At the University of Bonn, researchers from different disciplines have been working together to study power and domination structures in the premodern period for some years now. Why have you chosen this research topic rather than something else?
Power and domination are what underpin coexistence in many societies. And I think that it’s highly rewarding to consider how these factors impact on people’s lives. I have a lot of colleagues from a wide range of subject backgrounds here in Bonn who are studying the premodern period. But the sources that we have for all these subjects do place a certain emphasis on power and domination, whether you’re looking at China, Japan or Europe, for instance. In their reports, chroniclers and historians have always concentrated a lot on political rule—works of art and archaeological remains are very often linked to power and domination too. So we have a common denominator across all disciplines.
Have you identified any particular differences between cultures in your research to date?
When we started, we were fairly surprised to see quite a lot of similarity. For example, most regimes developed some form of courtly etiquette—and did so largely independently. But there are differences too, of course. China and Japan adopted a centralized bureaucracy very early on, whereas Europe didn’t. So you then also find some completely different ways in which the rulers imposed that rule on the people.
What role did the elites play back then?
The elites acted as a kind of link between the rulers and the people in terms of communication. Communicating over sizable distances wasn’t as easy to arrange in premodern times as it is now, when we get messages on our smartphones in a matter of seconds. In the premodern period, all of that had to be organized with the means that were available. And that’s where the elites came in. Either they had a power base in a particular region, or they were sent out from court to the fringes of the kingdom to act in the ruler’s stead.
Are elites well disposed toward the ruler as a basic principle?
Rulers and elites often have something of an ambivalent relationship. On the one hand, a monarch needs the elites to help impose their rule. Thus the class-consciousness of the nobility often dictates that only the high echelons of the aristocracy can take the most senior positions at court and in the royal administration. On the other hand, these nobles very often look after their own interests, even if it means going against their ruler.
This means that previously independent rulers are kept in position after they have been subjugated and now merely act on behalf of the person who wields the real power at the top. In Asia, Europe and Africa, there’s a system of proximity and distance between the ruler exercising power in the center and those doing so on the fringes that is often also held together by conquest, by the recognition of overlordship. The Emperor of China sees himself more of less as the center of the whole world and regards all other rulers, however distant their kingdoms, as being subservient to him, so to speak. And between that the transitions are fluid, from largely autonomous rulers through to governors and finally to sovereigns who are dominated entirely by the elites
In the new Center, you look at communication as the key element of power and domination. What does that mean?
Essentially, you get this tripartite division—the ruler, the elite and the ordinary people—everywhere you look. Power can only really be exercised in a stable fashion when the communication within this structure is stable too, keeps on renewing itself and adapts to different circumstances. In our research, we’re asking ourselves, for example, how standards and ideals for the relationship between elites and ruler figures are developed, how these are then communicated and disseminated, but also how criticism is voiced. Among the questions we explore is how the ruler’s consort was made part of this system. Depending on her background, she can act as a kind of mouthpiece for opposition elites. There are also big cultural differences: in China, rulers of far-flung regions are made an integral part of the overall system at court..
What elements of this can you also see in today’s royal families and in politics?
One fascinating aspect is the closed circles of advisors that you get around rulers, both then and now. The advisor is a key figure in premodern regimes. Nowadays, we talk of “kitchen cabinets,” because even democratically minded politicians gather people around them to give them advice—their childhood friend, their mother, their spouse. That quickly creates informal structures in areas where there should technically only be official relationships, legally speaking. We see phenomena like this in the premodern period too. Having informal structures wielding such power is unavoidable, even in a democracy, because ultimately it’s always human beings who are involved—and human beings need to feel familiarity in order to be able to make decisions.
Despite all these parallels, where do you see some differences between then and now?
These days, the formal structures that surround those in power are designed to prevent them from acting purely arbitrarily. But then people in premodern times generally didn’t act in that way either, apart from a few exceptions. Our research to date has shown us that, quite irrespective of their formal responsibilities, the ruler had to ensure that at least a significant part of the population approved of them. Because ruling in opposition to everyone makes no sense. In all the periods we’ve looked at, therefore, we’ve actually seen evidence of strategies geared toward forming a consensus.
Because the other path leads to revolt?
That’s one possible consequence, yes. However, it’s probably harder to break a persistent undercurrent of popular resistance than it is to crush an open rebellion. Ultimately, it’s about motivating the people to go along with what you’re doing. And, of course, one good way to do this is to make promises to the relevant people within your society. Give them presents, such as land, in order to achieve your objectives. Military-minded rulers that rely solely on force won’t get far. You could say that power and domination is a form of communication and is underpinned by communication.
So how does a premodern ruler communicate well with their people?
The strategies employed can vary considerably. On the one hand, you have rulers who are after fairly close contact with the people and are always traveling around and being present everywhere, as in medieval Europe, for instance. A ruler seeks proximity to their people to show them that they’re there and are a real person. On the other hand, you also get the exact opposite: in China, for example, where the emperor stays in his palace and hardly ever ventures out. So the various possibilities and forms of communication are very different. Both can work; it depends on the skill of the person involved. After all, we can see how important skill is if we look at politicians in today’s democratic societies too, ultimately.
What would you like to tell people outside the academic community about your research?
People are just as interested in the premodern period as they’ve always been, whether it’s in Chinese studies or Egyptology or on a really fundamental level in linguistics, fine art, or object or text science. When we engage with the general public, we don’t set out either to romanticize the premodern period or to present it as a harrowing prologue to the here and now. Instead, we want to show that the past is also of topical relevance to the present. Of course, you can’t learn 1:1 from the past. But anyone who studies premodern conditions and relationships or even history in general will also tackle current problems from different angles. This is because comparable situations have already existed in the past, and people found solutions for those. This way of finding answers is definitely something you can learn from.