What is a Feudal Technocracy

[Woas]

Hi everyone. Brand spanking new Traveller fan here. I guess in general I'm fairly young to table top RPGs in general, only really started to explore the professional world of RPGs since around 2002 (I had been playing diceless, made up RPGs ever since I was a 6 or 7 years old).

Anyway I am pouring over all the info here and my friends who I have introduced the game to as well myself are loving all the nuances of the game! But I have a general question, what the heck is a Feudal Technocracy?! I know what Feudalism is, by itself. An I know what Technocracy is. But putting the two together and our head spins trying to think about it.

It would really help us cause we have rolled up some random planets and got this government type, but since we don't understand what it means, we can't imagine whats going on down there on the planet political-wise.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[EDG]

This has been the subject of many a flamewar in Traveller history... and to be honest I still don't think anyone really knows what it is.

My personal opinion is that it's a caste-based society where the higher castes (the ones in control) have access to technology and the lower ones don't. Or to put it another way - if you have guns, you can rule over the guys with just spears and clubs. Another example would be a society on a hostile world where a priestly caste rules the masses, but the priests are the ones that control the technology that keeps everyone alive. If you're lucky you can rise up from the masses and join the technological castes, but you have to be REALLY in favour with the higher-ups.

I think a TED (Technologically Elevated Dictator) and his goons (from Traveller: The New Era) is sorta like a Feudal Technocracy too - the TED is the leader (who has access to everything), his goons are the next level down (who have the guns and tanks etc), and the masses are the serfs who don't have anything.

IMO, YMMV etc.

 

[qstor]

Anyway I am pouring over all the info here and my friends who I have introduced the game to as well myself are loving all the nuances of the game! But I have a general question, what the heck is a Feudal Technocracy?! I know what Feudalism is, by itself. An I know what Technocracy is. But putting the two together and our head spins trying to think about it.

Here's some stuff I found on the Net.

http://traveller.wikia.com/wiki/Government
Relationships are based on the performance of technical activities which are mutually beneficial. Relationships are based on the performance of technical activities which are mutually beneficial
Also from the Net, "This means that officials selected for their expertise administer the government."

See also
http://www.downport.com/traveller/tml/tml-faq.html#Q4.4-FT

Hope this helps.

Mike

 

[Woas]

I see. That does clear things up a bit. Thank you.

 

[Garrand]

What is feudalism? There are a lot of opinions on it, and the professional academic world is still coming to grips with the idea of its existence (or lack thereof -- See Susan Reynold's Fiefs and Vassals).

Simply stated, feudalism is payment in kind for a specific service(s). This can come in many forms, from the traditional military service (i.e a knight serves at his personal expense for 40 days a year) to something as mundane as supplying a set number of eels a year for the King's table at Christmas. In Medieval Europe, the "classical" form (though getting into any academic discussion of the idea is fraught with landmines) is the aforementioned grant of land (i.e. the fief, or benefice) in exchange for specific military service (obligation). This benefice with its associated obligation would be granted by a powerful landowner to hs followers (now vassals). Note that this has nothing to do with serfs or peasantry, which is a characteristic of European feudalism (though hardly consistent...in the late MA many English fief-holders accepted gifts of money to release serfs from servile status, and turned their lands into proto-plantations, or devoted significant portions to the raising and production of wool). Europe was hardly the only practitioner of feudalism...compare European feudalism with FREX Ottoman feudalism, or Parthian/Sassanian, etc.

Another important characteristic is that this was a personal agreement between one individual and another. When viewed from this context, it starts to have the look of interrelated contractual obligations (i.e. I supply land you supply service).

So in a technologically advanced civilization, this would be the granting of benefices by a powerful individual (ruler) to lesser capable men for services (i.e. sub-contracting). Thus in a "feudal technocracy" a ruler might grant a benefice to his vassal in return for that vassal's obligation to produce a specific technology (i.e. the ruler grants his follower he state of California and all its revenue as long has he devotes an appropriate amount of research into a singularity engine). Alternatively, it could be the granting of certain rights in exchange for FREX specific production (i.e. California for 1000 hovertanks a year).

Damon.

 

[dmccoy1693]

my opinion of what a FT would be like neural psi-implants. those with them can communicate and know what is going on in the world. They can instantly participate in the passage of laws and can instantly learn anything they need to know (Matrix style). Those that choose to have (or were never offered to have) those implants never are always at a disadvantage.

This of it like this. In a FT type world, you can access the planetary sensors and see what ship is coming in without ever having to see a display. The display would just be fed directly into your brain. An "un-plant" you don't like is applying for a job, you can feed directly into the interviewer's brain something to keep the guy from getting it. "Un-plants" don't get computer based jobs since they have to use keyboard instead just using brain dumps. Un-plants are relegated to menial jobs.

BUt that's just my opinion.

 

[GypsyComet]

Keep in mind also that the world government codes are not necessarily "the whole story", but are what appears to be the dominant system on the world. Dig deeply enough and something else might be staring back at you.

 

[Shiloh]

My first thought on a feudal technocracy was that it might be run something like medieval trade Guilds, with the power in the hands of the Guild heads. But the "Ruler has tech; proles don't" sounds good too.

 

[aspqrz]

I always think of it being something *like* the Japanese zaibatsu or Korean chaebol, but more all encompassing.

That's my .02 centicreds worth anyway :wink:

Phil

 

[Golan2072]

I think a TED (Technologically Elevated Dictator) and his goons (from Traveller: The New Era) is sorta like a Feudal Technocracy too - the TED is the leader (who has access to everything), his goons are the next level down (who have the guns and tanks etc), and the masses are the serfs who don't have anything.

The main difference between a TED and a Feudal Technocracy is that a TED's power-base is very narrow, while an FT has a wider and more stable power base. A TED relies on relic technology that it couldn't replicate or maintain for the most part; an FT could replicate and maintain most of its tech-base.

Another possible model of Technocratic Feudalism is the Japanese Zaibetsu - corporations where the employees are extremely loyal to the company, like vassals to their lord - up to and including suicide when failing their job.

EDIT: Phil has just beat me to the second point

 

[Greg Smith]

I had thought of this as something like 'If This Goes On-' A Robert A. heinlein novella, in which the 'Prophet' maintains a religious dicatatorship partly through science and technological trickery.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Two thoughts, both of which could be correct for a given situation.

1. Hydraulic Empire.
The rulers control some vital technology or resource that everyone depends on for survival. Water and air are the first to come to mind. These types of societies have existed in the past and NEVER fell to internal dissent. They always fell to outside "barbarians".

2. Multiple Company Control.
Think of it as an expanded Corporate State, but there are several companies that have specialized. Between them, they cover all aspects of society. In many ways the Government of Earth in Babylon 5 may meet this criteria with it's SportsCorp and PsiCorp etc.

I have used both definitions.

 

[Shiloh]

...the Government of Earth in Babylon 5 ...with it's SportsCorp and PsiCorp etc...

To veer slightly away from topic, I believe the B5 organisation that included Norty Mister Bester was "Psi Corps" as in "Marine Corps": an agency of the State, rather than an incorporated commerical entity...

 

[Delerium]

Not sure where all these definitions are being produced from.

Put simply:

Feudalism is just a society that has contractual agreements with leaders and normal people to provide services in exchange for land rights or other stuff or loyalty.

(Historical texts go on and on about if its workable and the fine details, but thats the basis of it)

Technocracy is where the leaders were chosen because they are skillful or knowledgeable, not because they bully others or are rich. It has nothing whatsoever to do with technology necessarily.


Putting them together just leads to:

A government of chosen higly skillful/knowledgeable people that will grant rights or services(land,etc) to normal people in exchange for services rendered or loyalty.

 

[Shiloh]

Technocracy is where the leaders were chosen because they are skillful or knowledgeable, not because they bully others or are rich.

Isn't that a meritocracy with the "merit" axis considering only skill and knowledge (as opposed to other potentially "meritourious" traits)?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with technology necessarily.

Where d'you get that idea? It might be quite a *low* level of technology, but surely "techno" has to do with technology, whether that's water wheels or meson canon.

 

[Delerium]

Technocracy is where the leaders were chosen because they are skillful or knowledgeable, not because they bully others or are rich.

Isn't that a meritocracy with the "merit" axis considering only skill and knowledge (as opposed to other potentially "meritourious" traits)?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with technology necessarily.

Where d'you get that idea? It might be quite a *low* level of technology, but surely "techno" has to do with technology, whether that's water wheels or meson canon.

'Techno' in "Technocracy" in this case is derived from the greek meaning "skill" or similar, not technology.
E.g a psychologist doesn't need to use technology but can still be skilled.

Please also note my phrase " It has nothing whatsoever to do with technology necessarily". This means technology isn't absoutely required, but it coud be there.

Meritocracy is based on merit which has actuallly been demonstrated. Similar really, exept the merit could be anything, like dedication to a good cause or someone that showed themself to be a good leader before in some situation.
Its a fairly recent term, I believe, but I don't have the source to hand. Something from the 50's I think.

 

[dayriff]

I interpret it as adhering to the following principles.

1) Governmental power is relatively decentralized. While there may (or may not) be a supreme executive or council, decision-making is largely devolved to the discretion of the man on the scene.

2) Authority is based on expertise rather than seniority or heredity. The head of an agricultural concern knows (or is assumed to know) more about farming than his subordinates. The person making decisions about robots is the best roboticist. The economy is run by an economist. (Naturally human nature being what it is, this principle is not lived up to, but that is the idea in theory.)

3) Power is channeled through demonstrated expertise and through personal pledges of loyalty. Conflicts tend to be resolved informally.

4) The clearest distinction from an oligarchy based on technical knowledge is an absence of a defined us-versus-them and some degree of social mobility.

 

[Delerium]

I interpret it as adhering to the following principles.

1) Governmental power is relatively decentralized. While there may (or may not) be a supreme executive or council, decision-making is largely devolved to the discretion of the man on the scene.

2) Authority is based on expertise rather than seniority or heredity. The head of an agricultural concern knows (or is assumed to know) more about farming than his subordinates. The person making decisions about robots is the best roboticist. The economy is run by an economist. (Naturally human nature being what it is, this principle is not lived up to, but that is the idea in theory.)

3) Power is channeled through demonstrated expertise and through personal pledges of loyalty. Conflicts tend to be resolved informally.

4) The clearest distinction from an oligarchy based on technical knowledge is an absence of a defined us-versus-them and some degree of social mobility.

Nicely written dayriff. Sounds good.

 

[RedBeardSean]

I always think of it being something *like* the Japanese zaibatsu or Korean chaebol, but more all encompassing.

That's my .02 centicreds worth anyway :wink:

Phil

I have to agree with this, though another spin on it might be the Confucian system of examinations for titles and positions in the feudality.

 

[StephenT]

To be honest, I've always assumed that starship crews and military organisations are feudal technocracies. "Relationships are based on the performance of technical activities which are mutually beneficial" - what is that if not a description of a crew hierarchy? The person who's best at navigation is the Navigator, the person who's best at looking after the engines is the Engineer, and the person who's best at leading is the Captain; and they all have to do their jobs if the ship is going to get anywhere.