The Interpretation of the First Industrial Revolution as an Industrious Revolution - Term Paper Example

The Interpretation of the First Industrial Revolution as an Industrious Revolution The industrious revolution was a period between the 16th and 18th century that led to the industrial revolution. The industrial uprising originated from the growth of the population in the European countries and the United States of America (English Online). The growth of the populace meant that there was a mounting demand for the essentials. The families that were able to fulfil their basic needs would go further to ask for the industrial products. According to Jan De Vries, a revolution is formed by the demand side of the consumers (Vries). The availability of consumer goods would therefore transform the society at this historical period. The industries that were in charge of production at that time were not creative enough to offer a variety of goods and services from which to choose, thus the industrious revolution began because of the increase in demand for the consumer products that would satisfy families of the time. Consumers were not only focused on the change of taste, but they were also concerned about the provisions of goods for a different class, that is, regular goods and highly sophisticated goods within the society. The demand was also based on sex. Males and females in different careers were concerned with different demands that would show a difference in the society depending on their biological nature. The textile and automobile industries were the most affected as the demand for high-quality clothes and machinery was great. The speedy growth of the population in towns and cities also increased the demand for food production. Families were looking not only for the provision of food but also the quality of food. Therefore, the demand for quality food was a major concern that was driving the industrious revolution. The great demand from the consumer was increasing pressure on industry. The owners of the industries were responding by allocating more work to the labourers so that they could produce more goods. The need to produce more goods and meet the ultimatum of the consumers led to the onset of the industrial revolution. This revolution occurred when the factory workers started to realise that they were working so hard, but their salaries were not increasing. Therefore, the workers began to demand higher pay. The industrialists, on the other hand, were not willing to add a penny to their workforces (Soule). Since there were no proper laws protecting the labourers, they were humiliated by their bosses and sometimes they were forced to work. The force used can be tracked to the servitude era. During this period, farm owners forced people to work without pay. The new era of professional workers knew that their effort needed to be rewarded but their bosses were unwilling to reward them. In fact, they could not involve them in negotiations. Jan De Vries acknowledges that the industrial revolution was enabled by the fact that the industries were competing for the services of their labourers but were not willing to compensate them for their extra effort. The industrious uprising affected the lives of many families. According to De Vries, the families were working on the farms for longer hours in the 18th century as opposed to the 17th century (Vries). The increased labour time denied them leisure and recreation time. Because the consumer goods became so hard to get, they were forced to work at the farms. Child labour also came to be as children were forced to work on the farms. The farm owners were compelled to force workers to be at their farms in order to produce more raw materials that would later be used in the industries where they were in high demand. The demand for factory products is another factor that accelerated both the industrious and industrial revolution. The people who were working on the farms as well as those who were offering their labour to the industries were not able to pay for the industrial products. Simply stated, they were not paid enough money, therefore they could not purchase the products. As a result, they were forced to call for demonstrations demanding a pay rise. The high demand for industrial products forced the industrialists to work more on technology that would help them produce more goods at a cheaper cost. The production rate was increased as more innovations in the production process were established. The machines that produced more goods and required less labour were established. Hence, production level went up. The industries were changing from labour intensive to capital intensive. The impact of this change implied that the factories would require fewer workers but would produce high quality and increased quantity of the products. Jan De Vries has also based his argument on the interpretation of the early industrial revolution as an industrious revolution by making use of Becker’s theory of allocation of time. Time is a factor that is expended in the creation. Becker acknowledges that time is the most important aspect in production (Healy). To illustrate his claims, Becker describes the time factor in the production of a certain quantity of goods given that effort applied remains constant. The quantity of commodities manufactured is higher assuming that the spell used is high. When production time is less the amount of goods produced is less. Therefore, a spell dictates the amount of commodities produced. Before the industrious revolution, the workers in the family were not able to fulfil the needs of their families. Jan De Vries explains that the whole family went to work in order to put some cash in their pockets that would enable them to place a plate of food on the table. Consequently, they were forced to work for long hours so that they could earn extra cash. The long hours worked meant that the profit earned by the owners of the firms was high. The Marxist theory of production helps to explain this. According to Marx, the profit earned is usually the extra time that the workers spend in the factory. When considering the industrial revolution in the early 18th century, Karl Marx’s influence on the working class becomes an important tool of learning. The contribution of Becker’s theory of allocation of time is important in understanding the industrial revolution’s link with the industrious revolution. Since the money earned was not enough to feed their families, people were forced to buy cheaper goods. Low-priced commodities are of a lesser quality. For instance, high-quality food usually has a lot of nutrients compared to low-quality food. High quality food is normally more exclusive than processed food. When a family chooses to obtain a lower quality food, it does so for the physical satisfaction, likely not for the quality. Therefore, during the industrious revolution and the early years of the industrial revolution, families that were offering labour to the factories had to opt for the lower quality goods. These commodities would ensure that their families lived to see the next day. The situation was made easy due to the availability of substitutes. The factories were creating some goods that could be used instead of the more expensive ones. Therefore, the poorer families had a choice of products. Those families that wanted to live a more sophisticated lifestyle had to work for a longer periods of time. The theory of allocation of time suggests that the production usually increases with the increase in time given that the speed at which the producer is working remains constant (Vries). Therefore, the increased time the workers spent in the factory meant that their production levels increased and earnings were greater. When looking at these two periods, there is a clear connection of events and therefore it can be concluded that the situation was moving in the same direction. When the industrial revolution went on to the next level, labour unions began to grow and still today most workers belong to unions. The labour unions have a history of forcing the owners of industries to review the workers’ salaries and working conditions. According to Seyd, the occurrence of the industrial revolution can be discussed by focusing on the behaviour of the consumers within a society (Seyd). Also, De Vries supports the idea of consumer activity as the determinant of social behaviour as a variety of goods was introduced in the market. The availability of wide variety of goods in the market ensure that consumers maximise their utilities. The society had been under a transformation in what most scholars argue was the move from the traditional way of doing things toward a modern way. The industrious revolution gave the social society a new face of individualism (Weisdorf). The traditional society was well known for its cohesiveness in matters pertaining to wellbeing. They used to work together and help one another to make the social environment comfortable for all. The assiduous revolution that ushered in the industrial revolution brought in a transformation of doing things differently using method and equipment. The social cohesiveness had been broken as individuals began to pursue their interests. According to De Vries, the cohesiveness began to lose its value when the production of goods came (Clark and Werf). De Vries argues that a variety of goods produced gave mankind a different option to choose from and therefore increased the usefulness of their money. Availability of a variety of goods also brought about tests and preferences for the consumers. The difference in acquiring a basket of goods at a constant price is a good description of how the industrial revolution transformed the society. The social disintegration began to widen, and those in the society who were able to purchase highly sophisticated products started to assemble. The result of this transformation was the creation of two societies, namely the poor and the rich. The rich were the able while the poor were not able to acquire the commodities. The difference between the ability to get a commodity in England and France illustrates this point. In England, families were said to work for fewer hours as compared to France (Weisdorf). The question that arises is, what were the driving factors? England is said to have evolved from the industrious revolution to the industrial revolution while the French nation is said to have only faced the industrial revolution. The lack of the first experience of the industrial revolution made the firm workers experience difficulties in managing the outcome of the revolution. The English people were able to use this inexperienced nation in the running of their factories. Therefore, the average income of the English was higher than that of the French. Cutlery and poker cards are also used to explain the changes brought about by the industrial revolution. These are luxury items that are not required for survival. They are goods that can be acquired after the basic needs have been met. During the industrious revolution, these goods were only important to the farmers who had huge fields of land. Wealthy households were the only ones who could afford them. The poor members of the society, among them the field workers, could not manage them, for they were expensive. During the industrial revolution, the working class was also able to get these commodities. Although they were not focused on some of them like poker cards, their houses were furnished with good furniture and cutlery. Voth explains that the poker cards were the main factor that segregated the rich as they were the only people who could afford to venture into this expensive game (Voth). Therefore, the industrious and the industrial revolution experienced the same fate in terms of social integration and change. During the industrious revolution, the output was not consistent with the effort applied. This is because technology was just coming in, to replace human labour. Voth’s study of economic variables such as output growth had been disputed by many scholars (Voth). Voth argues that the output did not consist, as little input led to the production of a huge amount of outputs (Voth). The fact is the use of machines in production led to an increase in output. Less labour was used, but the firm owners had to use more capital in the investment. The labour growth during the English industrial revolution is said to have been at a higher rate than that described by Craft. In his analysis, Voth quotes Craft as noting that the labour growth in this period was about 0.2% (Voth). The notion of disputing this argument is that during the industrial revolution, England was in a much better position to develop its working class. The country was one of the European giants that was experiencing a lot of discoveries in the industrial fields. However, the factories required much labour to fulfil their production obligations. During the industrious revolution, the country acquired labour from other countries in the famous slave trade. The trade saw that the country acquired a lot of forced labour to work in their fields. The increased labour in the factory was also as a result of the increased working hours. Voth argues that the rate at which the workers were offering their efforts in the industries was higher than in other countries (Voth). The comparison in this case is France, that had also experienced the industrial revolution. England benefited from the daily increase of working hours that accumulated over the year. The accumulated labour made it easier for the country to experience the highest output that led to the economic development over a century. Apart from the increased working hours in the day, England also saw to it that the number of holidays held in a year by the general public was reduced. The result of the action was very positive toward production as the rate of production went up at a higher rate. The public was enjoying a variety of goods that was available to them from the factory, and everyone could spend according to his or her desired preference and taste. During the industrious revolution, came the emergence of the putting-out system that is mostly seen as the catalyst of the time that led to the industrial revolution. According to De Vries, the putting-out system was a method used by industrialists in offering subcontracts to other firms (Vries). In today’s industrial world, the method is popularly referred to as outsourcing. During this period, most of the English and American industries opted to use the putting-out system to enhance their production. According to Vries, this action accelerated the production of goods (Vries). Most of the firms that introduced this activity were those that engaged in the production of shoes and textiles. Analysts see this action as the most important aspect that led to greater development of industries in the region. The industrial revolution is also seen as a succession of the putting-out system. The system is acknowledged and given a lot of praise for the way it brought a lot of efficiency to the production and distribution process. The efficiency was necessary at the time because commodities were in very high demand. The demand for the products was effectively met, and firms made a lot of profit via the use of this system (Healy). The putting-out system was effective at the time as it was not costly to the firms. The firms needed only to link with the households to reach their ultimate customers. During this time, people needed to work collaboratively to fill the family basket, thus the cheap labour needed by the consumers was readily available. The system, therefore, set a pace that was well understood and is considered to have introduced the industrial revolution. Some schools of thought have contradicted the source of industrial revolution. Economics and the social scholars have come up with different theories that try to capture the beginning of industrial revolution. The economics history suggests that it was the industrious revolution that led to the existence of the industrial revolution (Clark and Werf). However, historians in this field usually suggest that the law of demand and supply usually drives economic development. Professions usually argue that the development that was witnessed in the early years of revolution was the effect of the growth of the population that demanded the supply of goods. As is well known, demand is a result of increased population. The increase in demand led to innovations that managed to introduce machinery in the production process. Goods and other commodities were readily produced and made available to the consumers. A social and cultural history looks at the industrial revolution as having led to the damage of the social structure and the social integration. The industrious revolution resulted in individualism as well as the breaking of the social norms that had been laid down in the traditional society. The scholars from this period argue that the industrialists introduced hardships so that the society could only depend on what they could earn from the industries. Since the society members had no other alternative, they began to engage in the firms’ activities so that they could win their daily bread. During the industrious revolution, the production of firms’ raw materials was in high gear, and the farms required people to work for them (Weisdorf). Since they could not force the traditional society to leave their activities, they made sure that they had tightened their daily income by acquiring their land and forcing them to pay taxes. The action ensured that the society’s members could leave their comfort zone and look for activity on the farms. The social workers who showed a great interest were handsomely rewarded, and their social status was highly ranked. Therefore, people worked hard and propelled the wheel towards the industrial revolution. However, there are historians who argue that the effect in the increase of the working hours had a minimal contribution towards the revolution. In fact, some argue that there were no facts that the increased working hours had an effect on production. The fact of inadequate evidence of records is affirmed by scholars of the period such as Gregory Clark. The reason he gives is that during that time people were not interested in keeping records for individual work. His reasons may be valid with regard to his arguments. On the other hand, the reasoning may be dismissed as history reveals that the entrepreneurs at that time were beginning to introduce the formal way of running industries. They used to focus on the growth of profits. There is no doubt that records are critical in the determination of profit levels of the firm. In conclusion, the industrious revolution played a key role in the introduction of the industrial revolution. The pace was set that introduced a better playing field for the industrial activities. The United States of America and England faced both periods but France endured only the industrial revolution. France has since faced the industrial activities that have transformed not only the nation but also the world at large. Works Cited Clark, Gregory and Ysbrand Van Der Werf. "Work In Progress: The industrious Revolution." The Journal of Economic History (1998): 830-843. English Online. "Industrial Revolution." Articles in Easy Understandable English for Learners (n.d.). . Healy, Kieran. Gary Becker, an Appreciation by Michel Foucault. 2014. . Seyd, Ernest. The Wealth and Commerce of Nations: And the Question of Silver with Special Reference to the Indian Valuation, and the International Monetary Congress at Paris. New York: Harvard University, 2009. Soule, George. "New American Heroes." A National Journal For Literature and Discussion (2010). . Voth, Hans Joachim. Time and Work in England 1750-1830. Wortley: Clarendon Press, 2000. Print. Vries, Jan De. "The Industrial Revolution and the Industrious Revolution." The Journal Of Economic History (1994): 18-21. Weisdorf, Jacob L. Consumer Revolution, Industrious Revolution, and Industrial Revolution: Why England, not France? n.d. Read More