Thedialectics

Commentary History and Culture Revolutions

Reassessing the Industrial Revolution: Evolution or Revolution?

Share

The Industrial Revolution, a transformative period spanning from the late 18th to the early 19th century, marks one of the most significant shifts in human history. It heralded the transition from agrarian economies to industrial powerhouses, fundamentally altering every aspect of society. But was it truly a revolution? What qualifies it as a revolution?

Origins of the concept of Revolution

In his article “An Anatomy of Revolution,” Robert C. Blinkley explores the origins of the concept of revolution. He explains the concept of revolution. He explains that the idea of revolution, a political phenomenon, has its roots in the Greek city-states, where it was closely tied to the notion of the wheel of fortune turning, which brought one party up and sent another down.

By the 1840s, the term “Industrial Revolution” had gained widespread usage in England. It is believed to have originated among French commentators at the turn of the century, who noted that nations were experiencing profound economic and social transformations. When Friedrich Engels wrote his 1844 chronicle on the living conditions of the masses, he employed the term “Industrial Revolution” in a dramatic manner. It became firmly entrenched in the language of historians, particularly concerning Britain, through Arnold Toynbee’s renowned Oxford lectures, published in 1884.

Is the Industrial Revolution truly a Revolution?

In his article “Was There an Industrial Revolution?” R. M. Hartwell explains that several historians have recently challenged the appropriateness of the phrase “The Industrial Revolution” to describe the changes that occurred in the English economy and society in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Hartwell further examines these historians’ claims, identifying two main lines of argument: the semantic and the anti-ideological.

Semantic objections focus on the term itself: “the,” implying British uniqueness; “industrial,” indicating the specific character of change; and “revolution,” suggesting the speed and comprehensiveness of change. According to the semanticists, while change did occur, it was not confined to Britain, it was not solely industrial, and it progressed more slowly than the term “revolution” implies. Thus, they argue, the Industrial Revolution was not singular, not strictly industrial, and not revolutionary in the traditional sense.

The anti-ideological school contends that the dominant theories of historical change in Britain, namely the Marxist and Whig-Liberal perspectives, have led historians to emphasize revolutions in a progressive view of British history since the Civil War. To the Hegelian, revolution signifies inevitable change driven by the world spirit in its quest for fulfillment. Marxists, though opposed to Hegelian idealism, see revolution as the outcome of historical forces leading to class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Tocqueville, employing a more empirical approach, defines revolution as the overthrow of a legally constituted elite, triggering significant social, political, and economic changes. Given the significant debates in these theories, particularly regarding the role of revolutions in explaining change, it is prudent to question the reality of the revolutions on which these theories depend (Hartwell 1990, 569).

England’s Capitalism and its Agricultural Roots

 Recent studies, such as “Enclosure and the Yeoman,” argue that significant productivity growth in England’s agriculture occurred before the mid-eighteenth century, driven by small-scale, open-field farmers. Despite slow growth in the latter half of the century, the early nineteenth century saw accelerated agricultural output, which freed up labor and resources crucial for industrialization. Robert C. Allen highlights that this agricultural revolution laid the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution, emphasizing that improvements in agricultural productivity were essential for subsequent economic transformation.

Wolf highlights that capitalism’s development in agriculture is often overlooked, focusing on industry as the origin of the capital/wage-laborer class. Polanyi stresses that the Industrial Revolution created a market economy led by merchants, marking a significant societal transformation. Brenner critiques these views, emphasizing the shift from landlord-peasant relations to a three-tiered class structure driven by agricultural competition, crucial for the Industrial Revolution. Between 1790 and 1830, the working class formed with increased class consciousness, political organizations, and trade unions. This period also saw advanced capitalism’s features: economic cycles, urban growth, and intensified competition, with factories operating around the clock and employing many women and children. By the mid-19th century, England had become the first industrial nation with a fully developed capitalist society (Patriquin 2002, 205). Additionally, Joel Mokyr presents a view of the transition between past and present by contrasting the traditional economy, which included agriculture, with the modern industrial sector focused on pursuits like cotton, iron, smelting, and mining. He argues that the modern sector’s rapid growth eventually overtook the entire economy, primarily due to technological expansion, which led to the decline of the traditional sector. Mokyr highlights that England was a “technologically creative society” with inventive and persistent experimenters. He emphasizes that the significant economic growth in Britain after 1830 was a direct result of technological advancements over the previous seventy years, supported by the scientific method, including accurate measurement, controlled experiments, and systematic reporting. The period witnessed rapid technological progress, driven by scientific methods, which fundamentally altered production processes and economic structures. Industrial revolution marked a profound shift from agrarian to industrial economies, characterized by urbanisation, the rise of the working class, and significant socio-economic changes. The early form of the industrial organisation of a putting-out system, where the craftsman worked from their homes, provided a foundation for the later industrial economy. However, it was also the technological advancements and increased agricultural productivity that truly fueled the Industrial Revolution, transforming societies, economies, and living conditions.

Author

  • Yashasvi Prashant Tamse

    Yashasvi holds her Master’s degree in History from Goa University. She is recognised for her insightful analysis and unique writing on History, culture and society.

    View all posts

Share
error: Content is protected !!