What do you think?
Rate this book
The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-industrial Europe
Few historical issues have occasioned such discussion since at least the time of Marx as the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Western Europe. The Brenner Debate, which reprints from Past and Present various article in 1976, is a scholarly presentation of a variety of points of view, covering a very wide range in time, place and type of approach. Weighty theoretical responses to Brenner's first formulation followed from the late Sir Michael Postan, John Hatcher, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie and Guy Bois; more particular contributions came from Patricia Croot, David Parker, Arnost Klìma and Heide Wunder on England, France, Bohemia and Germany; and reflective pieces from R. H. Hilton and the late J. P. Cooper. Completing the volume, and giving it an overall coherence, are Brenner's own comprehensive response to those who had taken part in the debate, and also R. H. Hilton's introduction that aims to bring together the major themes in the collection of essays. The debate has already aroused widespread interest among historians and scholars in allied fields as well as among ordinary readers, and may reasonably be regarded as one of the most important historical debates of prevailing years.
352 pages, Paperback
First published October 31, 1985
8 people are currently reading
467 people want to read
About the author
T.H. Aston
11 books3 followersTrevor Henry Aston (1925-1985). Professor of medieval history and long time editor of the journal Past and Present.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
February 9, 2014
2.5 stars.
This is a frustrating book about an interesting subject. The Brenner Debate is the disagreement among historians over precisely how the transition from feudalism to capitalism occurred, and what its primary instigator was. It got going back in 1974 when Robert Brenner published an author decrying the population determinism of "Neo-Malthusians": basically arguing that most historians had put far too much weight on population shifts to explain long-term, structural economic changes. Such a model, he suggested, failed to account for the fact that similar demographic shifts led to drastically different results in Eastern Europe, England, and France. Instead, he claimed that the real propellant behind the change was class relations, particularly the history of class struggles that had shaped the agrarian economy and left peasants with drastically different abilities to resist the encroaching control of lords. It's a very internal, very Marxist way of looking at things.
This book republishes that article along with eight responses that disagree with Brenner's claims. Most seem to think that Brenner did not really understand the position of the 'Neo-Malthusians,' who never really tried to state that population was the only determinant. There are also accusations that he very much misrepresented the actual feudal situation in England, France, eastern Europe, and accusations that he set up an ideological framework and then simply cherry-picked evidence that comfortably fit in.
It's an interesting debate, but the form it takes here is more frustrating than illuminating. One review of the book that I read described it as "a dialogue of the deaf shouting past each other," which I think is pretty fair in many ways. I feel like there is a large degree of agreement between most of the scholars here (and most seem at least grudgingly willing to admit that looking for a single causation for the transition is a dead-end). So in the end this leads to, as Charles Tilly put it, a "theoretical impasse, in which each debate concedes the multivariate character of the relationships in question but urges the priority of his own preferred variables." It's an interesting read in some ways, and having all the articles back to back lets you see how easy it is to set up a straw man in academic writing. But if you're interested in the period from a more practical, economic perspective I'd suggest Jan de Vries's The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis, 1600-1750 instead.
This is a frustrating book about an interesting subject. The Brenner Debate is the disagreement among historians over precisely how the transition from feudalism to capitalism occurred, and what its primary instigator was. It got going back in 1974 when Robert Brenner published an author decrying the population determinism of "Neo-Malthusians": basically arguing that most historians had put far too much weight on population shifts to explain long-term, structural economic changes. Such a model, he suggested, failed to account for the fact that similar demographic shifts led to drastically different results in Eastern Europe, England, and France. Instead, he claimed that the real propellant behind the change was class relations, particularly the history of class struggles that had shaped the agrarian economy and left peasants with drastically different abilities to resist the encroaching control of lords. It's a very internal, very Marxist way of looking at things.
This book republishes that article along with eight responses that disagree with Brenner's claims. Most seem to think that Brenner did not really understand the position of the 'Neo-Malthusians,' who never really tried to state that population was the only determinant. There are also accusations that he very much misrepresented the actual feudal situation in England, France, eastern Europe, and accusations that he set up an ideological framework and then simply cherry-picked evidence that comfortably fit in.
It's an interesting debate, but the form it takes here is more frustrating than illuminating. One review of the book that I read described it as "a dialogue of the deaf shouting past each other," which I think is pretty fair in many ways. I feel like there is a large degree of agreement between most of the scholars here (and most seem at least grudgingly willing to admit that looking for a single causation for the transition is a dead-end). So in the end this leads to, as Charles Tilly put it, a "theoretical impasse, in which each debate concedes the multivariate character of the relationships in question but urges the priority of his own preferred variables." It's an interesting read in some ways, and having all the articles back to back lets you see how easy it is to set up a straw man in academic writing. But if you're interested in the period from a more practical, economic perspective I'd suggest Jan de Vries's The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis, 1600-1750 instead.
May 7, 2022
This is a collection of immediate responses to the article "Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe", which discusses what he sees as capitalist transition in England & its failures elsewhere in Europe. The core argument is that feudalism created a demograpic crisis by the way peasants produced for subsistence & lords were incentivised to simply intensify peasant labour instead of productivity-increasing investments as a way to increase surplus, through their extra-economic control over peasants vs economic control over peasants, which was lacking as lodrs were not in control of the means of production. This created in 13th century a massive class struggle in East and West by landlords and peasants, as a result of this demographic crisis - which in the West was, at large, won by peasants and in the East by lords, creating in the West an increasing mobility for peasants and control over property, while in the East it led to the institution of serfdom. However, in England uniquely the peasants were not entirely victorious in being able to become owners of property and instead the lords were able to extract surplus by fines, etc., which in turn incentivised the peasants to engage in productivity-increasing behaviour - the birth of capitalism, by a relationship of capitalist tenants and capitalist aristocracy; unlike in , say, France, where large-scale petty peasant ownership stunted capitalist transition.
This is opposed by advocates of demographic model as explanatory for the trajectory of capitalism, who however in my view fall largely flat in undermining his argument; and advocates of a Marxist approach (Hilton, Bois), who instead emphasise other variables - principally the role of peasant differentiation & role of petty peasantry in the capitalist revolution as progressive and not retarding the transition, unlike Brenner's bias towards big farms as decisive for the rise of productivity in England. Lastly, some authors simply critique particular points Brenner makes on a regional area.
All in all, this is a very interesting debate - however, it is stunted that both advocates and detractors always simply look at one variables, instead of properly constructing a systemic approach integrating the various variables which allowed capitalist transition at hand; while also myself being unsure if I can agree with Brenner's model of capitalism. There is also an issue with how writers often approach critique by simply referring to data & events which contrast to an existing framework, instead of themselves arguing a contrasting framework which is far more coherent in solving the various problems at hand (as no model is able to always solve all issues, but the question is if it's progressive in new elaborations being able to solve more of them, or not), as well as a generally poor writing style making it often hard to understand the arguments at play. Only Brenner is able to write extremely clearly and understandably, unfortunately. Nonetheless, this is a good read but has a lot of drawbacks.
This is opposed by advocates of demographic model as explanatory for the trajectory of capitalism, who however in my view fall largely flat in undermining his argument; and advocates of a Marxist approach (Hilton, Bois), who instead emphasise other variables - principally the role of peasant differentiation & role of petty peasantry in the capitalist revolution as progressive and not retarding the transition, unlike Brenner's bias towards big farms as decisive for the rise of productivity in England. Lastly, some authors simply critique particular points Brenner makes on a regional area.
All in all, this is a very interesting debate - however, it is stunted that both advocates and detractors always simply look at one variables, instead of properly constructing a systemic approach integrating the various variables which allowed capitalist transition at hand; while also myself being unsure if I can agree with Brenner's model of capitalism. There is also an issue with how writers often approach critique by simply referring to data & events which contrast to an existing framework, instead of themselves arguing a contrasting framework which is far more coherent in solving the various problems at hand (as no model is able to always solve all issues, but the question is if it's progressive in new elaborations being able to solve more of them, or not), as well as a generally poor writing style making it often hard to understand the arguments at play. Only Brenner is able to write extremely clearly and understandably, unfortunately. Nonetheless, this is a good read but has a lot of drawbacks.
June 27, 2017
'The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe' is a collection of academic paper exploring the transition from feudalism to modernity/capitalism.
Robert Brenner wrote a paper, 'Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe' in 1974. He argued that the demographic/Malthusian explanation for the end of feudalism was flawed in a number of key ways. Instead, he positions the development of class consciousness/identity. Brenner posits that customs that protected peasant rights stifled the development of capitalism, while looser systems allowed its development.
Brenner's paper caused a significant stir among medieval historians. The collection offers a series of critical papers responding to Brenner. The final chapter is Brenner responding to these criticisms.
The writing in the paper is highly academic. Those without knowledge on medieval European history or other academic history writing will probably have difficulty parsing the text. I know I really had to concentrate to get through certain sections with some understanding.
Unfortunately having finished the book I cannot say I have come away with a greater understanding of how feudalism came to an end. What I will say is that the status quo explanation of the post-plague population growth is not sufficient in and of itself to explain the end of feudalism. Brenner and other writers made a compelling case that the recovery in France led to a stagnation, not a transition. I'd also like to call out the article by Arnost Klima 'Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Bohemia'. Klima presents an interesting case study for the ideas debated.
It was a pleasure to work with this ideas. It didn't tackle all I wanted, or provided the answers I wanted, but the current debate has moved past this initial point. It is a great starting point, I'm sure, for this historiography.
Robert Brenner wrote a paper, 'Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe' in 1974. He argued that the demographic/Malthusian explanation for the end of feudalism was flawed in a number of key ways. Instead, he positions the development of class consciousness/identity. Brenner posits that customs that protected peasant rights stifled the development of capitalism, while looser systems allowed its development.
Brenner's paper caused a significant stir among medieval historians. The collection offers a series of critical papers responding to Brenner. The final chapter is Brenner responding to these criticisms.
The writing in the paper is highly academic. Those without knowledge on medieval European history or other academic history writing will probably have difficulty parsing the text. I know I really had to concentrate to get through certain sections with some understanding.
Unfortunately having finished the book I cannot say I have come away with a greater understanding of how feudalism came to an end. What I will say is that the status quo explanation of the post-plague population growth is not sufficient in and of itself to explain the end of feudalism. Brenner and other writers made a compelling case that the recovery in France led to a stagnation, not a transition. I'd also like to call out the article by Arnost Klima 'Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Bohemia'. Klima presents an interesting case study for the ideas debated.
It was a pleasure to work with this ideas. It didn't tackle all I wanted, or provided the answers I wanted, but the current debate has moved past this initial point. It is a great starting point, I'm sure, for this historiography.
February 11, 2013
You don't have to subscribe to everything Brenner argues before coming to appreciate him as a scholar.
Having had the pleasure of sitting under perhaps one of the most distinguished Marxist scholars of today, I was able to engage both the scholar and the man behind the "mode of production" theory.
This volume is comprised of perspectives from various scholars in support of and opposed to Brenner's Marxist theory. It is helpful, therefore, to read Brenner's thesis carefully--perhaps twice--before delving into those who refute it.
The basic premise of Brenner's thesis is simple: in Marxist vein, Brenner sees history in transitional blocks. From feudalism to capitalism, the shifts in the "modes of production" guided the transition from an agricultural society to an industrial organization. It will be no surprise to see where he believes this current will take us: socialism.
Brenner is a first-rate scholar and an open-minded critic. There aren't many who share the academic acumen of Brenner and to know Brenner is to know Marx.
Having had the pleasure of sitting under perhaps one of the most distinguished Marxist scholars of today, I was able to engage both the scholar and the man behind the "mode of production" theory.
This volume is comprised of perspectives from various scholars in support of and opposed to Brenner's Marxist theory. It is helpful, therefore, to read Brenner's thesis carefully--perhaps twice--before delving into those who refute it.
The basic premise of Brenner's thesis is simple: in Marxist vein, Brenner sees history in transitional blocks. From feudalism to capitalism, the shifts in the "modes of production" guided the transition from an agricultural society to an industrial organization. It will be no surprise to see where he believes this current will take us: socialism.
Brenner is a first-rate scholar and an open-minded critic. There aren't many who share the academic acumen of Brenner and to know Brenner is to know Marx.
April 23, 2008
aka The Bible
May 1, 2008
This book is dense, thick, and perhaps even viscous... sometimes painfully so, but is worth the trouble.
April 30, 2010
Intense debate. Lots of hurt feelings, lots of awesome economic history.
Read
February 3, 2023Had to read this for Dr.Leech’s Rise of the working class.
We covered chapters intro, 1,2,5,6,7,10.
I really liked Brenner’s argument regarding class relations, but I also tend to like the Malthusian model.
We covered chapters intro, 1,2,5,6,7,10.
I really liked Brenner’s argument regarding class relations, but I also tend to like the Malthusian model.
Want to read
January 24, 2008Available from Hillman
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews