This runs contrary to the historical narratives I've read, but would love to know more. The narrative I'm familiar usually goes something like:
1. Development of enclosure movement as a form of imposing colonial logic on commoners. (People with access to the commons and farmers etc, people pulled away from ancestral homes and communities of support.)
2. Rich land owner accumulate more wealth and capital by forcing commoners off the land and pushing them into emerging urban industrial centres.
3. This happens at the same time as new industrial processes like power looms etc start the process of de-skilling artisans and driving down wages.
4. Commoners/artisans fight these changes but are largely defeated through military action. (Luddites and other nascent labour movements.)
5. Forced into industrial squalor for a few generations, and the emergence of the British working class. (Marx, Engels, Owens etc.)
6. Continued concentration of wealth leads to modern industrial capitalism, complements interesting in slavery and general industrial production.
7. This is where we see a big decline in health and rise of communicable and noncommunicable diseases.
8. A lot of this falls apart after 2 world wars and emergence of welfare state, financialisation and other trends that create new systemic incentives.
9. Current issues of de-industrialisation in the UK in former industry towns. See Burton on Trent, Dundee, mid-sized cities in Northern England etc.
Like I said, I'm not glued to this narrative. Would love to hear counter examples or other narratives as that's always been though rough outline.
The version of history which you appear to have imbibed is that of Rousseau and Marx. The former asserts, with Gallic rhetorical flourish but no evidence, that land enclosure and thus private property is the root of all the exploitations and oppressions of the masses. (see Discourse on Inequality). The latter, with German sternness and an equal absence of evidence, claims that all of history is a story of class exploitation. (see The Communist Manifesto)
The problem, of course, is that all sweeping narratives of history necessarily ignore the actual historical facts. Or rather, they select only those facts, and interpretations of events, which fit their narrative. For example, the enclosure movement began in the 12th century, somewhat before the industrial revolution, as a means of improving land-yields and thus ameliorating periodic famine. The Great Famine of the early 14th century, for example, saw a population reduction in northern Europe of some 10-15%.
If I might suggest, an alternative to the Rousseau-Marxian narrative is that of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, JS Mil, and in our own times, Pinker. It is essential to study the works themselves, rather than some jejune emasculation one gets from the likes of the Guardian, the BBC and, sadly but increasingly, from our schools and universities.
Most importantly, however, is to to study the history itself, and in particular from authors outside the modern comfort zone; eg, Robert Tombs, Niall Fergusson, Andrew Roberts, Jeremy Black, and, most heretically of all, Winston Churchill.
We could probably use about a century of 'anti-sentimentalism' to rebalance the scales today.
I'm so glad someone else feels this way about Dickens. In my circles, it's the disdain that dare not speak its name.
This runs contrary to the historical narratives I've read, but would love to know more. The narrative I'm familiar usually goes something like:
1. Development of enclosure movement as a form of imposing colonial logic on commoners. (People with access to the commons and farmers etc, people pulled away from ancestral homes and communities of support.)
2. Rich land owner accumulate more wealth and capital by forcing commoners off the land and pushing them into emerging urban industrial centres.
3. This happens at the same time as new industrial processes like power looms etc start the process of de-skilling artisans and driving down wages.
4. Commoners/artisans fight these changes but are largely defeated through military action. (Luddites and other nascent labour movements.)
5. Forced into industrial squalor for a few generations, and the emergence of the British working class. (Marx, Engels, Owens etc.)
6. Continued concentration of wealth leads to modern industrial capitalism, complements interesting in slavery and general industrial production.
7. This is where we see a big decline in health and rise of communicable and noncommunicable diseases.
8. A lot of this falls apart after 2 world wars and emergence of welfare state, financialisation and other trends that create new systemic incentives.
9. Current issues of de-industrialisation in the UK in former industry towns. See Burton on Trent, Dundee, mid-sized cities in Northern England etc.
Like I said, I'm not glued to this narrative. Would love to hear counter examples or other narratives as that's always been though rough outline.
Thanks.
The version of history which you appear to have imbibed is that of Rousseau and Marx. The former asserts, with Gallic rhetorical flourish but no evidence, that land enclosure and thus private property is the root of all the exploitations and oppressions of the masses. (see Discourse on Inequality). The latter, with German sternness and an equal absence of evidence, claims that all of history is a story of class exploitation. (see The Communist Manifesto)
The problem, of course, is that all sweeping narratives of history necessarily ignore the actual historical facts. Or rather, they select only those facts, and interpretations of events, which fit their narrative. For example, the enclosure movement began in the 12th century, somewhat before the industrial revolution, as a means of improving land-yields and thus ameliorating periodic famine. The Great Famine of the early 14th century, for example, saw a population reduction in northern Europe of some 10-15%.
If I might suggest, an alternative to the Rousseau-Marxian narrative is that of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, JS Mil, and in our own times, Pinker. It is essential to study the works themselves, rather than some jejune emasculation one gets from the likes of the Guardian, the BBC and, sadly but increasingly, from our schools and universities.
Most importantly, however, is to to study the history itself, and in particular from authors outside the modern comfort zone; eg, Robert Tombs, Niall Fergusson, Andrew Roberts, Jeremy Black, and, most heretically of all, Winston Churchill.