Noblesse Oblige

In premodern Europe, being a member of the Second Estate (see my foundational post for my explanation of the three estates and the terms of reference for this blog) wasn't just a privileged status but carried with it certain responsibilities, often referred to as the noblesse oblige.  The true economic wealth of the period was recognised as residing in the land, and so society itself was built around the land.  While it was the role of the Third Estate to make the wealth of the land available to society, it was the role of the Second Estate to be the custodians of the land itself.  In fact, it was normal during this period that the names of Second Estate families were derived from the land itself.

In their role as custodians, the nobility were allocated a generous share of the wealth that was obtained from the land.  However, this wealth was entrusted to them on the understanding that they would use it to perform their role adequately, not just for their personal use.  The large amounts of resentment directed towards the nobility at the beginning of the French Revolution came about as a result of a breakdown of this understanding.  For a time before the Revolution, the nobility had used their position to milk society of its wealth in order to fund their own luxurious lifestyles, as well as to wage foreign wars that were of no concern to the people.  They had neglected their duties, as was properly understood by the noblesse oblige, and were abusing their trust to their own advantage.  This situation was the consequence of many factors, but it provoked the revolutionary cry of "liberté, égalité, fraternité".

So, what is noblesse oblige?  It appears that its contemporary meaning has subtly shifted from its historic meaning.  In contemporary society it is used to support the idea that with a privileged place in society comes the responsibility to give something back.  Most notably, it is attributed to the great philanthropists (such as Bill Gates) who see it as their duty to give something back of what they have.  This is, actually, different from the premodern understanding.  Firstly, it wasn't used to describe a heartfelt movement but an obligation enshrined in customary law.  Secondly, the precedence of events was seen differently: the modern understanding is that if a person is privileged, whether born or self made, they ought to give something back; the premodern understanding was that the obligation to serve the community comes first and privilege is given in order that this might occur.  In other words, being born into the Second Estate didn't mean that you were born into privilage and had an obligation to use the excess of your wealth to serve the community, but rather that you were born into an obligation to serve the community with what you had.  That there might be a little bit left over as a reward for the added strain this work added to life might be deemed appropriate, but the idea that there might be enough left over for more than reasonable comfort was an abuse, even though no one might complain about it.  That much of early modern nobility lived in decadent luxury while the majority lived in poverty was clear provocation for resentment.

What does this mean to us today?  To answer that question we first need to ask: was it inevitable that the Second Estate fall into institutional corruption?  If not, we can then afford to ask: is the new system of representative government and a capitalist elite an adequite replacement for the old regieme?  What does it mean that we don't have a social estate that serves the same role that the Second Estate served?

To answer the first question, I don't believe it was inevitable, and to answer the second, no I don't believe that the new establishment is an adequate replacement for the old.  These are topics I can address in more detail in the future, after I've discussed the decay of the First Estate.  I'll leave the answer to the third question open, however, if you've got comments on any of these question, please feel free to drop them.