This AMME seminar will consist of three papers โ by Kostas Vlassopoulos, Seth Richardson and Saadia Yacoob โ followed by a shared question round and discussion on the seminar specific theme of โsocial dependency systemsโ. The topics of the talks are:
โConceptual systems of slavery - a global perspectiveโ (Kostas Vlassopoulos)
Traditional approaches to slavery tend to adopt an essentialist and static perspective: scholars attempt to find the cross-cultural essence of slavery, whether that is property or social death. What I would like to propose is a very different approach, which is historicist and processual. It offers a new conceptualisation of slavery as a historical conglomerate of three conceptual systems: slavery as property, slave status, and the various modalities of slavery. While these three systems have been present in all slaveholding societies, the precise ways in which they form historical complexes have varied considerably over space and time: the content of each conceptual system could diverge significantly between different societies, and they could emphasize one of these systems over the others. By breaking up the unitary understanding of slavery as a single essence, it explores the varying content of each conceptual system and the diverse ways in which they fitted in together across space and time.
โSystems of Dependency & the servant Taribu: Conditions and Lived Experienceโ (Seth Richardson)
Slaves, servants, household staff. workers, votaresses, soldiers, children โ were they really โdependentsโ? It is a word we throw around a lot. But what establishes the relationship of people of unequal socio-economic status, in relationships of support and service, as a state of โdependencyโ? Do latent and repeatable forms of dependent relationships attain the institutional force of class? I will try to extend a survey from my work on Old Babylonian slavery to consider the criteria for identifying some overlapping but separate categories: dependents, classes of dependents, and systems of dependency. Surveying some forms of socio-economic interaction in this period, I will consider the types of persons described by this term, and the problem of labels; evidence for actual bilateral obligations; the range of guarantees; the futurity invoked in relations and agreements; points of entrance into and exit from status; class markers versus individuality; institutional versus household forms; and a survey of relevant terminologies.
โConsensual and forced marriages: Interrogating relations of dependence in Islamic lawโ (Saadia Yacoob)
Scholarship on pre-modern Muslim societies often repeats the familiar adage that women, children, and enslaved people were all dependents of free men. This statement assumes that these three categories of individuals shared a dependent status, their subordination maintaining the power and privileged status of free men, who held the most advantageous position in the social hierarchy. This talk asks whether this common adage accurately reflects the relations of dependence in Islamic law. Using consent to marriage as a case study, we see that conceptualizing power relations through a binary (free men and their dependents) does not accurately capture the complex relations of dependence imagined by Muslim jurists. In fact, relations of dependence existed between individuals
within the dependent category. Dependence and independence were not static and fixed legal statuses. Individuals instead moved between dependence and independence based on the relation in question. This fluid and shifting nature of dependent relations allowed people to hold positions of power and dependency simultaneously.
All are most welcome, so please share the news and join us in person or online!
Time: Thursday 13 October at 16:15-18:00 EET (UTC+2h).
Live venue: The Faculty of Theology, Faculty Hall (Fabianinkatu 33, room 4038).
Virtual venue: Zoom (Meeting ID: 678 8979 2118 /
Wonder what else is on the menu? Check the