peers
by jebni on October 13, 2005
How is the egalitarian term “peer” related to the aristocratic concept of “the peerage”? What is excluded from the world of “peers”? And what does this tell us about the notion of equality in discourses of democracy? Discuss.
[ tags: aristocracy, democracy, elitism, equality, politics ]
2 comments
Excellent questions. I don’t have any straightforward response. But might I suggest Locke for a discussion of the property-owning subject, or the concept of ‘ground-rent’, which I’ve been wondering how to think through in the context of IP and not just landed property. I think what you’ve asked here might be a way into that.
by s0metim3s on 14 October 2005 at 3:12 am. #
Yes, a very interesting question
The OED (if you want email me and I can send you the article) provides an interesting detail here. The first use of peer recorded for a category of people of the “same civil or ecclesiastical status of rank” is circa 1300, possibly 1303. At this time, it could also denote equality, as in the sentence from 1387 – “Asia is most in quantite, Europe is lasse, and pere in noumbre of peple”, an earlier instance is given from 1325. The dates are interesting since the aristocratic peerages started being conferred in 1337. The system was in place by 1430 when the king made decisions by “counsail of pieres of the rewme”.
The source of the word is Old French per from Latin par, equal (quantity, number, quality), distinguished from aequalis, uniform, identical or just. The root is indo-european *per(dzj), to grant or allot. So you can see a notion of equality within rank throughout.
by TCO on 16 October 2005 at 10:02 pm. #