We tend to think of feudalism as a relic of the Middle Ages, an alien concept involving European (or Japanese) nobles fighting constantly and maneuvering for prestige and advantage in ways that are inefficient for the realms that they serve as a whole. If we focus on the titles and the ceremonies, then we do not tend to see feudalism in the same sense today that one sees through the romance of Medieval history. However, if we look at the underlying elements of feudalism, we will find that it is alive and well in very consistent ways. Rather than be distracted by the lack of spectacle in contemporary feudalism, let us examine the structure of feudalism and why it has endured, and what it means for us today.

At its heart, feudalism depends on a set of conditions. For one, feudalism prospers when there is weak central government. The stronger the center, the less freedom subordinate leaders have to create their own fiefdoms. The weaker the center, though, the stronger the power of those lesser lords to develop their own empires and work out their own private agendas and wage their own private wars. Additionally, feudalism is accompanied by a lack of communication and efficiency, since it is harder to coordinate across the lines of the different fiefdoms. Since different fiefdoms have different agendas and different leaders, with little common action between them, we ought to expect a lot of wasted resources and quarrels between different fiefdoms that are part of the same nation or organization. Wherever the goals of multiple fiefdoms can be coordinated, then coalitions can develop that may be able to seize power in the larger institution or society.

Given the inefficiency that results from feudalism, when might an institution or society resort to a feudal model? The United States and Nazi Germany are two classic cases where feudalism of a sort was designed into the system (such as it was) for very different reasons. The United States, in its constitutional government, divided up its institutions in such a way as to seek to prevent factions from dominating government. By pitting state governments (which would be feudal domains) against the national government, the excesses of either could be arrested by the other. Likewise, by dividing up that national government between a legislative branch (itself divided to protect the interests of larger states and smaller states in the different chambers), the executive branch, and the judicial branch, for there to be any kind of progress in passing and enforcing laws required a certain amount of consensus building that favored deliberation and compromise over running roughshod over others. Where consensus was lacking, one would expect nothing to be done, by design. In the United States, we might say, the institutional elements of feudalism were done to protect minority rights and to encourage policies that sought the interests of all if one wanted anything to get done.

In Nazi Germany, the elements of feudalism were equally intentional but done for entirely different and more nefarious reasons. Given the lack of unity within the Nazi coalition and its widely scattered and often mutually hostile elements, Hitler’s adoption of a feudal model of authority served to divide divisions from each other that could have coordinated together and threatened his regime while also making Hitler the indispensable man. The squabbles and quarrels over limited resources made the function of the overall system less efficient, but they also made the position of the leader more secure because it was not possible for a large enough coalition to be built to threaten his dominance. Paradoxically, therefore, feudalism can either be used to encourage consensus or to prevent it, depending on the particular aims of the framers of such institutions.

How are we to deal with feudalism when we encounter it? First, we must seek to understand whether we are dealing with a system that seeks to maximize consensus because of underlying tensions and disunity, seeking to increase trust by increasing the size of the majority needed to do anything, which increases confidence and legitimacy for any actions that are taken, or whether we are dealing with a system led by insecure leaders who wish to prevent any kind of action in concert by their subordinates by elements of divide and conquer that lead those subordinates to fight and quarrel over limited resources in an atmosphere of competition over favor. If we see institutions focused more on consensus building despite their internal divisions, we are likely seeing a model more like the United States. If we see institutions where there is deliberate competitions and a lack of cooperation and communication, we are likely seeing a model closer to Nazi Germany. It then remains for us to examine ourselves and the institutions we are a part of to see whether the feudalism we see is in search of consensus building to alleviate mistrust or in search of power through pitting people against each other. Although both may be feudal in nature, the motives and consequences are quite different between those two models.