Monday, June 29, 2009

INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION-CLASSES

Due to the “Machine Age”, jobs that were once completed at home became obsolete therefore forcing migration into the cities. Jobs were limited to factories, mills, and mines with the cost of living being a part of the families’ existence. Eric Hobsbawn describes this era as “The most fundamental transformation of human life in the history of the world” (487). In a sense he was correct because the human classes were separated beyond repair for years.

The most important element in the class war was capital. “Power lies in the hands of those who own, directly or indirectly, foodstuffs and the means of production” (502).Therefore, the welfare of the working class did not add into the equation of life for the social elite. Their upper-classes were not and would not be concern for the belittle life of poor because it did not directly affect them. So workers were segregated in an area out of sight of the more fortunate classes of society.

The working class’ wages are deployable and working conditions are worst. They either work or steal to make ends meet. The old fable of a man providing for his family and his wife staying with the children is nonexistence. All family members over five years of age must work with the underage being taken care of by the elderly. They leave home at dark and return in darkness. The average workday is 14 hours- six days a week. Sunday is the day of rest instead of the day of worship. The women and children maintain position that should be held by men, but necessity becomes the factor for survival. Education is not part of the solution because most can not read or write.

Working conditions of the poor came under review by official fact-finding commissions when rumors spread about their outrageous hour, horrendous conditions, and unsubstantial wages. The “Blue Books” reports:
“Five-year-old children slaved in pitch-dark mines for twelve hours a day, and that pregnant and half- naked women crawled through mine shafts hauling loads of coals” (493).
This investigation established the 1833/1842 Factory Acts:
“Prohibited the employment of children under nine and limited those under twelve to forty-eight hour per week” (493)

I feel that the workers family’s structures were destroyed in this era. The role of the father as the provider and protector was nonexistence with jurisdiction of his family controlled by the elite. The mother’s role of nurturing her children could not be offered due to the brief time span spent with her offspring. They never experienced a childhood because their work was required for the family to continue. At the hands of their supervisor and coworker, juveniles were brutally beaten and young girls were raped. No support was given to them. You cannot have a quality structure in a family without having control of the family.

In contrast to other views and mine, Thomas Babington Macaulay saw this era as one of social progress with no high human cost.

2 comments:

  1. Bianca,

    It is good to see you posting on your blog again (although it would have been better not to have waited until the final day). This post is OK, in that it makes some insightful observations about the subject and it provides some textual evidence, but it seems to lack much cohesion and you rarely provide a context or source for the quotations, which makes them harder to follow. Several of your claims lack any textual support.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bianca,
    Great Job describing the historical context of the Industrial Revolution. Through your blog, I think it is pretty obvious that you saw the revolution as pretty awful; especially for the middle and lower-classes. The upper-class exploited the lower-classes and had no sympathy for their hardships. At the very end you state that Macaulay thought the revolution was a necessary evil for social progress. Make sure in your final paper that you use textual evidence to support statements like that; I think it will definitely help make your arguments stronger!

    ReplyDelete