Latent Structures Continuing from the Pre-Modern Era: A Perspective from Contemporary Philosophy on Social Skeletons, Wiring, and the Habits of Royalty and Nobility

 

Latent Structures Continuing from the Pre-Modern Era: A Perspective from Contemporary Philosophy on Social Skeletons, Wiring, and the Habits of Royalty and Nobility

The Powerful Networks and Substructures That Persist Today

"Look at the world from multiple angles"—this is a tenet of contemporary philosophy. This approach applies not just to the world at large, but to all phenomena. Whether "multi-faceted" refers to visual angles or the vertices of a shape, the trend in contemporary philosophy is to increase these angles of observation indefinitely.

However, overthinking can be exhausting, so there are times when it is better to clear one's head and simply enjoy things.

When observing the modern era, there is a method of viewing history as layers, much like geological strata. Previously, I wrote about the Enlightenment, civil revolutions, left-wing ideologies, socialism, Marxism, communism, and modern liberalism. Here, I will explain the structures and networks of royalty and nobility—older layers that continue to influence the modern world.

Various Structures: Hierarchies and Networks

There are many ways to conceive of structure. It could be Marx's base and superstructure, or perhaps the "Accumulation Theory" (Kajō-setsu) of Tominaga Nakamoto from the Kaitokudo school of philology.

On the other hand, we can view society as a system where skeletons, plumbing, and wiring increase over time, adding new networks to form a high-density, diverse, and multi-layered complex.

In an age where water was drawn from wells and waste was thrown out the window, waterworks, sewage systems, and garbage collection were unnecessary. Without electricity, there was no need for power lines; without gas, pipelines were unneeded.

Early Freud proposed a topographical model of the mind (conscious/unconscious), while later Freud shifted to a structural model (Id/Ego/Superego); history can be viewed through both lenses.

The crucial perspective is that old strata, old plumbing, and old wiring do not simply disappear. While they may fade or transform, the old elements remain in some form, and new layers are built upon them. It is common in any society for aspects of the past to survive and influence the present. For example, things like genes, DNA, and language are hard to eradicate.

History is a core tool for diversifying one's perspective. Simply knowing each era and understanding whether or not it is embedded in the present raises the dimensionality of your observation.

Therefore, let us consider "Social Capital" in its most potent form: bloodlines, pedigree, genealogy, royalty, and nobility.

What is the Aristocracy?

To visualize this, let us take the British upper aristocracy from the pre-war era up to shortly after WWII as an example. Times have changed, and post-war aristocrats have struggled significantly to maintain their former lifestyles ("struggling to make ends meet," so to speak), so the reality today is quite different. However, this image helps in understanding the concept.

If you have read the children's book Little Lord Fauntleroy, imagine that world. Or, you might picture the British Royal Family, which is well-known in Japan.

First, the upper aristocracy looks different. Men are often around 190 cm tall, handsome, with blonde hair and blue eyes. This has nothing to do with modern debates on lookism; in Western culture, there is a deep-seated tradition where one cannot easily become a politician or leader without a certain physical presence, even outside the aristocracy.

The aristocratic class is fundamentally different from the common people in terms of "blood." International marriages occur between aristocrats, and many upper aristocrats are descendants of the Norman Conquest. Their genetics are effectively different.

Unlike the vague concept of "lineage" in Japan, what matters here is a pedigree akin to thoroughbred horse racing. One must be able to clearly trace their genealogy back five generations on both the male and female sides.

For instance, the British Royal Family is of the House of Hanover, a German noble family. They changed their name to the House of Windsor during World War I, but their lineage is German. In terms of blood purity, there were likely upper aristocrats in Britain with more traditional roots than the Royal Family itself. Winston Churchill was a scion of a great family, but he had American blood mixed in; in that sense, things have shifted with the times.

Generations of these families attend the same private schools (like Eton or Harrow) and the same universities (Oxbridge). They are required to be first-class in both academics and sports. In the past, when professional sports were less developed, they were expected to play at a level comparable to today's professionals. If you read Part 1 of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, you can easily visualize this image: they must be perfect and all-powerful.

Prince Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II (though his background was complex and caused issues at the time of their marriage), fit this mold of the traditional aristocrat.

They own estates. We are not talking about upscale neighborhoods like Shoto or Den-en-chofu in Tokyo. They own houses where it takes an hour just to get from the gate to the front door. They also own separate residences and villas, particularly in exclusive overseas resorts. While today this might translate to private jets, traditionally, owning ships or yachts was essential. They also possess famous jewelry that carries specific proper names.

While this system has largely crumbled today, the sight of post-war European nobility struggling desperately to maintain their traditions can seem almost pitiable to the common eye. The British Royal Family—and even the Japanese Imperial Family—struggle greatly to uphold these traditions and appearances, as is evident in media reports. The tragedy of Princess Diana lay in this friction. It is said that Diana suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, which some attribute to attachment issues stemming from her strict upbringing in an upper-class noble family.

Moreover, they must adapt to the times. Maintaining aristocratic face, tradition, and formality is difficult. If you read Kazuo Ishiguro's Nobel Prize-winning novel The Remains of the Day, you can see how difficult it was for European aristocrats to maintain their lifestyle, culture, and economic power before and after the war.

Being an aristocrat is not easy. I heard of a TV program in Japan featuring a noblewoman living in Ohara (likely referring to Venetia Stanley-Smith), which illustrates that some aristocrats fall into decline, while others simply grow tired of the aristocratic life.

The Structure of Blood, House, and Genealogy

This is easiest to understand if we look at Europe from the Middle Ages to the mid-modern era. Once the Enlightenment and civil revolutions enter the picture, the monarchy and aristocracy go underground, making them harder to see.

Monarchy and aristocracy appear to be part of the social superstructure, but as we move into the modern era, they have transformed into a subterranean organization—an infrastructure.

There is royal diplomacy and royal scandals, but the visible parts are mostly consumed as gossip. Old families and generational asset holders generally avoid exposure, unlike the "nouveau riche." In this sense, the thickest layer of this class has gone underground. They aren't necessarily hiding, but because ordinary people are not taught to connect school history with modern reality, they remain unnoticed.

Especially in the last century, being conspicuous carries risks. In a world where left-wing ideologies, liberalism, equality, and anti-discrimination amplify the jealousy (ressentiment) of the masses, these elites know from long history that standing out leads to trouble. Thus, they remain quiet, furthering their underground status.

But "invisible" does not mean "non-existent." As structuralism suggests, structures function even when unseen. It is useful to roughly understand how pre-modern structures continue to influence modern society.

Classes and Hierarchies Do Not Fundamentally Flip

There is an image that revolutions and social upheavals flip hierarchies upside down, but fundamentally, the upper echelon rarely falls to the very bottom. While there are stories of those who fall—and humans love such narratives—the reality is more stable.

Regardless of the French Revolution or other upheavals, the "unsung heroes" supporting the system from beneath are the continuous networks of the upper class, nobility, and royalty. Although their institutional power has weakened, their "invisibility" has advanced.

There are mechanisms to incorporate successful outsiders. The Rothschilds became nobility, and the Beatles were given knighthoods. These conspicuous figures attract attention, which effectively helps hide the core establishment.

The Russian Revolution, where aristocrats were massacred and their property seized, is an exception. However, since modern revolutions are increasingly violent, exposure is a risk. Nevertheless, the skeletal structure of the political and business worlds in Europe (and its superstructure/infrastructure) remains the traditional royalty and aristocracy.

America, being a miniature replica of European society, is also a class society. In short, Western civilization has an aristocracy at its root.

The European Upper Class as Germanic Chieftains

It is helpful to think of the European structure as fundamentally consisting of Germanic tribal states. Royal families are positioned as the chieftains of the Franks, Goths, Normans, and so on. While there is Roman aristocratic blood mixed in, that side is rarely emphasized, perhaps due to the influence of Catholic universalism.

The Middle Ages were built upon the foundation of Roman society, but delving too deep into that would diffuse the focus. Let's look at it simply, focusing on the medieval aspect.

European Royal Families are Descendants of Myths

Whether true or not, the fabrication of genealogies happens in both Japan and Europe. Fictionalizing lineage to connect reality with mythology or creating ties to noble species is common. Narratives are what matter.

For the Vikings of the second Germanic migration, some tribes claimed descent from Odin or other gods.

There is an episode regarding Wilhelm of Prussia becoming the German Emperor. He reportedly told Bismarck that he did not want to be the German Emperor if it meant ceasing to be the King of Prussia. This is similar to how, if the Japanese Emperor were to become the "Emperor of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" but had to step down as the head priest and patriarch of the Japanese people, both the Emperor and the citizens would likely oppose it.

Reluctant Christianization

There was significant resistance among Germanic tribes to abandoning their own gods and faith to convert to Christianity. Some tribes or nations likely disappeared without converting, and countries like Lithuania converted very late.

While Christianization had its benefits, it left a lingering resentment—perhaps even to this day. Medieval history looks like a continuous quarrel between the Pope and the Emperors/Kings (e.g., the Investiture Controversy). There was likely a persistent feeling of having been forced to discard their indigenous gods, religion, and culture.

Nietzsche argued that Christianity was a "slave revolt" of Jewish ressentiment reversing Roman dominance. Similarly, one could say the Church (Roman) used Christianity to exert a reverse dominance over the Germanic people through ressentiment.

Royal and Aristocratic Marriage

Germanic comitatus (retinue) systems have relatively clear status relationships. Therefore, countries with strong Germanic elements tend to be prone to discrimination and racial issues even in modern times.

The U.S. institutionalized discrimination against Black people until the 1960s; South Africa (a former colony of Dutch and British origins) maintained Apartheid until the 21st century; Australia had the White Australia Policy; and Germany committed the Holocaust. The stronger the Germanic scent, the stricter the vertical relationships, and the less fluidity there is between classes or races, including intermarriage.

In comparison, Catholic and Latin countries historically had more fluidity between classes and races.

In the Middle Ages, modern era, and even today, constraints on royal and aristocratic marriage are strict. Although it has loosened considerably, in strict cases, they investigate back five generations on both male and female sides. The intuition that this is "like horse racing" is quite accurate. Lineage and blood are paramount.

Since marriages occur between those of matching family status and blood, European royalty and nobility form a web of blood relations. In World War I, the King of England, the German Kaiser, and the Russian Tsar were all cousins. This strengthens horizontal ties across class lines.

You might imagine Europe as having a caste system similar to India. Despite religious splits (Protestantism) or the Eastern Orthodox Church in Russia, the density of blood and marriage varies but persists. Sometimes it becomes too dense, as with the Habsburgs.

While there may be "kinship hatred" or family feuds, relatives are still relatives. They may fight amongst themselves, but faced with an external threat like the French Revolution, they unite to form a coalition (like the anti-French coalitions).

Territory and citizens are important, but "patriotism" for them is different from the modern sense. Modern nationalism is said to have been born from the French Revolution. This type of nationalism did not exist among medieval or early modern nobility. Wars with neighbors were often extensions of inheritance disputes rather than for the "nation" or "land."

Ultimately, the upper echelons conducting wars are often in-laws and relatives. Soldiers—whether mercenaries or conscripts—are essentially pawns on a chessboard.

The Power of the Family System

Without citing Emmanuel Todd explicitly, the family system is indeed powerful. In Europe, unlike in dynastic China, the lowest class rarely takes over the world. Even if they do, it doesn't last. There is a thick ceiling—or rather, a strong aristocratic network serving as the skeleton of society.

If a new force like the bourgeoisie rises, the aristocracy absorbs it. If Jewish merchants or financial capitalists rise, they absorb them too. The European social system, family structures, Germanic loyalty, hunter-gatherer traits, Roman legacies, and Christian influences have created a rigid skeleton for families and communities. This structure makes Gekokujo (the lower overthrowing the upper) difficult.

America, a miniature replica of Europe, is fundamentally the same. The term "Indo-European" suggests that India and Europe share ancient cultural and social traits that predispose them to class societies.

Ultimately, Western society is a class society where the upper layer creates a wall—or network—that the lower classes cannot easily penetrate. Conspiracy theories often talk about "Jewish conspiracies," but the "Aristocratic Network" is likely far more powerful. Unlike conspiracies, this is visible; you just have to look. The great figures usually have great ancestors. Upstarts are rare. In Europe, it was said to take three generations to rise in class.

Maintaining the Upper Class via New Influx

Since some families fall and others rise, the upper class needs a mechanism to recruit personnel. Upstarts often come selling themselves, wanting to be let in. Whether voluntary or solicited, personnel replenishment is necessary for any organization or upper group.

America offers a clear example. Traditionally, WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) were at the top, followed by German Protestants, then Irish Catholics, Southern Europeans (Italians), Eastern Europeans (Polish), Jews, and then people of color. There was a hierarchy based on race, ethnicity, religion, and origin. While moving up might be easier than in Europe, it remains a class society.

Terms like "Deep State" are thrown around, but practically speaking, there are always people who support the nation's framework. The core of this group is the hereditary upper class. While the middle and lower classes can participate through meritocracy, cementing one's place in the upper echelon across generations usually requires the backing of family wealth built through business or investment. This is likely true in any country.

Beneath the Layer of Civil Revolution, Aristocratic Society Defines the Substructure

The 19th century was an era of revolution and progress, typified by the French Revolution. However, the aristocracy as a substructure never completely disappeared. Even in the world empires of Britain and America, despite civil revolutions, Enlightenment thinking, or leftist administrations like FDR or the Labour Party, the composition of society remains a hierarchy dominated by aristocratic networks.

There are times when this influence weakens and times when it strengthens, but over the long span of centuries, it does not vanish or become the only thing.

The Russian Revolution destroyed the aristocracy, but the Communist Party simply became the new upper class. The current Russian elite are likely the descendants of the Soviet Nomenklatura. Russia has a different history, culture, and religion from Europe, but it mimics it. Having been ruled by Mongols, the class discrimination might have been more severe. Nomads view farmers as inferior. Russian nobility mixed with Mongols, and the Russian Empire inherited aspects of Mongol rule, perhaps leading to a harsher class society and serfdom.

Class Inequality and the Middle Class Issue

If class inequality widens too much and the middle class is not nurtured, extracting too much from the lower class makes society unstable. This was true in Marx's 19th century, and it feels true of 21st-century America and Europe (and others) at the end of neoliberalism and globalization.

America resembles 19th-century Europe, so it is no wonder people are starting to advocate Marxism or socialism again. Humans find it hard to learn from history.

The theory that "empires perish when the middle class thins" is a major tenet of imperial cycle theory, seen in the Roman Empire and other examples.

With the advancement of AI and robotics, will we see the opening of a new historical door—something like SF-style Techno-Socialism, Techno-Communism, or Techno-Marxism? Or will the system collapse before then? It remains to be seen.