Industrialization, Strayer 17

22/1/2017

Here we confront one of those "big four" events in human history. And as is usually the case there is plenty of bad that comes with this great good.

22 Comments

Bingham

22/1/2017 12:18:27

What was revolutionary about the Industrial Revolution?

Not since the Agricultural Revolution had human ways of life been so fundamentally altered (not even the enormously concequential Columbian Exchange).

Then, in the most general terms – you’ll need to look for specifics, the follwing also make this event revolutionary.

The Industrial Revolution created new classes of people in society.

It created new work patterns.

It massively increased the output of goods and services because of a wholly unprecedented jump in the capacities of human societies to produce wealth through productivity.

It was underpinned by a culture of innovation, a widespread and almost obsessive belief that things could be improved endlessly. (You’ll see how that plays out as we move into post industrial economies in your lifetime.)

Eliza Pillsbury

25/1/2017 18:42:41

Could anyone clarify where this question is? I can't seem to find it in our edition. It seems to correspond with the Seeking the Main Point question (In what ways did the Industrial Revolution mark a sharp break with the past? How did it continue earlier patterns?)

Eliza and Amy

25/1/2017 19:49:10

We tried to incorporate this answer into the SMP question.

Break with the past:
• Not since the Agricultural Revolution had human ways of life been so fundamentally altered. (it was the biggest thing since sliced bread! ahahahah)
• The Industrial Revolution created new classes of people in society as well as new work patterns and living patterns (urbanization).
• It enormously increased the output of goods and services because of a wholly unprecedented jump in the capacities of human societies to produce wealth.

Continued earlier patterns:
• It continued the culture of innovation and progress that originated from the Scientific Revolution.
• Class conflict was not a new phenomenon, though wider participation in political life did lead to the development of new classes and parties
• Little change in the social status of women, though some temporary employment opportunities became available
• Europe continued to be at the center of networks of exchange

Corinna Snow and Marissa Kapp

22/1/2017 14:46:27

MQ#4: How did Britain's middle class change during the nineteenth century?

- New characteristics such as thrift, hard work, a rigid morality, and cleanliness described Britain's middle class
- The middle class was composed of political liberals; the people favoring constitutional government, private property, free trade, and social reform within limits.
- The upper middle class composed of extremely wealthy factory and mine owners, bankers, and merchants assimilated to aristocratic ways of life.
- The (middle) middle class, composed of lawyers, doctors, and other such professions that were deemed necessary for an industrial society, allowed for middle class men to become the providers again, with women striving for the idea of "domesticity" and creating an emotional haven for their men.
- The lower middle class, composed of clerks, salespeople, bank tellers, etc., came to represent 20% of Britain's population and provided new economic opportunity for women, with jobs such as telephone operators becoming wholly female occupations.

Please let us know if we missed anything!! :)

Cindy Xia

22/1/2017 22:41:00

I think the only thing I noticed was the point that children were mostly removed from productive labor and into schools, I think. Everything else matches up

Amy and Eliza

24/1/2017 20:50:22

MQ1: In what respects did the roots of the Industrial Revolution lie within Europe? In what ways did that transformation have global roots?

So Eliza and I were having trouble interpreting this question, and we were wondering how you guys went about doing so. We read it two different ways:
-How did Europe's experience of the Industrial Revolution have roots within Europe, and how was it caused by global interactions?
OR
-How could the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution be considered exclusive to Europe? In what ways was it more of a global phenomenon?

Bingham

24/1/2017 21:04:40

Great question guys! Both approaches show good insight.
I'll have to come down on the side of the fomer rather than the latter. I think the point here is to identify what is unique about European society that might account for primacy in industrialization, and what is simply part of an inevitable process that would have happened somewhere.?

Mia Wei

25/1/2017 20:49:15

roots in Europe
-small and highly competitive states provided "insurance from economic and technological stagnation" and favored innovation
-in the absence of an effective tax-collecting bureaucracy, European royals had an unusual alliance with their merchant class to increase revenue and encouraged innovation and commerce

global roots
-Western Europe was the hub of the largest and most varied network of exchange, which allowed contact with different cultures and generated change and innovation
-competition with Asian production, such as Indian cotton textiles, stimulated the corresponding industries in Europe
-Europeans drew disproportionately on world resources; for example, the American silver and foods supported Europe's operations in Asian markets and provided cheap calories

Does this answer the question? I'm still a little confused what this is asking...for some reason I'm having trouble understanding the last line Bingham wrote

Mia

25/1/2017 20:52:44

ahhh sorry I didn't refresh and see that Cassie did this one later in the forum!! I get it now!

Eliza and Amy

24/1/2017 21:31:45

MQ3: How did the Industrial Revolution transform British society?

- Landowning aristocrats suffered little in material terms. Titled nobles retained their social status, but declined in political power as urban elites grew in wealth and political influence. Declining aristocrats found opportunities in the British colonial empire.
- The upper middle class benefited most from the Industrial Revolution. Many easily assimilated into aristocratic life at the top of British society.
- "Middle middle class" gained social prominence and developed their own values emphasizing hard work and respectability.
- Britain's industrial economy gave rise to a "lower middle class" of those employed in the service sector. They took pride in distinguishing itself from the working class because they did not perform manual labor. Many young women found work in these professions as "female domesticity" decreased.
- The laboring classes benefitted the least. Rapid urbanization led to terrible living and labor conditions, especially as monotonous and strictly supervised manufacturing replaced the more varied work of earlier periods. Members of the laboring classes developed new forms of sociability, including "friendly societies". Over time, laboring classes also sought greater political participation, organized trade unions to improve their labor conditions, and developed socialist ideas that challenged the assumptions of capitalist society.
- Artisans and agriculturalists declined in importance.

I think there are many similarities to the question Marissa and Corinna posted. This just zooms out even more. How did we do on condensing our answer? We struggled with what to include...

Cindy Xia

24/1/2017 21:57:32

MQ#5: How did Karl Marx understand the Industrial Revolution? In what ways did his ideas have a lasting impact on the industrializing world of the 19th century?

- believed that industrialization was an inherently unstable system doomed to collapse in a revolutionary upheaval -> a classless society
- Marxist beliefs echoed in later decades among radical labor unions + middle class Britain and Germany, despite not being overly revolutionary
- socialists established political parties and were linked into international organizations; agitated for reforms
- "scientific socialism": revolution was for certain and the socialist future was inevitable

Did I miss anything? For some reason I thought this question was kinda difficult.

Taylor Scott

24/1/2017 22:03:25

MQ2: What was distinctive about Britain that may help us to explain its status as the breakthrough point of the Industrial Revolution?

-most highly commercialized
-series of agricultural innovations and the disappearance of guilds led to supply of industrial workers with few options
-aristocrats took part in mining and manufacturing enterprises
-religious tolerance welcomed people with technical skills into society as workers
-favored men of business with tariffs to keep out Indian textiles
-had laws to make forming companies easy and forming unions illegal
-roads and canals created unified internal market
-patent laws to protect the interest of inventors
-checks on royal authority allowed for more freedom for private enterprise
-science was concerned with observation, experiment, precise measurements, mechanical devices, and practical commercial appliances
-inventors (artisans and craftsmen) were in close contact with scientists, makers of scientific instruments, and entrepreneurs
-ready supply of coal and iron ore
-protected from invasions due to geography

Anything missing? Anything unnecessary?

Taylor Scott

25/1/2017 00:30:45

MQ6: What were the differences between industrialization in the United States and that in Russia? This is what I have so far:

United States
-exuberant democracy
-relative social equality
-social and economic change initiated by people
-no Marxist socialism

Russia
-absolute monarchy
-society was dominated by nobility
-social and economic change initiated by state
-industrial development was more inducted by the state
-Marxist socialism

Taylor Scott

25/1/2017 00:33:32

MQ7: Why did Marxist socialism not take root in the United States?

-relative conservatism of major American union organizations
-massive immigration brought diversity (therefore, it was harder to organize this movement)
-country's economic growth

Suggestions welcome!

Amy

25/1/2017 22:17:30

I think that it is important to also mention that living/working conditions were better in the U.S. (you could probably pair that with "country's economic growth").

Taylor Scott

25/1/2017 00:37:13

Hey, as of right now, I only have one factor for MQ8: What factors contributed to the making of a revolutionary situation in Russia by the beginning of the twentieth century? The factor I have is the change to catch up with the states of Europe, politically and industrially. Please help!

Cassie Barham

25/1/2017 15:19:31

Hey Taylor, this is what I have:

--There were social variations that emerged (educated middle class comprised of businessmen) including a rising objection to tsarist rule and a desire to have a bigger role in politics. This was a result of the concentration of industrialization in a few large cities.
--That educated population became increasingly interested in Marxist ideas and through them a way to understand the rapid change that was occurring.
--Harsh working conditions led to a radical sense of class consciousness among factory workers
--The tsars tentative reforms following the revolution of 1905 did not stabilize Russia's social climate.
--An emerging language through which workers could express their objections and connect with each other spread in the form of pamphlets and newspapers of revolutionary groups
--World War I added to an increasingly tense social climate, ultimately resulting in the Russian Revolution of 1917

Taylor Scott

25/1/2017 00:39:39

MQ10: Did Latin America follow or diverge from the historical path of Europe during the nineteenth century?

-economics were growing, population was burgeoning, and death rates were brought down
-rapid urbanization

Cassie Barham

25/1/2017 15:21:44

I think what you have are valid similarities with Europe's path, but as far as differences, I think it's important to mention that Industrial Revolution wasn't necessarily present in Latin America, at least not thoroughly. In addition, their economy was dependent on foreign capital.

Cassie Barham

25/1/2017 15:31:39

MQ: In what respects did the roots of the Industrial Revolution lie within Europe? In what ways did that transformation have global roots?

Europe:
--The individual, numerous, and competitive states within Europe created a political climate that favored innovation
--Europe's need for a source of revenue (due to an ineffective taxation system) led to a unique political relationship with the government and its merchant class that was conducive for industrialization

Global:
--A new, large network of exchange stimulated Europe's commerce and promoted trade of ideas and innovation
--The Columbian Exchange gave Europe the opportunity to extract an unusually high amount of resources for the first time.

Audrey Deigaard

25/1/2017 16:10:36

bpq1 - what did humankind gain from the industrial revolution and what did it lose?

gains:
1. new technology and energy sources -> increased urbanization
2. changes in class structures as aristocrats, arisans, and peasants declined as classes
3. populations and social prominence of middle class factory working class increased
4. working class frustration -> trade unions and socialist movements -> new social conflict
5. increased output of goods/services

losses:
1. middle class women withdrew from paid labor to be "homemakers," while factory working class women did so after marriage
2. damaged environments/depletion of natural resources

ok for some reason I had a hard time with this question, mainly with finding common gains and losses for each place. please comment anything you added!

Amy and Eliza

25/1/2017 19:35:15

BPQ4: Looking Back: How did the Industrial Revolution interact with the Scientific Revolution and the French Revolution to generate Europe’s modern transformation?

-Scientific Revolution ideas of the potential for progress are reflected in the constant innovation of the Industrial Revolution

-Britain's unique approach to implementing the Scientific Revolution through careful experimentation contributed to technological innovations that allowed industrialization

-French Revolution was an example of how class conflict could successfully lead to social upheaval, inspired Marx’s theory and thus propelled socialism among workers

This is one of those tricky analytical questions, and we really would appreciate any other ideas, as we feel like there is definitely more to consider. Please don't be afraid to contribute!

Bingham

Welcome class of 2019. Some years students collaborate in this space effectively, some years not so much. One thing I know, collaboration significantly enhances learning. If you want access to my thoughts, this is the collaboration space to use. Most people propose an answer to margin questions, big picture question, or anything else related to managing Strayer. Other people can then comment leading to a stronger answer. I'll keep an eye on these pages, and pop in when I think you need me.

Industrialization, Strayer 17

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories