Thoughts on Rules, Economics, and Culture

There are many ways to tell a story or write a novel, and some writers use the same “methodology” for every book, while others explore different ways, one of which is to
write in a different culture.

This isn’t as easy as it seems. All too often attempts to depict a differing culture do little more change the names, but different cultures have different mores and different structures of relationships.

More than once recently, readers have criticized how I’ve depicted relationships, because what I’ve written doesn’t reflect either what they’ve experienced or feel they want to experience. Such criticisms are accurate in that I’m not depicting what happens today, especially in the United States. For most of human history and in most cultures, relationships have been formalized into almost fixed patterns, at least involving interactions that are seen publicly or that can be inferred publicly.

Every viable society/culture has rules and patterns, and those rules and patterns extend into and influence the most personal and seemingly private aspects of life. For example, certain Polynesian cultures allowed far more sexual freedom, both for men and women, and, as a result, inheritances, etc., flowed through the female lineage.

Private property requires legalities and the backing of power. How those legalities are written and enforced influence culture and personal choices. Economics and technology (or the lack thereof) resulted in comparative past values far different from what we experience today. In Anglo-Saxon England, a mason might make five pence a day, a carpenter four pence, and while a cottage could be rented for sixty pence a year, a simple velvet cloak could cost over ten pounds (and at 240 pence to the pound, its cost represented over two years’ earnings for a skilled tradesman).

Clothes literally were worth their weight in silver or gold, and theft of them could result in harsh punishment, even death.

While people did “fall in love,” love was usually secondary to property and status. Contemporary readers often fail to understand just how strong those rules and customs could be, and how risky any relationship outside of marriage could be. When a young woman was “ruined,” the results could destroy her future, if not any hope of a decent life in the future, and might even cripple the position of her family.

In the current Recluce “sub-series,” Alyiakal and Seliora have a painstakingly long courtship, not because they’re reserved, but because any serious misstep could destroy all they’ve personally accomplished. They couldn’t be even as close as they are without greater repercussions if Seliora were trying to build a factorage in a larger town or a city. And of course, as Seliora becomes more well-off and powerful, she can quietly let her relationship with Alyiakal become known, but even that acceptance occurs within unspoken rules.

The movie The Age of Innocence shows accurately just how binding unspoken rules were in New York during the gilded age. And all societies and cultures have unspoken rules, perhaps better described as unwritten rules, often with high costs for breaking them. Most writers understand that. What is less often mentioned or understood is the cost to society of not having unspoken and binding rules.

Societies cannot long survive without order. How order is maintained determines the nature of a society. Greater reliance on uncodified rules often means that the laws are few and harsh, because smaller infractions are handled on a “personal” basis. It’s hardly a coincidence that laws have multiplied in the United States as unspoken rules and conventions have been ignored or willfully disregarded.

4 thoughts on “Thoughts on Rules, Economics, and Culture”

  1. KTL says:

    LEM,

    This is an interesting post. Can you reflect a bit more on whether you believe that our unspoken rules and societal conventions (perhaps civility?) have eroded in an unusually short period of time? Many have noted, and quite a few journalists have written on, the cessation of shame ny major political figures in recent years for the things they’ve done in the past or even said in the present. Thos same deed and words would have ruined a politician just a few decades ago. Those same deed or words would have submerged the careers of public figures not that long ago.

    I’m not sure whether the erosion is as public in local communities but I expect it is widespread enough to be notable by any community member who has stayed there for long enough.

    Your thoughts?

  2. KevinJ says:

    I suspect this is the source of call-it-patriarchy.

    Consider: Some propertied male gets together with a woman, they have a kid, the man expects to leave his property to the kid…then after years of helping to raise the child, realizes their “offspring’s” close resemblance to the man next door.

    Could that be why men have historically done so much to control their wives, and make sure society is set up to facilitate that? (Alternatively, maybe it’s more because so many women died in childbirth, back in the day? Hm.)

    Obviously for any writers wanting to set up another culture, there’s ways around this. Men not being allowed to hold property, not being able to leave it to progeny, etc.

    Meanwhile, this post, as KTL says, is definitely interesting. All the unspoken rules, the mating rituals, if you will, found in Regency romances, for example. All meant to ensure desired outcomes from courtships.

    Who it was that determined what was desired had a great deal of power, sometimes of an unobtrusive sort.

    1. Wren Jackson says:

      It’s also why those rules show up more in societies with misogyny built in.

      Mr. Modesitt mentions Polynesian cultures passing property through the female side due to less strict rulings on couples.

      But it’s not even always that. While several Celtic peoples along the Iberian Coast, Gaul and even later on Ireland also did not have quite as controlled pairings, there is also just not the level of oppression on women.

      Women weren’t warriors not out of being less but being more. A lost female member of the group meant no children. So women tended to learn to be every bit as solid in defending themselves, showing equality, etc, but also were teachers and stayed back so as not to risk them.

      But at the end of the day, even if you were relatively sure your relationship was a monogamous one. The only guarantee you had of family line was the mother to child since she gave birth.

      It’s why many leadership lines always wanted to have a son and a daughter. The son may be destined to be chief/king/ruler, but it would be their sister’s offspring who would come into power next, not the son’s own.

      1. Tim says:

        On your last paragraph, I am not sure Henry VIII planned it that way 🙂

Leave a Reply to KTL Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *