The (Lacking) Grand "End of Feudalism" Thesis

In reality, in the real social fabric, there is no move which reflects the move in the political historian's text from feudalism to capitalism, or, the “end of feudalism”. For instance, we can notice that the same groups are in power as before, and any change has only been of a trivial manner. We are speaking specifically about feudalism because the modern, objective historian is a birth of recent history and there was no “historian at the present moment” at the feudalistic moment, therefore, in a sense, everything said about the feudalistic moment has been speculated by the historian of today about a moment in which he/she did not live. Even if it may be the case that the political historian was objective in his/her research, the real social fabric does not adapt itself to the terms feudalism and capitalism that smoothly; these terms are abstractions that generalize and make speculations, rather than speak of reality in any meticulous detail; they are grandiose concepts which are difficult to apply for the average citizen in any attempts to change his/her life. Given such a use of terms, it is therefore important to politically situate the historian even if the historian himself may not directly do so. By “political situation,” we are not only speaking about the political orientation of the historian, but rather, we are speaking of the more important matter of the utility of the historian's grand thesis for a politician's rhetoric, as we will do shortly.  

In short, the grand thesis of the "end of feudalism" does not reflect reality, which is full of small gains and losses, which does not completely align to the concepts of feudalism and capitalism. So, in a sense it seems that the job of the historian's text is not to inform, but rather, to enable the general audience to consult these texts on feudalism and capitalism so that this audience may engage with the moment in a manner which subscribes to these texts; always already the purpose is to persuade rather than inform. The historian constructs a mental picture in the audience's mind about what feudalism was like, and this picture is on the most part fictitious, motivated as it is by political aims. Here, we begin to see why the historian is important: because he/she is closest to formulating (but not reaping all the benefits from) a Foucauldian technique of government as he/she has the first role in interpreting history and proclaiming the ends and beginnings of social orders; he/she produces political concepts and symbols at what are considered to be critical and important junctures. But there is a form of corruption in the historian's formulation of such a technique because the "objective" stance does not arrive arbitrarily but arrives only at a politically important moment; we may begin to see to what extent objective historicizing is imbued with biased politics. We see the very important notion of the use of objectivity: no matter how objective a historian may become, he/she does not exist in a neutral and objective space and so his/her thoughts ultimately play into subjective and biased aims of politics. 

For the politician, who is an important enforcer of the techniques of government, the “end of feudalism” thesis is something which enables him/her to formalize the history of the time, to give the times a type of definition, to mark it with more seriousness and weight than other times. Of course such a "making serious" of feudalism is usually motivated by other, more hidden political aims. The "end of feudalism" thesis allows him/her to engage with others who are regarded as rivals, to defeat these rivals in the eyes of the people...he/she uses the thesis as a weapon, and keeps utilizing it for its rhetorical richness rather than for its plausibility, relevance or objectivity: as such, politics becomes dominated by the uses of old theses, as is the case in Nepali politics where the ideas in speeches are often repeated...Using the terms feudalism and capitalism enables a very political reading of the times, infusing the present with excess political urgency and also constructing the future as an important field for politics. However, the major “undercurrent” to utilizing this (and many other) theses is to give strength to the symbolic order, which is understood here as the ordering of social reality by the use of theses. The politician steps in to save the symbolic order, which is especially vulnerable at times of upheaval. Indeed, in the faceless, post-political moment of today, the politician's only true significance must be to perform the bland role of saving the symbolic order...both a bland role but an important (and hence, rewarding) one. Additionally, the politician's motive is to use this thesis to limit the field and context of what is considered political versus what is considered apolitical. "The political" is usually reserved for fast-moving periods of time and revolutions in the contents of the moment, on newness. Ultimately, this focus on the fast-moving, the rapid goes to maintain a certain false rigor in politics, and elicits a shallow excitement towards the political...the political keeps its place in the fashion of the times because it allows commentary on supposed change and transformation. 

What philosophy of history does this subscription to the “end of feudalism” thesis (or text) entail? What is implied by this “end of feudalism” text is that things do not move forward without a symbolic impetus, that is, without concepts such as 'feudalism' to describe the social. It is considered that subjects consistently seek symbols, that they seek explanations, especially political ones, so that they may articulate and construct their own life-trajectories...and this seems especially true of Nepal where the interest towards politics is quite high. With symbolic impetus, social institutions and people move forward within the confines of what the symbolic defines and limits. When the historian speaks of the “end of feudalism,” people begin to enact moments that would come after the end of feudalism, people would begin with a consciousness of feudalism in mind in whatever they do. However, we can also subscribe to another philosophy here: that things are constantly transforming beyond the reach of the text, that the text is in fact the material weight to a human limitation or disability: the disability to keep up with how things change without symbolic impetus. Symbolic impetus only gives an illusion of control. We may believe that people's consciousness of feudalism does not have as much significance as is assumed. We can begin to reduce the importance of the thesis/text on the movement of reality and the social fabric. Reality does not rely on the symbolic order and the historian's play of words, but rather, on the Lacanian symbolic lack, that which cannot be captured by the thesis, the lack of control and the lack of technique of government...it is upon the lack of the symbolic order where reality thrives...From Foucault, if we have derived the historian's powerful role in constructing the symbolic order, from Lacan we have given the authority over the movement of the symbolic order back to the ordinary, post-political citizen.