Why Centralization Is An Institutional Aberration
I. Introduction: Centralization Contradicts the Natural Organization of Human Society
Contemporary observers frequently assume that centralization represents an inevitable stage in social development and embodies rational administration. However, historical wisdom suggests otherwise. Centralized systems do not constitute the natural state of human societies; rather, they represent an institutional aberration that contradicts organic social organization. They emerge not through natural evolution, but as products of artificial design and coercive force. Beyond wartime mobilization, rationalist hubris, and revolutionary destruction, their formation remains inextricably linked to vast and ever-expanding bureaucratic apparatus.
Throughout most of human civilization, societies developed naturally stratified structures governed by multiple centers of authority. Families, churches, guilds, and local nobility each assumed different governance functions, forming networks of power that balanced one another. This organic order respected human nature and conformed to natural patterns of social development. Historically, only a handful of civilizations have truly and completely dismantled this traditional arrangement.
Admittedly, centralization during certain historical periods—particularly during territorial unification, infrastructure development, or when confronting external challenges—may demonstrate short-term advantages such as resource concentration and administrative streamlining, even establishing superficial achievements (such as standardizing weights and measures, or undertaking large-scale engineering projects). However, these advantages often come at the expense of society’s inherent vitality and diverse energy, and prove short-lived and unsustainable.
The fundamental question concerns not whether governance is necessary, but whether society maintains its capacity for self-governance. When a society becomes entirely dependent upon central authority for functioning, the collapse of that center results in civilizational regression, not renewal. Such institutional arrangements deviate from the very essence of human society.
II. What Constitutes a “Subversion” of Traditional Order?
Subversion means dismantling traditional multi-governance structures and establishing artificial institutional arrangements dominated by a single center, which eliminates intermediate authorities and ensures direct subordination of grassroots units to the center.
This subversion exhibits four major characteristics:
- Dismantling natural intermediate authorities: Traditional governance entities such as families, churches, guilds, and local nobility face systematic elimination.
- Establishing artificial ruling machinery: Abstract administrative systems replace concrete interpersonal and kinship relationships. Bureaucratic expansion serves as a key driving force in this process. As central government functions increase and desires for social control strengthen, vast hierarchical bureaucratic corps emerge to execute central directives, collect taxes, administer justice, and more. These bureaucrats report directly to the center, supplanting existing local autonomous bodies and traditional authorities.
- Monopolizing sources of authority: Society’s capacity to generate its own authority becomes stripped away; all legitimacy must originate from the center.
- Imposing ideological uniformity: Artificially manufactured ideologies replace traditional religions, customs, and moral systems to achieve thought control and transformation.
III. Civilizations That Thoroughly Subverted Traditional Order and Failed to Recover
These civilizations undertook radical institutional transformations aimed at completely eradicating established social structures and establishing new orders under absolute central control. The costs proved immense, severely undermining civilizational foundations.
1. China: The Earliest Institutional Transformation Experiment
From the feudal aristocratic system of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, China gradually evolved into the Qin Dynasty’s commandery and prefecture bureaucratic system, becoming the earliest civilization in human history to undergo complete institutional transformation.
Qin Shi Huang’s unification of the six states marked the systematic destruction of traditional social structures. He “abolished feudalism and established commanderies and prefectures,” standardized writing, vehicles, weights and measures, and infamously “burned books and buried scholars alive” in attempting to achieve complete social control from institutions to thought.
Establishment of agent governance system: The notion that “imperial power did not extend below the county level” represented not grassroots autonomy, but rather the emperor’s indirect control of grassroots through “agents” such as local gentry and clan leaders. These agents’ authority originated from their superiors, not from community consensus, and they remained obligated to execute central directives, lacking independent negotiating or refusal power. Strict control networks, such as the Ming Dynasty’s li jia system and the Qing Dynasty’s bao jia system, ensured central directives could penetrate every village and family.
Ideological transformation: From the Hundred Schools of Thought in the pre-Qin era to “exclusive reverence for Confucianism” in the Han Dynasty, and subsequently to contemporary discourse, China’s official ideology has consistently served autocratic rule, aiming to “impose ideological uniformity” and replace diverse traditional thought.
Central collapse means civilizational regression: Whenever central government failed, China descended into prolonged periods of division and warfare, with social order completely collapsing until new autocratic unification emerged. This demonstrates extreme dependence upon central authority.
2. France: A Paradigmatic Case of Radical Transformation
The French Revolution constituted a radical social engineering experiment in human history, aiming to completely eradicate the “Old Regime.”
Revolutionaries dissolved the aristocracy, confiscated church property, abolished guilds, redrew administrative divisions, and even reformed calendars and religion. Similar to China, France also standardized weights and measures (the metric system) and promoted it as an international standard, demonstrating centralization’s short-term advantages in certain areas, such as improving administrative streamlining and facilitating coordination. This capacity to concentrate resources for major undertakings initially brought organizational gains and infrastructure improvements to the nation.
Ideological transformation: Abstract political ideals such as “liberty, equality, fraternity” served to integrate the bureaucratic system and replace concrete traditional bonds.
Central failure means national disintegration: Political turmoil in Paris directly determined all of France’s fate. Local areas never demonstrated capacity to independently assume governance responsibilities. Each crisis required new centralization for resolution.
IV. Civilizations Whose Traditional Foundations Remained Partially Intact
These civilizations, despite possessing central authority, did not thoroughly subvert their societies’ traditional structures and intermediate authorities, thus exhibiting greater resilience when facing challenges.
1. Russia: A Hybrid of Autocracy and Tradition
Russia’s tsarist autocracy, though powerful, never completely destroyed traditional social foundations. The Orthodox Church maintained relative independence, functioning as an entity with its own traditions, doctrines, and organizational structure. To some extent, it retained an independent source of authority and did not become an ideological instrument for centralization; instead, it provided some decentralization of power. The nobility retained local governance functions, and rural communes maintained traditions of grassroots autonomy.
Incomplete ideological transformation: Except during the communist era, Russia lacked a singular ideology supporting centralization and replacing tradition, thus failing to deeply reshape social structures. Traditional culture consistently remained vibrant among the populace.
Therefore, despite its autocratic appearance, Russia’s foundation of rule constituted in fact a loose, personalized alliance rather than an institutionalized social control apparatus.
2. The Roman Empire: Pragmatic Governance Coexisting with Tradition
The Roman Empire’s degree of centralization also differed from the radical models of Qin China and post-Revolutionary France. While maintaining imperial unity and legal order, it tended to absorb and integrate conquered regions’ traditions rather than completely destroy them.
Preservation of autonomous traditions: Many local city-states retained significant degrees of internal autonomy under Roman rule, including their own laws and administrative systems. Roman Imperial rule focused more on providing external order and infrastructure, rather than completely transforming local societies.
Pragmatic approach to authority: Rome did not forcefully impose an exclusive ideology meant to replace local beliefs and customs. While it possessed core concepts such as “Pax Romana” and the rule of law, along with imperial cult (as a symbol of imperial unity), polytheistic inclusiveness allowed conquered regions to retain their own deities and religious practices. This enabled the Roman Empire, throughout most of its history, to avoid using ideology to completely disrupt local autonomous traditions and cultures. Romanization proceeded as a gradual process of cultural influence, not forced ideological indoctrination.
V. Healthy Societies That Preserve Traditional Order
Most successful contemporary civilized nations have preserved diverse traditional governance structures and achieved adaptation through gradual change rather than radical transformation. They demonstrate that civilizational development need not require destroying society’s organic structure.
| Nation | Institutional Features | Traditional Protections |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Constitutional Monarchy | House of Lords, Common Law tradition, Parish autonomy |
| United States | Federal Republic | States’ rights, local self-governance, religious freedom |
| Germany | Federal System | Regional cultural traditions, Church influence, Guild traditions |
| Switzerland | Confederation | Direct democracy, village commune autonomy, traditional festivals |
VI. The Civilizational Cost of Institutional Transformation
When traditional social order faces thorough destruction, society bears immeasurable civilizational costs, which also render centralization’s short-term advantages unsustainable, eventually exhausting them.
- Moral decay: Traditional moral restraints and social trust break down, forcing society to rely on external coercion to maintain order, while interpersonal relationships become fragile.
- Vicious political cycles: Society loses its capacity for self-regulation and checks and balances, falling into a “transformation-autocracy-collapse-transformation” cycle, unable to establish stable constitutional order.
- Hollow freedom: Freedom no longer constitutes an endogenous force rooted in traditional rights and local autonomy, but becomes a grace that power may grant or revoke at any time. Such societies often confuse loose regulation with genuine freedom.
VII. The Irreversibility of Institutional Transformation: Destruction Is Easy, Construction Is Hard
Once traditional order faces thorough destruction, reconstruction becomes extremely difficult.
- Social memory rupture: Traditional governance wisdom and practices become forgotten.
- Erosion of moral foundations: Society relies on non-transcendent ideologies, unable to support deep moral consensus.
- Institutional path dependence: Highly centralized bureaucratic systems create self-reinforcing inertia.
- Power competition logic: In states of disorder, competing factions’ goals often involve becoming the new autocrat, rather than establishing checks and balances.
This explains the cyclical rise and fall of Chinese dynasties, Napoleon’s rise after the French Revolution, and Soviet autocracy after the Russian Revolution.
VIII. Conclusion: Recovery or Adaptation?
The centralized system represents a departure from human civilization’s traditions. It originates from wartime mobilization, rationalist hubris, and revolutionary destructiveness. The historical experiences of China and France serve as warnings, while societies that have preserved traditional order offer us alternative possibilities: genuine development builds upon respect for history, and authentic unity builds upon embracing diversity.
Although centralization may initially bring administrative streamlining and strength, these advantages often prove short-term and unsustainable. It suppresses social vitality and establishes conditions for long-term political cycles and social difficulties. Therefore, we must remain highly vigilant against unrestricted expansion of bureaucratic systems, as they constitute not only a driving force in centralization’s formation but also continuously erode society’s self-organizing capabilities and diverse vitality.
For societies that have already lost their traditional foundations, the question remains: Is it still possible to rediscover conservative wisdom, to cease further subversion, and instead strive to gradually restore society’s organic vitality without additional destruction? This will constitute a major test for human civilization.
About The Author
