The church vs. the clan

Posted on by

Jonathann F. Schulz writes,

Church marriage prohibitions pushed Europe away from a kin-based society and paved the way for the development of inclusive institutions. . . this paper highlights the role of kin networks for the formation of commune cities in Europe. This suggests that the seeds of the Great Divergence (Pomeranz, 2000) between Europe and other regions of the world were already planted by the Church’s incest prohibitions in late antiquity. Even today, medieval Church exposure and the absence of strong kin networks are associated with higher civicness and, ultimately, with more inclusive national institutions.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen.

Cousin marriage is still prevalent in parts of the world. There are those, including Schulz, who see this as a source of major cultural differences.

8 thoughts on “The church vs. the clan”

  1. HBD chick covered this in depth.

    The medieval church also made murder a criminal rather than civil offense. There is plenty of evidence that this made NWE less violent (in a non-organized sense) over time.

    We can talk about how hypocritically violent christians can be, but consider the pagan alternative.

    The secret sauce seems to be outmarraige + taking christianity seriously enough to have law and order but not so seriously that you’re a pushover.

  2. May I suggest the early scholarship of Emmanuel Todd (French); plus the works of Alan Macfarlane and especially of Oakeshott on the rises and recessions of individuality in European experience (see his ” The masses in representative democracy,” 1961, which can be found @ pp. 365-387 of “Rationalism in Politics” (Liberty Fund, 1991).

    Macfarlane uses “Individualism” for “Individuality.” The latter are the distinguishing, differentiating characteristics of individuals. The “ism” is better reserved for the differentiating expressions of those characteristics in a social context.

    The role of “individuality” is oddly missing sufficient consideration in McCloskey’s “Bourgeois” trilogy.

  3. So did the Church do this because it viewed these norms as inherently healthier? Or did it promote these norms as a way for the Church to capture a greater share of power and wealth?

    • The paper of course doesn’t address this, but I think its the second. If you find activity the Church calls for that isn’t specifically called for in the bible (ie how communion is,) and you apply the most cynical public choice assumption that its nothing more than a rational actor trying to agglomerate power, you’ll very rarely find an example that can’t be explained this way.

      I read an earlier version of this paper, and I was struck at how the church’s work to cynically replace the power of the clan with itself actually created a void where non-kin trading became essential to the economic life in Europe. This is one of the first rationals for what make the West WEIRD that I’ve heard that makes sense and doesn’t rely on basically outright racism.

      • 1) Sometimes the church stumbles into things that are good and then applies some religious rational. Most dietary restrictions and sanctions surrounding purity fall into this category. Even ancients understood some of the issues that came from excessive inbreeding.

        We shouldn’t underestimate how often the church simply co-opts an already existing belief/practice or throws a lot of stuff at the wall and sees what sticks.

        2) Being outbred over the course of 1,000 years is going to change the genes of the race in question (ditto having lots of polygamy and cousin marriage which dragged down the Middle East). If the selection effects are strong enough 1,000 years is enough to change genetics significantely.

  4. It is interesting that the paper does not include a reference to Family and Civilization (1947) by sociologist Carle Zimmerman, which attributed the West’s nuclear family structure and relative individualism to the Catholic Church’s abolition of cousin marriage. No doubt much of Zimmerman’s research has long since been superseded, but I suspect the true reason he is not cited is his political incorrectness and (at least when viewed from the perspective of 2018) social conservatism.

  5. For an interesting analysis of the role (and motivations) of the Church hierarchies in the formation of European Civilization refer to:

    Guizot’s “General History of Civilization in Europe.” (1896) available online for download from Liberty Fund. (see their online library)

Comments are closed.