Customs in Common and the Loss of Freedoms

 

Customs in Common and the Loss of Freedoms

I have been reading Jean-Paul Sartre ‘Critique of Dialectical Reason’ and E P Thompson ‘Customs in Common’. Both writers are interested in the relationship between the individual and the group. Sartre is interested in studying how the Group forms and how it achieves its aims. It is a very abstract approach because he is interested in the mechanisms that govern these factors. The interesting point that he makes, relative to my concerns in this article, is that he makes clear that the Group cannot act on its own, it is dependent upon the actions of the individual members of the Group. Thompson’s approach is similar, but different. His approach is humane, as you read his work, you sense that he has an understand of people, far better that many other writers. I find myself saying “Yes! That is what I feel!” He deals with the question of the ‘mob’, a term that he dislikes, a view I share, but uses it in want of a more appropriate term. His practical approach, as opposed to Sartre’s abstract approach, sees the mob acting in unison. Although Thompson sees the mob as an entity, he recognises that within the mob the individuals act with different motivations, some of which are not of the best. The mob does, however, act with shared aims, a single purpose and are single minded. Thus, in a sense, refuting the abstract view of Sartre.

There are two discussions, within the early chapters of ‘Customs in Common’ which I find particularly useful. The following is my understanding of the arguments that he is making. His book goes into great deal of details as he endeavours to give a thorough analysis of these matters, drawing articular attention to the wide diversity of practice. The first is concerned with the question of the land. He draws a distinction between the right of use of land and the ownership of land. Prior to the advent of capitalism, land was considered to be a common provision to be enjoyed by all, in a similar way to air and water.

We start from the position that the King, by divine right from God, had possession of all land. It was within the power of the King to give the right of usage of areas of the land to his noble men . His was a right that could be as readily taken away as given. In return the nobleman, or Lord as he became, had certain obligations, such as providing troops in time of war, but more especially giving financial support to the King through taxation. The Lord of the Manor, having been given his position from the King, kept a portion of the land, known as his domain, then allocated the use of other land, that he had use of, to the community living within his estate. This the community farmed on the common fields using the strip system by which individuals within the community were allotted strips within the common field. There were other sections of the estate, such as woods, wastes and the borders between fields, which were held to be common land, although the Lord had priority and special rights. As with the relation between King and Nobleman, so between Lord and peasant, there were rights and obligations. In return for the ability to share in the common fields, the peasants had to spend a proportion of their time in working on the Lord’s domain, especially at the busiest times of the farming year such as harvest time. In this the Lord’s demands took priority. Within the peasant community were others who, whilst they might have a small plot of land attached to their cottage, earned their livelihood in other occupations, such as millers, thatchers, stonemasons, and similar occupations. These groups also had rights and obligations connected with the use of common lands for grazing their animals and collecting material from the woods, such as fuel. One special right which was of importance, especially for women, was that of gleaning, collecting the corn that remained in the fields after harvest.

This was the state of affairs that the common people held to. Thompson makes clear that the process of introducing capitalist structures into the rural economy was a gradual process taking place over a period of time. Stress is often placed on the question of ‘enclosures’ but this was only one aspect of the situation, although an extremely important aspect in many cases. What was more significant was a change in the concepts governing relations within the community. There was a strong element of paternalism in the system described above. This is not to suggest that there was a golden age in which peasants lived happy contented lives. Life was always a struggle, the nature of the struggle varied according to factors such as the quality of the harvest and other natural events. There was, however, some sense of mutual obligations and support between Lord and peasants. The general structure was supported and abided by to a certain extent, problems and disputes did arise but could often be dealt with locally through existing customs. This is not to suggest that there was not gross inequality between Lord and peasant and a consciousness among peasants that their inferior position could be improved.

The change in approach came about by the introduction of the concept of property. This is a concept essential to capitalism. Instead of the Lord having the right of usage of is estate, it was increasing held that he had the right of ownership. Whereas there was no conflict between the right of usage of the Lord and the right of usage of the peasant, once the concept of ownership is introduced the situation is completely different. Ownership is exclusive, if someone owns something then no one else has a right to that thing. Formerly, the corn left in the field after harvest belonged to no one, so it was quite acceptable for women in the community to scavenge the fields to collect what they could. Once the field was considered the property of the Lord of the Manor, then the corn that was left was also his property. Thus the woman gleaning could, and this was in fact the case, be prosecuted for stealing. Thus the capitalist concept of property revolutionised the relations of people within these communities, a revolution in relationships which extended beyond the Lord/peasant relationship and affected many of the other relationships, one particular example being between miller and peasant, a relationship which was always rather fraught.

This neatly leads me on to the second of the two discussions that interested me. This relates back to the concept of the ‘mob’ especially in terms of ‘riots’. This in turn relates to another concept within capitalism that of the ‘market’. The difficulty here is that markets existed within the paternal system described above, however, the way in which markets operated changed considerably as capitalism gained a stronger foothold. In our consideration of this, we have to begin with the fact that bread was a major source of sustenance for the common people. At times of dearth, when the price of bread was high, the common person would not eat less bread, rather they would spend more of their money in order to buy sufficient bread and as a consequence have less to spend on other necessary foodstuffs. From the time of the Tudors, the Government had stepped in to make sure that the price of bread was controlled to enable the people at large to be able to afford bread, especially in times of shortage, at other times it was not necessary. The traditional system was that wheat and corn had to be sold at the market, the grower had to bring the actual wheat and corn to the market. They were not allowed to sell ‘by sample’ which meant they could just show a portion of their crop to a merchant or middle man who could then buy whatever quantity he desired. At the market, the first period of the day was devoted to the local people to buy what they needed. It was only after this had been done that the markets were open to the merchants and middle men. In this way the sale of wheat and corn was regulated to ensure that the common people had what they needed.

It is this approach that was threatened by the concepts of the market introduced by Adam Smith and the like. They stressed the idea that ‘markets’ were self-regulated, they claimed that the price would automatically be set by the relationship between supply and demand. The practical effect of this was that the practices that ensured the common people had sufficient corn, flour and bread, was undermined. Merchants and middle men were able to buy direct from the producers, the common people had to buy from the merchants, there was disparity between the price paid to the producer and the cost to the people. The middle men prospered at the expense of both. The common people had little redress.

It was in periods of harvest failure, or other causes of a dearth of bread, that the common people were forced to act in self preservation. These acts are often referred to as acts of mindless violence. Thompson shows that this was not in fact the case. The common people had in mind the tradition under which the magistrates set the price of bread. Their response was ‘if the magistrates will not set a fair price then we will’ . In general, the approach adopted was to go to the producer and offer a fair price for the corn or flour or bread. If this price was accepted, then the deal was made and no further action was taken. If the producer refused, then there would be consequences. The food could be taken, sold at the fair price, and the money returned to the producer. Alternatively, the crop or the food could be destroyed. Much depended upon the circumstances. The ‘mob’ was certainly not mindless, they were all of one mind. What we have is a clash of rights. The common people based their actions upon the traditions that had held sway as long as they could remember (non-literate societies have a long memory). They acted upon rights that had existed and to which they had given support and accepted their obligations. The opposing view, introduced by the capitalist economies was based entirely on the concept of ownership discussed above. Tradition favoured the rights of the people. Capitalism favoured the rights of ownership. The conflict could be described as one of People versus profits.

In a further section of Customs in Common, Thompson responds to some of the criticism made of an earlier publication of some of the chapters in this book. He had been criticised for suggesting the women had a better appreciation of the effect of increased prices for bread and flour because it was they who were more closely involved in providing such necessities for the family. The criticism came in the form of suggesting that this was a ‘sexist comment’ . Thompson responds by comparing our present day attitudes to gender differentiation with that in the 17th and 18^th century. Whereas we look at crowds and ask ‘Is it formed of men or women?’ This was not a question asked in the earlier times. It was accepted that in the crowd, or the ‘mob’ there would be men, women and children. The active members of the crowd would change depending on circumstances. Thompson envisages the possibility that women would initiate any confrontation, if things got heated and the women appeared to be threatened, the men would intervene in their defence, heavy activity involving violence would largely involve men. Throughout Thompson’s account is a clear understanding that such actions take place under different circumstances, at different times, and in different places. It was not unknown for women to act violently, but it does appear that their greater skill was in violence of the tongue rather than the forms of violence more usually associated with men. Thompson also looks more widely at the relationship between the roles of men and women. Although it was not unknown for men to undertake women’s roles and for women to undertake men’s roles, again it is wrong to look upon these roles at that time in the way in which we tend to do now-a-days. There was in those times an acceptance that the conditions of life required certain things to be done in order for the family to survive. Men and women performed the roles that were appropriate to them in the circumstances in which they found themselves. There was a mutual respect and an acceptance of equality (although it would not be couched in that term) in difference. Without glorifying what was a very different and in many ways much harder form of life, there was a greater sense of the shared life within families and within communities that we find today. This communal spirit was shown most clearly in times of dearth when communities came together to defend what they considered as their basic rights.

Thompson also compares to contrasting, and conflicting, attitudes to the means of exchanging goods. He compares, what he refers to as the moral economy, with the idea of the ‘market economy’ which was being developed by the likes of Adam Smith. The concept of the ‘moral economy’ has been taken up by other writers and used in different ways. What Thompson is referring to is the traditional view dating back into past history which gave rights to ordinary people. A simple approach which denied the right to anyone to gain at the expense of others who, for whatever reason, are in a weaker position to defend themselves. It is a concept which today we find in the demand that ‘People come before Profit’. Thompson looks more deeply at this idea of the Market and comes to the conclusion that it is a ‘myth’. When economists talk about the ‘hidden hand’ that regulates the price of goods, as though there is some mechanism that fixes prices in a fair way depending upon supply and demand, what they are really doing is trying to disguise the fact that Capitalism is a system based upon the maximisation of profits. The aim of any capitalist producer is to get the highest price for is commodities as possible. There are some limiting factors arising from competition but Capitalists seek ways of overcoming these limitations. What Thompson is referring to in this discussion is the battle that is wage between the capitalist class and the working class. By ‘moral’ we are not talking about a division between good and evil, we are looking at the best means of sharing the abundance that the earth provides, as reconstructed by the labour of men (as always by ‘men’ I mean men and women). Socialism, or communism if you prefer the word, calls for a society in which no one is alienate and all can share in that abundance according to their need. Thompson, in his writing, expresses these ideas far better than many others whose writings I have read.

Scribart 30 .12.20