![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
laleiaFinishing 怪侠一支梅 and marathoning 三国 (I watched three episodes in a row where I meant to watch one) has gotten me pondering about the concept of loyalty in relation to both those shows and the Vorkosiverse, specifically loyalty as a concept that I feel has somewhat disappeared in recent years.
I mean, for example, I have very strong opinions about patriotism (as separate from nationalism, of course); when movies/TV where someone betrays their country, I recoil, as is natural for most people I think, especially those who grew up on a diet of historical Chinese dramas. Anyway, my point is, most people think that betraying their country is wrong, it just comes down to what they do and do not define as betraying their country.
The thing is, in both the historical dramas I mentioned and in Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan books, loyalty to your country is strongly linked to one individual person -- because all three take place in feudal societies.
The concept of me being loyal to my President Barack Obama is frankly speaking ridiculous. I like the guy, but I don't have any loyalty to him, or to any individual member of my government. I mean, this is also because we have a government where if the President is fucking up, we can remove him. Whereas in the ancient China and on Barrayar, the stability of society/government is utterly dependent on the Emperor. Removing the Emperor by any means would most likely result in civil war with very few exceptions. As a result, in Vorkosiverse and in the historical dramas, there is a fierce loyalty to that one individual, even if they are not the best leader, even if they make stupid mistakes.
Obviously, something else ancient China and Barrayar share is potential war aside, a change in leadership won't affect the daily citizens' lives. The backcountry Barrayaran hillfolk and the average Chinese peasant had day-to-day lives that could be made worse by terrible leadership, but that wasn't a whole lot improved by good leadership. You would need a good, competent Emperor surrounded by competent advisers, and between him and you there'd need to be a whole lot of competent , non-corrupt district/province/county/city officials for you to reap any rewards from a smart Emperor.
In fact, they aren't a whole lot informed about their government, even. If my President was involved in secret, scandalous, evil dealings, I have a WAY higher chance of finding out about it than they did. So because they didn't hear about their Emperor's flaws, they associate patriotism and loyalty to their country very specifically with loyalty to that one individual.
I don't know quite know what I'm getting at here, and I'm sure there are like a zillion political science journal articles on this topic, so I won't try to guess at any more conclusions, but the whole reason this came up is because I was watching 三国 and wondering why you would serve as an adviser to a dumbass who makes stupid decisions and is not fit to lead you and will inevitably lead you to ruin.
In Yi Zhi Mei and on Barrayar, presumably you were stuck with your Emperor for life until you got an heir (and even then, killing him off could risk civil war) so I could maybe understand why advisers stayed around in the hopes of changing things. But in Three Kingdoms especially, government's devolved and there are plenty of factions you could choose to go with. Staying with a leader that consistently makes stupid decisions when you're so smart ... there are personal motivations, I'm sure (safety of your family, stability of your job, risking the unknown if you change the status quo), but presumably some of it is the omnipresent historical cdrama theme of loyalty which ... I don't know that loyalty to heads of state is a common theme anymore.
I mean, for example, I have very strong opinions about patriotism (as separate from nationalism, of course); when movies/TV where someone betrays their country, I recoil, as is natural for most people I think, especially those who grew up on a diet of historical Chinese dramas. Anyway, my point is, most people think that betraying their country is wrong, it just comes down to what they do and do not define as betraying their country.
The thing is, in both the historical dramas I mentioned and in Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan books, loyalty to your country is strongly linked to one individual person -- because all three take place in feudal societies.
The concept of me being loyal to my President Barack Obama is frankly speaking ridiculous. I like the guy, but I don't have any loyalty to him, or to any individual member of my government. I mean, this is also because we have a government where if the President is fucking up, we can remove him. Whereas in the ancient China and on Barrayar, the stability of society/government is utterly dependent on the Emperor. Removing the Emperor by any means would most likely result in civil war with very few exceptions. As a result, in Vorkosiverse and in the historical dramas, there is a fierce loyalty to that one individual, even if they are not the best leader, even if they make stupid mistakes.
Obviously, something else ancient China and Barrayar share is potential war aside, a change in leadership won't affect the daily citizens' lives. The backcountry Barrayaran hillfolk and the average Chinese peasant had day-to-day lives that could be made worse by terrible leadership, but that wasn't a whole lot improved by good leadership. You would need a good, competent Emperor surrounded by competent advisers, and between him and you there'd need to be a whole lot of competent , non-corrupt district/province/county/city officials for you to reap any rewards from a smart Emperor.
In fact, they aren't a whole lot informed about their government, even. If my President was involved in secret, scandalous, evil dealings, I have a WAY higher chance of finding out about it than they did. So because they didn't hear about their Emperor's flaws, they associate patriotism and loyalty to their country very specifically with loyalty to that one individual.
I don't know quite know what I'm getting at here, and I'm sure there are like a zillion political science journal articles on this topic, so I won't try to guess at any more conclusions, but the whole reason this came up is because I was watching 三国 and wondering why you would serve as an adviser to a dumbass who makes stupid decisions and is not fit to lead you and will inevitably lead you to ruin.
In Yi Zhi Mei and on Barrayar, presumably you were stuck with your Emperor for life until you got an heir (and even then, killing him off could risk civil war) so I could maybe understand why advisers stayed around in the hopes of changing things. But in Three Kingdoms especially, government's devolved and there are plenty of factions you could choose to go with. Staying with a leader that consistently makes stupid decisions when you're so smart ... there are personal motivations, I'm sure (safety of your family, stability of your job, risking the unknown if you change the status quo), but presumably some of it is the omnipresent historical cdrama theme of loyalty which ... I don't know that loyalty to heads of state is a common theme anymore.
