The Great Chain of Being - Term Paper Example

English The Great Chain of Being Tudor dynasty was a loyal of England that embraced a traditional hierarchical order of ruling. The belief that prevailed is that every person had his or her rightful place and that this order was divine and no one would afford to break it. Therefore, there existed division and sub-divisions that defined the boundaries of power in the dynasty. Each Being from God through kings, ordinary people and animals and plant had their own position, which no other being would occupy. They believe that this system of balance of power ensured harmony and its disruption would cause imbalance in the whole system. The hierarchical links defined all the aspects of the community including religion, politics and social scopes. Although there was great resistance to change and the kings fought against distortion the great chain, change was encroaching into this kingdom. The government developed policies that allowed distortion of these systems leading to change in the political, social and religious structures. By the end of the 18th century, it is clear that the change had taken place and the great chain was considerably broken. In this light, the various efforts dedicated to maintain balance failed, paving way for new government structures. In the Tudor dynasty, the great chain of being was a universal hierarchy that was both independent and interdependent. The top of the chain was God, who the people believe to have the greatest power over them and worshipped Him. The spirits and Angels followed in this hierarchy. Among human beings, there were divisions between various categories of people. They were categorized as gentlemen, the citizens and Burgesses, the Yeomen, and the laborers in the order of decreasing power (Bucholz and Key 4-5). As you trespass down the chain, the level of power reduced and the people become more subject to others. This hierarchy also defined the way they passed over power from one generation to the next. For instance, King left their power to their successors while Knights were appointees. The belief that prevailed is that this order was universal and there was no way that it would change. The kings maintained a centralized government structure by vesting all the power on the governance. A change of this structure was tantamount to sin and it would lead to imbalance of the hierarchy. With this kind of belief, the system remained fixed and the kings had the responsibility to defend this order and maintain the balance of the chain. The Kings fought against any changes in the formal government structure to ensure that this order remained in position. For instance, the laws did not allow the category of laborers to wear extravagantly. Key and Bulchoz (6) notes the enactment of act, in 1510, that barred the laborers from wearing “sumptuous” which were only reserved for the rulers. There were also laws that hindered the low class people from owning property or even acquiring land. These laws were bureaucratic and oppressed the poor at the expense of those who were rich in the society. In the time of King Henry VIII, he formed a series of laws to resist the social changes that threatened the social balance. In his act against wearing costly apparel, he aimed at maintaining the gap between the poor and the rich (Key and Bucholz 112). Enacting a law against social changes shows how the kings fought against changes and defended the social balance at all costs. The absolute believe that this social order was universally designed gave them the motivation to fight against changes to maintain a rigid structure even if it meant to oppress those below the pyramid of power. However, it is clear that the government defended the social structure but continued to formulate policies that destabilized the formal structure in the Tudor dynasty. In 1484, the King Edward IV changed the structure of government by bending the law of succession. On his death, he left his throne to a 12-years old heir, Edward who was the Prince of Wales. When Edward took leadership, there arose a debate on the rightness of this action. An act was enacted soon after, in 1484, when Richard claimed his right of the throne (Bucholz and Key 47). However, this marked an important transition in leadership. It marked a moment when the kings inverted the universal laws and supported bending of the laws for selfish reasons. King Edward IV paved way to a type of leadership where self-will would rule over the universal laws that the people had believed were God given. Although the act of reinstating Richard as the king was a sign of opposition to change, this marked a new beginning for the development of a more flexible government system. It is after this period that many debates arose affecting the social structures of the people. While the opposition was still very strong, leadership flexibility gave opportunity for the leaders to assert their own will and to provoke the natural balance of the law. The rise religious assertiveness is one of the reasons that led to the reformation of the Tudor dynasty. In 1532, the common people visited the king with complains requesting the Bishop to intervene on the church policies that were quite oppressive. Their main concerns were the rise in the charges by the bishop, presence of too many holy days and the dominance against the congregation. The King summoned the ordinates and required them to respond to the charges against them (Key and Bucholz 61-63). The king heeded to the words of the public and condemned the bishops for this action. The bishops submitted humbly to the king’s condemnation through a humble letter that signified their fear for the king and the nature of the consequences of offending the king. The letter was a testimony of their loyalty. This marked a time when the king broke the power of the church and paved way for people to raise their views against the church. On this note, the government was slowing exercising its power against the church and suppressing the power of church leaders. In addition, the people were obtaining power to be more assertive and air their religious opinions in the public. Although this was a breach of the social norms, it was marking a period of reform in the community. This was the end of act that Henry VIII, the act against popular speech, that barred people from the right of speech in the country. This signifies the failure of the policies put forward to maintain rigidity in the reforms of the social order. Another reason for changes in the government structure was the increased riots that emerged during the early 17th century. It started with a letter from an anonymous person that threatened the king with a riot if he did not intervene to the execution and subjection to torture of the people, which they felt was against reason (Key and Bucholz 110). After this, a series of riots against food shortages, poverty levels and public oppression followed, indicating the people empowerment to speak for their rights. These public riots were effective in changing the administration of power in this country. As result, the public forced the government to provide justice to the society. In 1631, the attorney General charged an investor who had exploited the public by hoarding his corn and waiting for the dry spell to hike the prices (114). This action signified a new approach of handling the public matters in dynasty where the rich had the power to impose hefty costs in their business. The rich exploited the poor , who were majorly the commoners by engaging in monopolistic business which were exploitative. Since the commoners did not have any right to speak against such actions in court, they had to persevere. This kind of change paved way for democratic governance where people would raise concerns. On this note, height of poverty and oppression in Tudor pushed the common people to riot, paving way to the change of the structure. In conclusion, the Tudor dynasty was a complex government structure that remained rigid to maintain a social order. The rule was that people maintain their rightful positions as going against this would distort the natural balance and pave way for the failure of the dynasty. The government put in place policies to ensure that there was not social transformation. The act against public opinion and wearing of expensive apparel were all forms of opposition to change in social structure. However, the social dynamics exerted too much force that the social balance broke. Leaders acted from their own will giving space for bending of the laws against change in social structure. When the king rose against the oppression of the congregation in churches, the commoners gained ground to exercise their religious freedom. In addition, the poverty level, exploitation and torture forced the public to rise against the government. They sent threatening letters to the king, and promised to riot if the government did not exercise justice on the public. These forces together resulted to the distortion balance and gave way to a more democratic structure. This saw the commoners empowered and the church and king power considerably reduced. Works Cited Bucholz, R O, and Newton Key. Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Key, Newton, and R O. Bucholz. Sources and Debates in English History 1485-1714. Chichester, U.K: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Read More