The Rise of the Factory System in the United Kingdom in the 19th Century - Coursework Example

Was The Rise Of The Factory System Driven By The Economic Demands For Centralized Production Or The Desire For A More Closely Controlled Workforce? Introduction The objective of this document is the find an answer to the question “Was the rise of the factory system, driven by economic demand for centralized production or the desire for a more closely controlled workforce? In order to answer this question adequately this paper will look at various different aspects of the factory system the labour force of the nineteenth century England, the onset of the factory system that was imposed by the introduction of machines and many different factors. Therefore as a first step in answering the question the document will very briefly define the factory system as we call it today and look at how it changed the landscape of labour management that was prevalent at that time in England. After which this document will then go on to answer more poignant questions in and around labour and workflow management and the impact that it had on the society and modern day management theory as well as the economy of the time. The Factory System The Factory System as it is known today when we refer to the onset of the industrial age of modern day England was the use of machinery for mass production (Boyson, 1970, pp. 34 - 52). Former cottage based industries or rather production that took place in the homes, cottages, hut (any form of residence of the workers) or any type of production that took place prior to the 1780s were moved to a centralized location that came to be known as a “factory”. This was mainly caused due to the introduction of machinery for the production and manufacture of goods at the turn of the nineteenth century and since machines were too large to be housed in cottages of the workers and since it was too costly to provide each worker with an individual machine and also since several workers were necessary to operate one machine alone, the only option that was left to owners of the machinery were to house the machinery in a large buildings and have the workers manufacture the products in the “factory” under the strict supervision of the machinery owners or supervisors who were hand picked by the owners (Thompson, 1967, pp. 81 - 93). Due to this centralization of labour and machinery, there was much migration from the villages to the industrial hubs in the country and thereby began the “factory system”. And this migration from the village to the cities or the industrial centres were apparent in the early part of the nineteenth century The Impact of the Factory System on the Labour The onset of the factory system had many different impacts on the labour force, these impacts were both good and bad. By bringing workers under one roof it was easier for owners to supervise and manage the manufacture of products, they were also able to ensure that work was not duplicated and it was carried out in the most efficient manner possible. Also it was the factory system that was the cause of the development of modern day management theory through the studies that were carried out by individuals like Fredrick Taylor and others. By bringing labour under one roof the owners were able to discipline the staff appropriately and especially they were able to ensure that productivity was high, therefore as owners of the machinery they stood to gain a great deal. In the case of the workers the benefits and disadvantages that they faced were quite mixed. While the factory system gave them a steady income, living in such close quarters with so many different individuals, living in unsanitary conditions as the big cities turned out to be due to the convergence of workers and working in very unhealthy environments that were often inadequately lit up and ventilated caused much disease and also created an unsafe environment where workers were often prone to succumb to fatal accidents. While some opponents of the factory system insist that the machinery imposed discipline on the workers the author of this paper begs to differ on that matter, it was not the machinery that imposed discipline on the workers, rather it was the fear of not having a job or means of survival that caused workers to work harder and be more productive as they did not want to loose their job due to a machine and therefore it can be stated that machinery caused them to work harder and be more disciplined, however the influence of machinery on the workers was indirect (Trainor, 1993, pp. 45 - 61). Based on the information that has been discussed above it is apparent that the factory system worked in favour of the machinery owners or the employers cum “factory owners” as they were able to increase production of goods not only through the use of machinery but also by using the fear factor, that workers would stand to loose their jobs if they were not productive enough (McKendrick, pp. 234 - 245). Therefore it is safe to say employers in the early part of the nineteenth century played on the fears of the workers and exploited the workers for their own gain. Since it was not until the middle part of the 20th century that labour laws came into effect and therefore workers were at the mercy of the employers, the employers were able to almost anything and get away with it (Joyce, 1980, pp. 93 - 136). Also since the class system was in existence at the time, the working class citizens who were often workers in the factories were at the mercy of the wealthier folk who owned the factories and thus employed them (Pollard, 1963, pp. 1891 - 1901). The Factory System and Society It has often been questioned if there was anything inevitable about the factory system. This is a question that is not that easy to answer since the facts are not clear cut and much is in the grey area. It were inventions like the “steam engine” that made it possible to transport goods and workers around the country easily and it was the same that helped to transport coal around the country and make use of coal to power machinery (Crouzet, 2001, pp. 14 - 19). Therefore looking at the turn of events from that point of view it can be stated that after the invention of the steam engine the onset of the industrial revolution and the factory system was inevitable. The factory system of the 1700 and 1800’s has much influence on society today. After the factory system came into existence, modern day management was born if the factory system had not come into existence the organization of labour the way it is today would never have come about (Gray, 2002, pp. 143 - 146). Therefore it can be stated that the factory system was in part responsible for the wider “disciplined society” that we live in today. Due to the onset of the factory system, the use of labour for the manufacture of goods was more streamlined, the production line that is in existence to date was born due to this system (Howe, 1984, pp. 72 - 78). It is indeed correct to state that the workers of that age complained that the factory system succeeded in deskilling them and lowering the quality of work. However in actual fact this is not true. While machinery did oust many workers from their work as machines could do the work of many workers simultaneously and at a faster pace, the factory system gave rise to the white collar workforce. And it was only the individuals who saw this new opportunity that was presenting itself who were able to make use of it and prosper in the meantime. To date this principle stands all too true. Even in locations like America’s Midwest it is often heard that information technology has ousted many workers out of jobs due to the advanced technologies like robotics, however what most workers fail to see is that as one set of jobs disappear newer and more cutting edge jobs come into existence and if workers stop crying over what was lost and look to the opportunities that are presenting itself they would be able to gain much. Getting back to the factory system it can be stated that it was the best thing that happened to mankind before the invention of the computer. If the factory system did not come into existence, capitalism and the world that we live in today would only be a mere dream (Behagg, 1986). Many would be quick to say that along with the factory system came many evils like the exploitation of the poor and the vulnerable as well as gross exploitation of children as child labour was rampant at the time (Huberman, 1987, pp. 78 - 90). While this is all true, all the new systems go through many phases and during the “teething stages” there are a variety of vices that need to be dealt with and that is not the fault of the system but rather the fault of the individuals and economies that introduce the system as they have not put in adequate checks and balances to ensure that exploitation is at a minimum (Chapman, 1993, pp. 67 - 89). Conclusion In conclusion it can be stated that the factory system was driven by economic demands for a centralized mode of production rather than for the desire to closely control employees. However with the factory system the close control and most of the time the exploitation of the workers too took place. Thus giving the factory system a bad name. However there is no doubt that the factory system came into existence only due to economic need for such a system and not because it was necessary to closely monitor and control workers. References C Behagg ‘Myths of Cohesion: Capital and Compromise in the Historiography of 19th Century Birmingham: A Review Article’ Social History, 1986, pp. 103 - 115 R Boyson The Ashworth Cotton Enterprise, The Rise and Fall of a Family Firm, 1818-1880, 1970, Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, pp. 34 - 52 S Chapman The Early Factory Masters The Transition to the Factory System in the Midland Textile Industry (Modern Revivals in Economic and Social History), 1993, Ashgate Publications, pp. 67 - 89 F Crouzet The First Industrialists, The Problem of Origins, 2001, Cambridge University Press, pp. 14 - 19 R Gray The Factory Question and Industrial England 1830-1860, 2002, Cambridge University Press, pp. 143 - 146 A Howe The Cotton Masters 1830 – 1860, Oxford Historical Monographs, 1984, Oxford University Press, pp. 72 - 78 N Huberman ‘The Economic Origins of Paternalism: Lancashire Cotton Spinning’, Social History, 1987, pp. 78 - 90 P Joyce Work, Society and Politics: The Culture of the Factory in Later Victorian England, 1980, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 93 - 136 N McKendrick ‘Josiah Wedgewood and Factory Discipline’, Historical Journal 4, 1961, pp. 234 - 245 S Pollard ‘Factory Discipline in the Industrial Revolution’, Economic History Review 16, 1963, pp. 1891 - 1901 R.H. Trainor Black Country Elites: The Exercise of Authority in an Industrialised Area 1830-1900, 1993, Oxford University Press, Clarendon, pp. 45 - 61 E.P. Thompson ‘Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism’, Past and Present, 38, 1967 [Reprinted as ch. 6 of Thompson, Customs in Common], pp. 81 - 93 Read More