Social Structure in Ancient China

As far as the political structure of ancient Chinese society is concerned, no matter whether it was a change of dynasties or a social change, or whether it was a division or a unification, a high degree of centralization and monarchical autocracy were the main forms. At its core, local power was vested in the central government, and central power was vested in the monarch. The architect of this political structure was Han Fei in the Warring States period.

Han Fei believed that the operation and management of state power should be realized in such a way that "things are in the four directions, but the key is in the center; the saint executes the key, and the four directions come to follow", and the "saint" mentioned here is the monarch. The center for the local, such as "the body of the arm, the arm of the finger" command freely; the monarch for the whole country, it is "no matter how small or big the world, all decided on".

Taking the management of localities and populations as an example, "under the sky, there is no one who is not the king's land; the idea that there is no one who is not the king's minister is y rooted, and the central dynasty, through the nationwide unified household registration management, land tax management, and a strict system of counting on all the lands and populations under its direct control, the lack of autonomy of the local government and the domination of local governments is in fact only a sent agent of the central dynasty. local governments lacked autonomy and control, and were in fact only agents dispatched by the central government.

After the Song Dynasty, the state and county governors were changed to "Zhi Zhou" and "Zhi Xian". The "Zhi" is the agent, concurrently, these people's official position is the central government officials, is the identity of the central government officials concurrently local, such as the Qing official Bao Gong's first position is to the central government of the dynasty's "Da Lisi assessor" and "Zhi The first position of the Qing official Bao Gong was the central dynasty's "Dali assessor" and "Zhi Jianchang County".

This is very different from the European Middle Ages. In medieval Europe, the king of each country and the central government were small and limited, and the local controllers were the lords who were formed by dividing the territory and had full authority over all affairs within the fiefdom, and the king had no right to inquire about the land and people within the fiefdom of the lords.

There was a popular maxim in Europe at that time that "my vassal's vassal is not my vassal", which was the opposite of the essence of the Chinese concept of "there is no one who is not the king's subject", which has been inherent in China since ancient times.

In connection with this, the dynastic government was almost the only subject of social management in ancient China. In ancient China, all levels of government were fully capable of carrying out social management, from the central government to the local government, with a complete set of institutions and administrators covering almost all affairs. From matters of national economy and livelihood to justice, law and order, religion, and indoctrination, they were all under the monolithic management system of the various levels of government.

For example, in the management of economic affairs, from agriculture to industry and commerce, the central dynasty had both large agricultural orders, large agricultural ministers, and agricultural envoys, as well as equalization officials, and the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of the Household, and the Ministry of the Shaofu, etc. At the county level, there were the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of the Household, and the Ministry of the Interior. At the county level, there were Gong Cao, Household Cao, and City Cao, etc. Even the market in the county town had a city ordinance and an equalization ordinance to manage the market order and prices.

Social spiritual and cultural life was also under one-dimensional management, advocating what rituals and customs, respecting what religions, and even honoring filial piety and martyrdom, and reconciling neighborly disputes were all under the government's control. Accordingly, in ancient China, there was no religious system or religious organization independent of government administration, nor was there any self-contained, relatively independent industrial and commercial guilds or residents' self-governing organizations.

While there were industrial and commercial guilds and village organizations in Chinese history, they were all under the administration of the government, and were in fact endings or variants of the governmental system, which the government did not hesitate to eliminate once they became a force for dissent.

In medieval Europe, it was a different story. From the economic system, Europe is a typical dualistic system on the one hand, the lord's territory within the self-sufficient manor economic system, on the other hand, is outside the spontaneous formation of the urban commercial and industrial economic system. Whether monarchs or lords, the city of commerce and industry and citizens have not formed an effective management, business and industry guilds of self-management and citizen self-governance is the main mode of management.

The religious system is also the same. In the European Middle Ages, although there was a fierce struggle between religious power and monarchical power, on the whole, it was the monarchical power that succumbed to the religious power. The religious system was independent of the state system, constraining the spiritual world and social life of people, including monarchs and lords, and actually checking the exercise of monarchical power.