which is to say, their means of production - machines, tools,
raw material, etc. Besides that, other bourgeois sectors also exist, notedly the commercial bourgeoisie,
which earns income from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares, and
services.

In medieval times, the bourgeois was typically a self-employed proprietor, small employer, entrepreneur,
banker, or merchant. In industrial capitalism, on the other hand, the bourgeoisie becomes the ruling class
- which means it also owns the bulk of the means of production (land, factories, offices, capital, resources
- though in some countries land ownership would still be a monopoly of a different class, landed
oligarchy), and controls the means of coercion (national armed forces, police, prison systems, court
systems). Ownership of the means of production enables it to employ and exploit the work of a large
mass of wage workers (the working class), who have no other means of livelihood than to sell their labour
to property owners; while control over the means of coercion allows intervention during challenges from
below.[2] Marx distinguished between "functioning capitalists" actually managing enterprises, and others
merely earning property rents or interest-income from financial assets or real estate (rentiers).[3]

Marxism sees the proletariat (wage labourers) and bourgeoisie as directly waging an ongoing class
struggle, in that capitalists exploit workers and workers try to resist exploitation. This exploitation takes
place as follows: the workers, who own no means of production of their own, must seek employment in
order to make a living. They get hired by a capitalist and work for him, producing some sort of goods or
services. These goods or services then become the property of the capitalist, who sells them and gets a
certain amount of money in exchange. Part of this money is used to pay workers' wages, another part is
used to pay production costs, and a third part is kept by the capitalist in the form of profit (or surplus
value in Marxist terms). Thus the capitalist can earn money by selling the surplus (profit) from the work of
his employees without actually doing any work, or in excess of his own work. Marxists argue that new
wealth is created through work; therefore, if someone gains wealth that he did not work for, then someone
else works and does not receive the full wealth created by his work. In other words, that "someone else"
is exploited. In this way, the capitalist might turn a large profit by exploiting workers.

Marx himself primarily used the term "bourgeois", with or without sarcasm, as an objective description of a
social class and of a lifestyle based on ownership of private capital, not as a pejorative. He commended
the industriousness of the bourgeoisie, but criticised it for its moral hypocrisy. This attitude is shown most
clearly in the Communist Manifesto. He also used it to describe the ideology of this class; for example, he
called its conception of freedom "bourgeois freedom" and opposed it to what he considered more
substantive forms of freedom. He also wrote of bourgeois independence, individuality, property, family,
etc.; in each case he referred to conceptions of these ideals which are compatible with condoning the
existence of a class society.

Serfdom is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates
to Manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during
the High Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom was the enforced labour of serfs on the fields of landowners, in
return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.

Serfdom involved not only work in fields, but also various other activities, like forestry, mining,
transportation (both land and river-based), and crafts. Manors formed the basic unit of society during this
period, and the lord and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs were labourers
who were bound to the land; they formed the lowest social class of the feudal society. Serfs were also
defined as people in whose labour landowners held property rights. Before the 1861 abolition of serfdom
in Russia, a landowner's estate was often measured by the number of "souls" he owned. Feudalism in
Europe evolved from agricultural slavery in the late Roman Empire and spread through Europe around
the 10th century; it flourished in Europe during the Middle Ages but lasted until the 19th century in some
countries. The Black Death broke the established social order and weakened serfdom. For example,
serfdom was de facto ended in France by Philip IV, Louis X (1315), and Philip V (1318).[1][2] With the
exception of a few isolated cases, serfdom had ceased to exist in France by the 15th century. In Early
Modern France, French nobles nevertheless maintained a great number ofseigneurial privileges over the
free peasants that worked lands under their control. Serfdom was formally abolished in France in 1789.[3]

After the Renaissance, serfdom became increasingly rare in most of Western Europe but grew strong
in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had previously been less common (this phenomenon was known
as "later serfdom"). In England, the end of serfdom began with Tyler’s Rebellion and was fully ended
when Elizabeth I freed the last remaining serfs in 1574.[2] There were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799,
when coal miners previously kept in serfdom gained emancipation. However, most Scottish serfs had
been freed before this time. In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. It
persisted in Austria-Hungary till 1848 and was abolished in Russia in 1861.[4] In Finland, Norway and
Sweden feudalism was not established, and serfdom did not exist. But serfdom-like institutions did exist in
both Denmark (the stavnsbånd, from 1733 to 1788) and its colony Iceland (the much more
restrictive vistarband, from 1490 until the late 1800s).

According to the census of 1857 the number of private serfs in Russia was 23.1 million.[5]

Feudalism, according to Joseph R. Strayer, can be applied to the societies of Iran,

ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt (Sixth to Twelfth dynasty), Muslim India, China (Zhou Dynasty, and end
of Han Dynasty) and Japan during the Shogunate. James Lee and Cameron Campbell describe the
Chinese Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) as also maintaining a form of serfdom.[6] According to Pierre
Bonnassie, feudalism could also be seen in Spain. Although serfdom is believed to exist in all these
regions, it was not uniform throughout them. Tibet is described by Melvyn Goldstein[7][8] to have had
serfdom until 1959, but whether or not the Tibetan form of peasant tenancy qualified as serfdom was
widespread is contested.[9][10] Bhutan is described by Tashi Wangchuk, a Bhutanese civil servant, as
abolishing serfdom officially by 1959, but Wangchuk believes less than or about 10% of poor peasants
were in copyhold situations.[11]

[edit]Etymology

Costumes of slaves or serfs, from the sixth to the twelfth centuries, collected by H. de Vielcastel from original documents in
European libraries.

The word "serf" originated from the Middle French "serf", and can be traced further back to
the Latin servus, meaning "slave". In Late Antiquity and most of theMiddle Ages, what we now call serfs
were usually designated in Latin as coloni (sing. colonus). As slavery gradually disappeared and the legal
status of theseservi became nearly identical to that of coloni, the term changed meaning into our modern
concept of "serf". The term "serfdom" was coined in 1850.

[edit]Dependency and the lower orders

The serfs had a specific place in feudal society, as did barons and knights: in return for protection, a serf
would reside upon and work a parcel of land held by his lord. There was thus a degree of reciprocity in
the manorial system.

The rationale was that a serf "worked for all," while a knight or baron "fought for all" and a churchman
"prayed for all"; thus everyone had his place. The serf worked harder than the others, and was the worst
fed and paid, but at least he had his place and, unlike in slavery, he had his own land and property.
A manorial lord could not sell his serfs as a Roman might sell his slaves. On the other hand, if he chose to
dispose of a parcel of land, the serf or serfs associated with that land went with it to serve their new lord.
Further, a serf could not abandon his lands without permission, nor could he sell them.

[edit]Becoming a serf
A freeman became a serf usually through force or necessity. Sometimes freeholders or allodial owners
were intimidated into dependency by the greater physical and legal force of a local baron. Often a few
years of crop failure, a war or brigandage might leave a person unable to make his own way. In such a
case a bargain was struck with the lord. In exchange for protection, service was required, in payment
and/or with labour. These bargains were formalized in a ceremony known as "bondage" in which a serf
placed his head in the seigneur's hands, parallel to the ceremony of "homage" where a vassal placed his
hands between those of his lord. These oaths bound the seigneur to their new serf and outlined the terms
of their agreement.[12] Often these bargains were severe. A 7th centuryAnglo Saxon "Oath of Fealty"
states "By the Lord before whom this sanctuary is holy, I will to N. be true and faithful, and love all which
he loves and shun all which he shuns, according to the laws of God and the order of the world. Nor will I
ever with will or action, through word or deed, do anything which is unpleasing to him, on condition that he
will hold to me as I shall deserve it, and that he will perform everything as it was in our agreement when I
submitted myself to him and chose his will." To become a serf was a commitment that invaded all aspects
of the serf’s life.

Moreover, serfdom was inherited. By taking on the duties of serfdom, serfs bound not only themselves but
all of their future heirs.

[edit]Serfdom's class system

The class of peasant was often broken down into smaller categories. The distinctions between these
classes were often less clear than would be suggested by the different names encountered for them.
Most often, there were two types of peasants - freemen and villeins. Lower classes of peasants, generally
taken from the second and third sons of villeins known as cottars [13][14] or bordars in the British Isles, and
slaves, made up the final percentage of workers.
[edit]Freemen

Freemen, or free tenants, were essentially rent-paying tenant farmers who owed little or no service to the
lord. In parts of 11th century England these freemen made up only 10% of the peasant population, and in
the rest of Europe their numbers were small.
[edit]Villeins

A villein was the most common type of serf in the Middle Ages. Villeins had more rights and higher status
than the lowest serf, but were under a number of legal restrictions that differentiated them from the
freeman. Villeins generally rented small homes, with or without land. As part of the contract with
their landlord, they were expected to use some of their time to farm the lord's fields and the rest of their
time was spent farming their own land. Like other types of serfs, they were required to provide other
services, possibly in addition to a rent of money or goods. These services could be very onerous. Villeins
were tied to the land and could not move away without their lord's consent. However, in other regards,
they were free men in the eyes of the law. Villeins were generally able to have their own property, unlike
slaves. Villeinage, as opposed to other forms of serfdom, was most common in Western European
feudalism, where land ownership had developed from roots in Roman law.

A variety of kinds of villeinage existed in the European Middle Ages. Half-villeins received only half as
many strips of land for their own use and owed a full complement of labor to the lord, often forcing them to
rent out their services to other serfs to make up for this hardship. Villeinage was not, however, a purely
exploitative relationship. In the Middle Ages, land guaranteed sustenance and survival, and being a villein
guaranteed access to land. Landlords, even where legally entitled to do so, rarely evicted villeins because
of the value of their labour. Villeinage was much preferable to being a vagabond, a slave, or an unlanded
labourer.

In many medieval countries, a villein could gain freedom by escaping to a city and living there for more
than a year; but this avenue involved the loss of land and agricultural livelihood, a prohibitive price unless
the landlord was especially tyrannical or conditions in the village were unusually difficult. Villeins newly
arrived in the city in some cases took to crime for survival, which gave the alternate spelling "villain" its
modern meaning.
[edit]Bordars

A bordar was person ranking below a villein and above a serf in the social hierarchy of a manor, holding
just enough land to feed a family (about 5 acres) and required to provide labour on the demesne on
specified days of the week.
[edit]Slaves

The last type of serf was the slave. Slaves had the fewest rights and benefits from the manor and were
also given the least. They owned no land, worked for the lord exclusively and survived on donations from
the landlord. It was always in the interest of the lords to prove that a servile arrangement existed, as this
provided them with greater rights to fees and taxes. The legal status of a man was a primary issue in
many of the manorial court cases of the period. Also, runaway slaves could be beaten if caught.

[edit]The serf's duties

The usual serf (not including slaves or cottars) paid his fees and taxes in the form of seasonally
appropriate labour. Usually a portion of the week was devoted to plowing his lord's fields (demesne),
harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, and often working in the manor house. The
lord’s demesne included more than just fields: it included all grazing rights, forest produce (nuts, fruits,
timber, and forest animals) and fish from the stream; the lord had exclusive rights to these things. The
rest of the serf’s time was devoted to tending his or her own fields, crops and animals in order to provide
for his or her family. Most manorial work was segregated by gender during the regular times of the year;
however, during the harvest, the whole family was expected to work the fields.

A major difficulty of a serf's life was that his work for his lord coincided with, and took precedence over,
the work he had to perform on his own lands: when the lord's crops were ready to be harvested, so were
his own. On the other hand, the serf could look forward to being well fed during his service[citation needed]; it
was a poor lord who did not provide a substantial meal for his serfs during the harvest and planting times.
In exchange for this work on the lord's property, the serf had certain privileges and rights. They were
allowed to gather deadwood from their lord’s forests. For a fee, the serfs were allowed to use the
manor’s mills and ovens. These paid services were called banalities in France during this time.

In addition to service, a serf was required to pay certain taxes and fees. Taxes were based on the
assessed value of his lands and holdings. Fees were usually paid in the form of foodstuffs rather than
cash. The best ration of wheat from the serf’s harvest always went to the landlord. For the most part,
hunting on the lord’s property was prohibited for the serfs. On Easter Sunday the peasant family owed an
extra dozen eggs, and at Christmas a goose was expected as well. When a family member died, extra
taxes were paid to the manor for the cost of that individual's labour. Any young woman who wished to
marry a serf outside of her manor was forced to pay a fee for the lost labour.

Often there were arbitrary tests to judge the worthiness of their tax payments. A chicken, for example,
was required to be able to jump over a fence of a given height to be considered old enough or well
enough to be valued for tax purposes. The restraints of serfdom on personal and economic choice were
enforced through various forms of manorial common law and the manorial administration and court.

It was also a matter of discussion whether serfs could be required by law in times of war or conflict to fight
for their lord's land and property.

[edit]Benefits of serfdom
Within his constraints, a serf had some freedom. Though the common wisdom[citation needed] is that a serf
owned "only his belly" — even his clothes were the property, in law, of his lord[citation needed] — a serf might
still accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became wealthier than their free
neighbors, although this was rather an exception to the general rule. A well-to-do serf might even be able
to buy his freedom.

Serfs could raise what they saw fit on their lands (within reason — a serf's taxes often had to be paid
in wheat, a notoriously difficult crop) and sell the surplus at market. Their heirs were usually guaranteed
aninheritance.
The landlord could not dispossess his serfs without cause and was supposed to protect them from the
depredations of outlaws or other lords, and he was expected to support them by charity in times
of famine.

[edit]Variations

Specifics of serfdom varied greatly through time and region. In some places, serfdom was merged with or
exchanged for various forms of taxation.

The amount of labour required varied. In Poland, for example, it was a few days per year per household in
the 13th century; one day per week per household in the 14th century; four days per week per household
in the 17th century and six days per week per household in the 18th century. Early serfdom in Poland was
mostly limited on the royal territories (królewszczyzny).

"Per household" means that every farm had to give a worker for the required number of days.[15] For
example, in the 18th century, six people: a peasant, his wife, three children and a hired worker would be
required to work for their lord one day a week, which would be counted as six days.

Sometimes, serfs served as soldiers in the event of conflict and could earn freedom or
even ennoblement for valour in combat. In other cases, serfs could purchase their freedom,
be manumitted by their enlightened or generous owners, or flee to towns or newly-settled land where few
questions were asked. Laws varied from country to country: in England a serf who made his way to a
chartered town and evaded recapture for a year and a day obtained his freedom.

"Galician slaughter" 1846, by Jan Lewicki (1795-1871); "directed against manorial property (for example, the manorial
prisons) and rising against serfdom[16]; Galician, mainly Polish, peasants killed over 1000 noblemen and destroyed 500
manors in 1846."
Grain pays

Grain doesn't pay. Those two pictures illustrate the notion that agriculture, once extremely profitable to the nobles (szlachta)
in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, became much less profitable from the second half of seventeenth century onwards

[edit]History of serfdom
Social institutions similar to serfdom were known in ancient times. The status of the helots in the ancient
Greek city-state of Sparta resembled that of the medieval serfs. By the 3rd century AD, the Roman
Empire faced a labour shortage. Large Roman landowners increasingly relied on Roman freemen, acting
as tenant farmers, instead of slaves to provide labour. These tenant farmers, eventually known as coloni,
saw their condition steadily erode. In 332 AD Constantine issued legislation that greatly restricted the
rights of the coloni and tied them to the land. Some see these laws as the beginning of medieval serfdom
in Europe.

However, medieval serfdom really began with the breakup of the Carolingian Empire[citation needed] around the
10th century. The demise of this empire, which had ruled much of western Europe for more than 200
years, was followed by a long period during which no strong central government existed in most of
Europe.

During this period, powerful feudal lords encouraged the establishment of serfdom as a source of
agricultural labor. Serfdom, indeed, was an institution that reflected a fairly common practice whereby
great landlords were assured that others worked to feed them and were held down, legally and
economically, while doing so.

This arrangement provided most of the agricultural labour throughout the Middle Ages. Slavery persisted
right through the Middle Ages,[17] but it was rare, diminishing and largely confined to the use of household
slaves.[citation needed] Parts of Europe, including much of Scandinavia, never adopted many feudal institutions,
including serfdom.

In the later Middle Ages serfdom began to disappear west of the Rhine even as it spread through eastern
Europe. This was one important cause for the deep differences between the societies and economies of
eastern and western Europe.

In Western Europe, the rise of powerful monarchs, towns, and an improving economy weakened
the manorial system through the 13th and 14th centuries, and serfdom was rare following
the Renaissance.

Serfdom in Western Europe came largely to an end in the 15th and 16th centuries, because of changes in
the economy, population, and laws governing lord-tenant relations in Western European nations. The
enclosure of manor fields for livestock grazing and for larger arable plots made the economy of serfs’
small strips of land in open fields less attractive to the landowners. Furthermore, the increasing use
of money made tenant farming by serfs less profitable; for much less than it cost to support a serf, a lord
could now hire workers who were more skilled and pay them in cash. Paid labour was also more flexible
since workers could be hired only when they were needed.

At the same time, increasing unrest and uprisings by serfs and peasants, like Tyler’s Rebellion in England
in 1381, put pressure on the nobility and the clergy to reform the system. As a result serf and peasant
demands were accommodated to some extent by the gradual establishment of new forms of land leases
and increased personal liberties.

Another important factor in the decline of serfdom was industrial development — especially the Industrial
Revolution. With the growing profitability ofindustry, farmers wanted to move to towns to receive higher
wages than those they could earn working in the fields, while landowners also invested in the more
profitable industry. This also led to the growing process of urbanization.

Serfdom reached Eastern European countries later than Western Europe — it became dominant around
the 15th century. Before that time, Eastern Europe had been much more sparsely populated than
Western Europe, and the lords of Eastern Europe created a peasantry-friendly environment to encourage
migration east[citation needed]. Serfdom developed in Eastern Europe after the Black Death epidemics, which
not only stopped the migration but depopulated Western Europe.

The resulting large land-to-labour ratio combined with Eastern Europe's vast, sparsely populated areas
gave the lords an incentive to bind the remaining peasantry to their land. With increased demand for
agricultural produce in Western Europe during the later era when Western Europe limited and eventually
abolished serfdom, serfdom remained in force throughout Eastern Europe during the 17th century so
that nobility-owned estates could produce more agricultural products (especially grain) for the profitable
export market.

Such Eastern European countries included Prussia (Prussian Ordinances of

1525), Austria, Hungary (laws of the late 15th and early 16th centuries), thePolish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth (szlachta privileges of the early 16th century) and the Russian Empire (laws of the late
16th and first half of the 17th century). This also led to the slower industrial development and urbanisation
of those regions. Generally, this process, referred to as 'second serfdom' or 'export-led serfdom', which
persisted until the mid-19th century, became very repressive and substantially limited serfs' rights.

In many of these countries serfdom was abolished during the Napoleonic invasions of the early 19th
century. Serfdom remained in force in most of Russia until the Emancipation reform of 1861, enacted on
February 19, 1861, though in Russian Baltic provinces it had been abolished at the beginning of the 19th
century. Russian serfdom was perhaps the most notable Eastern European institution, as it was never
influenced by German law and migrations, and serfdom and the manorial system were enforced by the
crown (Tsar), not the nobility.

[edit]The decline of serfdom

End of serfdom: a German „Freilassungsbrief“ (Letter for the End of a serfdom) from 1762

Serfdom became progressively less common through the Middle Ages, particularly after the Black
Death reduced the rural population and increased the bargaining power of workers. Furthermore, the
lords of many manors were willing (for payment) to manumit ("release") their serfs. Serfdom had largely
died out in England by 1500 as a personal status, but land held by serf tenure (unless enfranchised)
continued to be held by what was thenceforth known as a copyhold tenancy, which was not abolished
until 1925. During the Late Middle Ages, peasant unrest led to outbreaks of violence against landlords. In
May 1381 the English peasants revolted because of the heavy tax placed upon them by Parliament.
There were similar occurrences at around the same time in Castille, Germany, northern France, Portugal,
and Sweden. Although these peasant revoltswere often successful, it usually took a long time before legal
systems were changed. In France this occurred on August 11, 1789 with the "Decree Abolishing the
Feudal System". This decree abolished the manorial system completely. It abolished the authority of
manorial courts, outlawed pigeon houses, eliminated and altered tithes (set taxes), and freed those who
were enslaved. The majority of the population consisted of peasants. This social system was no longer
viable. The eradication of the feudal system marks the beginning of an era of rapid change in Europe. The
change in status following the enclosure movements beginning in the later 18th century, in which various
lords abandoned the open field farming of previous centuries and, essentially, took all the best land for
themselves in exchange for "freeing" their serfs, may well have made serfdom seem more desirable to
many peasant families.

In his book Das Kapital, in Chapter 26 entitled "The Secret of Primitive Accumulation" and Chapter 27,
"Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land", Marxclaimed that the feudal relationships of
serfdom were violently transformed into private property and free labour: free of possession and free to
sell their labour force on the market. Being liberated from serfdom meant being able to sell one's land and
work wherever one desired. "The so-called primitive accumulation, therefore, is nothing else than the
historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production. It appears as primitive,
because it forms the pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of production corresponding with it." In
a case history of England, Marx described how the serfs became free peasant proprietors and small
farmers, who were, over time, forcibly expropriated and driven off the land, forming a property-less
proletariat. He also claimed that more and more legislation was enacted by the state to control and
regiment this new class of wage workers. In the meantime, the remaining farmers became capitalist
farmers operating more and more on a commercial basis; and gradually, legal monopolies preventing
trade and investment by entrepreneurs were broken up.

Taxes levied by the state took the place of labour dues levied by the lord. Although serfdom began its
decline in Europe in the Middle Ages, it took many hundreds of years to disappear completely. In addition,
the struggles of the working class during the Industrial Revolution can often be compared with the
struggles of the serfs during the Middle Ages. In parts of the world today, forced labour is still used.
Serfdom is an institution that has always been commonplace for human society; however, it has not
always been of the same nature.