Week 2 Industrialization Flashcards
- What were the most important agents of industrialization on the continent?
Skilled and Ambitious workers (snuck out of britain, spread their skills)
European entrepenurs (invested in industry and tried to replicate it in other countries)
National governments (tarrif protections, building infrastructure for trade)
Banks (allowing for investment and holdings of wealth)
- Discuss the international variations in levels of industrialization from 1750 to 1913.
From 1750 to 1913, levels of industrialization varied significantly across different regions of the world due to factors like geography, resources, governance, and social structures. Here’s an overview of the international variations during this period:
- Western Europe
United Kingdom: The birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, leading in textile manufacturing, steam power, and coal mining. Urbanization skyrocketed, with cities like Manchester and Birmingham emerging as industrial hubs.
Germany and France: Industrialization gained momentum in the late 19th century, particularly in coal, iron, and heavy machinery, driven by state support and a strong industrial base. - North America
United States: Rapid industrialization in the late 19th century with the expansion of railroads and factories. The U.S. became a global industrial power, especially in steel and agriculture.
Canada: Slower industrialization than the U.S., focused on resource extraction and agricultural production. - Eastern Europe and Russia
Russia: Industrialization began later, largely under state control, with significant investments in railroads and heavy industry after the 1861 emancipation of serfs. However, it remained less industrialized compared to Western Europe. - Asia
Japan: Rapid industrialization occurred during the Meiji Restoration (1868), transitioning from a feudal society to a modern industrial state, focusing on textiles and heavy industries.
China: Industrial growth was minimal compared to Japan, hindered by internal strife and foreign dominance. Limited industrialization occurred in treaty ports and under foreign control. - Latin America
Varied Progress: Some countries like Argentina and Brazil began to industrialize later, focusing on agriculture and raw material exports rather than manufacturing. - Africa
Limited Industrialization: Industrial growth was minimal, primarily driven by European colonial interests focused on resource extraction and export.
- Hanks et al. state: “The rise of industrialization in Britain, western Europe, and the
United States thus caused other regions of the world to become increasingly economically
dependent” (p. 676). Explain this statement.
. Industrial Hubs and Economic Power
Centers of Production: Britain, Western Europe, and the United States became industrial powerhouses by developing advanced manufacturing technologies and infrastructures. They produced goods at a scale and efficiency unmatched by other regions.
Global Market Dominance: These industrialized nations dominated global markets, controlling trade routes, production networks, and commodity exchanges, thus setting prices and terms of trade that often favored them.
- Resource Extraction
Colonial Exploitation: To fuel their industrial growth, these nations sought raw materials from less industrialized regions, often through colonial exploitation. Resources such as cotton, rubber, minerals, and oil were extracted from colonies and semi-colonies, leaving local economies reliant on these export-driven models.
Economic Dependency: Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America became economically dependent on the export of raw materials while becoming consumers of manufactured goods from industrialized nations. This created a one-sided economic relationship where local industries were often stunted.
- Investment and Capital Flows
Capital Investment: Industrialized nations invested in infrastructure, such as railroads and ports, in less developed regions to facilitate resource extraction and trade. This investment often served the interests of the industrial powers rather than fostering local economic independence.
Debt and Financial Dependency: Many regions borrowed capital from industrialized nations to finance their infrastructure, leading to debt dependency and financial control over local economies. - Market Influence and Control
Cultural and Economic Hegemony: Industrialized countries influenced local economies and cultures through their goods, values, and governance structures. This influence further entrenched economic dependency, as local populations increasingly relied on imported goods and foreign markets. - Technological Gap
Skill and Technology Disparity: The industrialized nations had advanced technology and skilled labor, which were often not transferable to dependent regions. This gap inhibited local industrial development and kept these regions in a subordinate economic position.
- What is meant with the term “separate spheres” (p. 677)? What were the causes of the
gender division of labor?
The term “separate spheres” refers to a social and cultural ideology that emerged during the 19th century, particularly in the context of industrialization in Western societies. This ideology posited that men and women had distinct roles and responsibilities, leading to a division of labor based on gender. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the concept and its causes:
Meaning of “Separate Spheres”
Domestic vs. Public Sphere:
The public sphere was considered the domain of men, where they engaged in work, politics, and economic activities. Men were seen as breadwinners and providers.
The domestic sphere was associated with women, who were expected to manage the home, care for children, and uphold moral and cultural values. Women’s roles were often relegated to being nurturing homemakers.
Ideological Foundation:
This separation was rooted in the belief that men were naturally suited for public life due to their perceived strength, rationality, and decision-making capabilities, while women were seen as more nurturing and emotional, thus better suited for domestic responsibilities.
Causes of Gender Division of Labor
Industrialization:
The shift from agrarian economies to industrial ones changed labor dynamics. Factories and urban centers drew men into wage labor, while women remained associated with domestic roles.
As industries grew, employment opportunities for women often remained limited to low-wage, unskilled jobs, reinforcing their position within the home.
Cultural Norms and Values:
Cultural beliefs emphasized distinct roles for men and women, promoting the idea that women’s primary duty was to the home and family. This notion was propagated through literature, religion, and educational systems, which reinforced gender roles.
The Victorian ideal, which celebrated womanhood as synonymous with motherhood and domesticity, played a significant role in shaping societal expectations.
Legal and Economic Constraints:
Legal frameworks often restricted women’s rights to work, own property, or engage in public life. This created economic barriers that limited women’s participation in the workforce.
Women who did work often received lower wages and were concentrated in certain sectors, such as textiles and teaching, which were deemed suitable for their gender.
Socialization and Education:
Girls were educated in ways that prepared them for domestic roles, focusing on homemaking and child-rearing skills rather than professional or academic pursuits.
The emphasis on female virtue and morality contributed to the belief that women should focus on the home rather than pursue careers.
Changing Economic Structures:
As economies evolved, the increasing demand for labor sometimes challenged the separate spheres ideology, particularly during times of war or economic crisis when women entered the workforce in larger numbers. However, these changes often faced resistance.
- Compare the legacy of the political revolutions of the late eighteenth century (chapter
22) with that of the Industrial Revolution.
The political revolutions of the late eighteenth century and the Industrial Revolution both profoundly transformed societies, but they did so in different ways and left distinct legacies.
Political Revolutions of the Late Eighteenth Century
Ideological Shifts:
The American (1776) and French Revolutions (1789) introduced Enlightenment ideals such as liberty, equality, and democracy. These revolutions challenged monarchical and authoritarian systems, leading to the rise of republicanism and nationalism.
Rights and Governance:
They emphasized the concept of individual rights and the importance of citizen participation in governance. Documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen set precedents for human rights and constitutional governance.
Political Structures:
The revolutions led to the establishment of new political systems. In France, for example, the monarchy was replaced by a republic, although this would later evolve into an empire under Napoleon. The American Revolution resulted in a constitutional republic that influenced democratic movements worldwide.
Social Changes:
The revolutions spurred debates about class and social structures, particularly in France, where the feudal system was dismantled. This led to a rethinking of social hierarchies and paved the way for future social movements.
Industrial Revolution
Economic Transformation:
The Industrial Revolution (late 18th to early 19th centuries) marked a shift from agrarian economies to industrialized ones, fundamentally changing how goods were produced. It introduced mechanization and mass production, leading to economic growth and increased productivity.
Urbanization:
The Industrial Revolution spurred rapid urbanization, as people migrated to cities for factory jobs. This shift altered social dynamics, creating new social classes, such as the industrial working class and a wealthy capitalist class.
Labor Movements:
The rise of factories led to exploitative labor conditions, prompting the formation of labor movements. Workers began to organize for better wages, hours, and working conditions, leading to significant social reforms and the establishment of labor rights.
Global Impact:
Industrialization not only transformed economies in Europe and the U.S. but also affected global trade patterns and colonialism. Industrial powers sought raw materials and markets, intensifying imperial expansion.
Comparison of Legacies
Political vs. Economic Focus:
The political revolutions were primarily concerned with governance, rights, and individual freedoms, while the Industrial Revolution focused on economic structures, production methods, and labor relations.
Social Implications:
Both revolutions prompted significant social change. Political revolutions questioned social hierarchies and led to movements for equality, while the Industrial Revolution created new class dynamics and labor movements advocating for workers’ rights.
Influence on Future Movements:
The political revolutions inspired future democratic and nationalist movements worldwide, whereas the Industrial Revolution laid the groundwork for modern economies, capitalism, and the ongoing struggle for workers’ rights and social justice.
Globalization:
The Industrial Revolution contributed to globalization through industrial expansion and imperialism, while the political revolutions spread ideas of democracy and rights beyond their borders, influencing revolutions and movements in other parts of the world.
- What is meant with the term “The Great Divergence”? Summarize the Eurocentric
approach and the views of the California School.
The term “The Great Divergence” refers to the significant and sustained economic growth experienced by Western Europe and North America, particularly from the late 18th century onward, in contrast to the slower economic development of Asia, especially China and India. This divergence led to a substantial gap in wealth and industrialization between these regions, fundamentally reshaping global economic dynamics.
Eurocentric Approach
The Eurocentric approach to the Great Divergence emphasizes the unique factors that allowed Europe, especially Britain, to achieve industrialization and economic growth while Asia lagged behind. Key arguments include:
Geographic and Natural Resources: Europe’s access to coal and iron ore, as well as navigable rivers, facilitated industrial development.
Political and Economic Institutions: European countries, particularly Britain, developed political systems that protected property rights and encouraged capitalist enterprises, fostering innovation and investment.
Cultural Factors: The Enlightenment and a spirit of individualism encouraged scientific inquiry, technological advancements, and entrepreneurship.
Colonialism and Global Trade: European powers benefited from colonies that provided raw materials and markets for manufactured goods, further driving economic growth.
Overall, the Eurocentric view tends to highlight the distinctiveness of Western development as a product of its own internal dynamics, often downplaying the contributions and historical achievements of non-Western societies.
California School
In contrast, the California School offers a more comparative and interconnected view of the Great Divergence, emphasizing the following:
Global Context: This perspective argues that the divergence was not solely due to European factors but also involves the responses of non-Western regions to global economic changes. It highlights interactions between different regions, including trade and cultural exchanges.
Economic Networks: The California School focuses on the interconnectedness of global economies and the role of trade routes, such as the Silk Road and maritime trade, in shaping economic development across different regions.
Internal Factors in Asia: Scholars within this school often argue that Asian economies, particularly China and India, had their own forms of growth and complexity prior to Western industrialization, which were disrupted by European colonialism and exploitation.
Critique of Eurocentrism: The California School critiques the Eurocentric narrative by emphasizing that the factors leading to the Great Divergence were not exclusively European and that non-Western societies had their own strengths and potentials that were undermined by external pressures.
- Pomeranz and other “Californians” describe the economies of Western Europe and
China in terms of a world of “surprising resemblances”. (p. 736) According to Pomeranz
Britain was just fortunate in that it possessed “extra resources in the form of coal and
colonies” (p. 737), that according to him provide the major explanation of its
industrialization.
What is the counterargument Vries puts forward?
What was the role of the “mercantilist state” (p. 739) according to Vries in the
industrialization of Britain?
In the discussion of industrialization, especially in comparing Britain and China, scholars like Kenneth Pomeranz and Jan de Vries present differing views on the factors that led to Britain’s early industrial success.
Counterargument by Jan de Vries
1. Critical of Pomeranz’s Emphasis on Resources:
Human Agency and Institutional Factors: Jan de Vries argues against Pomeranz’s assertion that Britain’s industrialization was primarily a matter of luck due to the availability of coal and colonies. He emphasizes the importance of human agency, institutional frameworks, and economic practices rather than just material resources. According to de Vries, the conditions that enabled Britain to industrialize were not simply about possessing resources but also about how those resources were utilized through innovative practices and policies.
2. Distinctive Economic and Social Structures:
De Vries points to distinctive economic and social structures in Britain that differed from China, suggesting that Britain’s political culture, social organization, and economic systems played crucial roles in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship, leading to industrial growth.
Role of the “Mercantilist State”
According to de Vries, the “mercantilist state” played a significant role in Britain’s industrialization through several mechanisms:
- State Support for Economic Development:
The mercantilist state actively supported and intervened in economic activities to promote growth. This included the establishment of policies that encouraged domestic industries, protected them from foreign competition, and ensured access to overseas markets.
2. Infrastructure and Trade Regulation:
The state invested in infrastructure, such as roads and ports, which facilitated trade. Additionally, the regulation of trade through tariffs and monopolies helped create a favorable environment for British industries to flourish.
3. Fostered Innovation and Research:
De Vries argues that the mercantilist policies encouraged innovation and the pursuit of scientific research, which were vital for industrial advancement. By providing a framework that rewarded exploration and technological development, the state helped create conditions conducive to industrialization.
- Mention one other argument against the idea of the Californians that Britain and China
showed surprising resemblances.
How important is “culture” (p. 744) in explaining the British industrial revolution
according to Vries?
Argument Against the Idea of Surprising Resemblances
One argument against the Californian perspective, which posits surprising resemblances between Britain and China, is that the institutional and political contexts of the two regions were fundamentally different. While Pomeranz and others highlight similarities in their economies and pre-industrial conditions, critics argue that the flexible and adaptive political structures in Britain—such as property rights and the support for entrepreneurial ventures—contrasted sharply with the more rigid and bureaucratic structures in China. This distinction allowed Britain to foster innovation and industrial growth more effectively, as the political environment was conducive to experimentation and risk-taking, whereas China’s system may have stifled similar developments.
Importance of “Culture” in Explaining the British Industrial Revolution
According to Jan de Vries, culture plays a significant role in explaining the British Industrial Revolution, albeit not as the sole factor. Vries suggests that certain cultural attributes, such as a tradition of scientific inquiry, a strong emphasis on rationalism, and an entrepreneurial spirit, contributed to Britain’s unique capacity for innovation and economic change.
Cultural Attitudes Toward Change: The British cultural environment was more receptive to new ideas and technologies, which helped facilitate advancements that were critical to industrialization. This cultural context encouraged both individual and collective efforts toward improvement and innovation.
Contrast with China: In contrast, the cultural framework in China may not have prioritized similar values, leading to a different approach to economic and technological development. Vries emphasizes that understanding these cultural dimensions is essential for comprehending why Britain was able to industrialize successfully while China did not experience the same transformation at that time.
- Explain: “… ongoing and fierce interstate competition […] was the motor behind
economic development and imperialism in the West.” (p. 746)
The statement highlights the pivotal role that interstate competition played in shaping economic development and imperialism in the Western world. Here’s a breakdown of the concepts involved:
Ongoing and Fierce Interstate Competition
Competition Among Nations: In the context of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Western nations were engaged in intense rivalry for resources, markets, and geopolitical dominance. This competition manifested through military conflicts, colonial expansion, and economic rivalries.
Motor Behind Economic Development
Innovation and Progress: The fierce competition compelled nations to innovate and improve their economic systems. Countries sought to enhance their industrial capabilities, develop new technologies, and increase production efficiency to gain an edge over their rivals. This drive for economic superiority led to significant advancements in industry, transportation, and communications.
Investment in Infrastructure: To support industrial growth, Western nations invested heavily in infrastructure, such as railways and telegraphs, which facilitated trade and the movement of goods. This infrastructure was crucial for both domestic economic expansion and imperial ventures abroad.
Motor Behind Imperialism
Colonial Expansion: The quest for resources and markets pushed Western nations to expand their empires. By establishing colonies, they could secure raw materials necessary for their industries and create new markets for their manufactured goods. This expansion was often justified under the guise of bringing civilization and progress to “less developed” regions.
Strategic Control: Control over territories not only provided economic benefits but also allowed nations to establish strategic military bases and expand their influence globally. This competition often led to conflicts, alliances, and treaties that reshaped the geopolitical landscape.
- What are the origins of the Industrial Revolution according to Hanks et al.? Mention
one argument they put forward that is also a favorite of the Eurocentric historians.
According to Hanks et al., the origins of the Industrial Revolution can be traced to a combination of several interrelated factors that created a conducive environment for industrial growth, particularly in Britain. Here are some key points regarding these origins:
Origins of the Industrial Revolution
Agricultural Innovations:
Improvements in agricultural techniques, such as crop rotation and selective breeding, increased food production. This surplus not only fed a growing population but also freed many laborers from agricultural work, enabling them to move to urban areas for industrial jobs.
Access to Resources:
Britain had significant natural resources, particularly coal and iron, which were essential for powering steam engines and manufacturing machinery. This availability of raw materials provided a foundation for industrialization.
Colonial Empire:
The vast British Empire facilitated access to a variety of raw materials and markets. Colonial exploitation provided the necessary resources for industrial production and created new markets for manufactured goods.
Political and Economic Stability:
Britain experienced a relatively stable political environment during this period, which encouraged investment and entrepreneurship. The legal framework supported private property rights, fostering a climate conducive to economic growth.
Technological Innovation:
Innovations in technology, such as the steam engine and mechanized textile production, were critical in enhancing productivity and efficiency. These technological advancements were often driven by competition and the desire for profit.
Eurocentric Argument
One argument that Hanks et al. put forward, which is also favored by Eurocentric historians, is the idea that cultural factors played a significant role in the emergence of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Eurocentric historians often emphasize that the protestant work ethic, individualism, and a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship uniquely positioned Britain to lead the Industrial Revolution. This cultural narrative suggests that British values and social norms were crucial in fostering an environment ripe for economic transformation, which parallels other Eurocentric perspectives that attribute the revolution’s origins to cultural and ideological factors specific to Europe.
