IMAGINING
OTHER
How Enlightened was the
Enlightenment?
Links: Imagining
Other Index page
Week 4 – science, agriculture
and industry. Critics of science.
Summary:
1. Agriculture and the industrial revolution
1.1 New techniques
and crops
1.2 Enclosures
2. The industrial
revolution:
2.1 industrialisation
2.2 The British
disease? (the application of science and technology)
2.3 Inventions
(coke, steam-power, spinning and weaving machines).
3. Critics of science/the scientific world-view - does science have limitations?
3.1 reason and imagination
(a word on William Blake)
3.2 science and
patriarchy
3.2 the need for a
wholistic approach.
1. The agricultural and industrial revolutions:
(Notes from O’Hara
2010 unless otherwise indicated).
There was both a
political and an agricultural revolution during the Enlightenment, as well as
the beginning of the industrial revolution.
In England,
agriculture was a very significant part of the economy because (i) it was
expensive to import food, and (ii) the ‘landed interest’ dominated British
politics and social life (Hobsbawm 1968 p 97) – land ownership was a way of
getting into politics. The agricultural
revolution took place partly as a result of:
1.1 new
agricultural techniques and crops
1.2 the enclosures of previously communally-owned
land (the new landowners being anxious to maximise returns and profits),
1.1 New techniques etc.
Crop rotation was a major breakthrough: growing different crops in
turn, it was discovered, had beneficial effects, and was used instead of the
old practice of leaving fields fallow: over-use of land for crops eroded the
soil of nutrients and encouraged the build-up of pests and diseases. In fallow
fields nothing would be grown for a year (every three or four years) for the
soil to recover. But fallow was wasteful, and rotation of different crops and
animals helped improve the output. Also, turnips and other roots crops - and
especially clover - put more nitrogen back into the soil. A key figure in this
development was the 2nd Viscount (‘Turnip’) Townshend (1674 – 1738).
He developed a four-crop ‘Norfolk rotation’ – turnips, barley, clover and wheat
(Gibson 2010 p 219).
Gibson (2010 p
217) says the agricultural revolution started in the 1650s, (the ‘yeoman’s
agricultural revolution’) but was really significant in the first half of the
18th century, with a 2 ½ -fold increase in wheat, barley and oats
between 1700 and 1850, in Norfolk.
Another factor in
the growth in agriculture was the discovery of new crops in the New World, viz
maize and potatoes (see Adam Smith’s praise of the potato, O’Hara p 128).
Other techniques:
Watering by
channels, better livestock breeds, and machinery such as Jethro Tull’s seed
drill all contributed. Andrew Meikle invented a mechanised threshing machine in
1784. Reclamation and drainage (see next point) meant that the area under
cultivation in England nearly doubled in the 18th century.
1.2 Enclosures:
According to
Hobsbawm, enclosures - the ‘rearrangement of formerly common or open fields
into self-contained private land-units, or the division of formerly common but
uncultivated land into private property’ – had long been practised, and since
the middle of the 17th century (the Tudor period) with little
trouble in the early stages. (op cit p 100) (However, see below concerning
Scotland and Ireland). (See also Thomas More’s comments: Extracts from Thomas More's Utopia). There
had been protests against enclosure in the 15th and 16th
centuries – sometimes because of a fear of the vagrants being created by the
expulsions). An overseas demand for English wool was another factor in driving
these changes.
Gibson (2010, p
38) describes the drainage, and subsequent enclosure with hedges, of the
Bedford Levels around Ely in the 17th century. However, from about
1760 landlords used Acts of Parliament to speed up the process, instead of
negotiating agreements with yeoman farmers. A large part of the middle of the
country was enclosed in this way between 1760 and 1820. The changes were seen
by landlords as ‘improving’ their farming: sheep were more profitable than
crops, and they needed fewer labourers. Gibson (p 106) cites as evidence of the
widespread practice of enclosure, Lord Kames’s 1776 publication: ‘The Gentleman
farmer, being an attempt to improve agriculture by subjecting it to the test of
rational principles’ – which ran to four editions by 1798! He also points out
that this was the heyday of landscaping – by Capability Brown for example.
Opposition
sometimes boiled over into violence (e.g. Galloway 1724 – troops were brought
in to restore order).
In Scotland,
enclosures or clearances began later
in the century, happened in the Highlands, and impacted on the clan system –
thus, rather than having semi-feudal obligations to the clan, chieftains became
landlords... (from Wikipedia) They then charged high rents, and poor families
were displaced. For example MacLeod of MacLeod hired Englishmen and Lowland
Scots to “encourage” people to move off land that could be used for sheep
farming. The Duke of Sutherland forced 90 families to the coast where they
lived in the open until they had built themselves houses. One clan chief –
MacDonell – claimed he was protecting Highland culture!
As a result of the
clearances many peasants were moved from the Highlands to the Lowlands, or to
coastal areas, where they had to cope with bad weather conditions, but where
they could be employed gathering kelp (for soap, fertiliser, glassmaking). Or
they went (or were put on ships) overseas to America (Nova Scotia, Ontario, the
Carolinas). Richard Gott, in Britain’s Empire (2011) argues that those who
emigrated to America and Australia later were behind rebellions against the
British who had forced them to go – and then later, they were in turn
responsible for repressing the native populations... (See later notes on race,
colonialism etc).
The Highland
clearances also took place at a time of rebellion against the English – the
first Jacobite uprising was in 1725, and the massacre at Culloden in 1746. An
Act of Proscription banned tartans etc. General Wade raised the Black Watch (to
deal with disturbances) (Wikipedia).
In Ireland, where
Anglo-Irish landlords held 95% of all land, there was resistance to enclosures
by e.g. the Whiteboys (1761) (see Gott 2011 p 130) - and the Steelboys. As
conditions worsened they attacked enclosure fences, maimed cattle and sheep,
attacked landlords and even resisted the militia.’ (Gibson op cit p143)
In Ireland, but
also in England, a tragic consequence of the enclosures was the rise in the
price of corn – and, together with the cost of the Napoleonic wars, famine...
Hobsbawm says we
must distinguish the use of Parliamentary Acts from the wider, more gradual
process, the ‘general phenomenon’ of agricultural concentration. Labourers were
thrown off land – but also uncultivated land was brought into cultivation
(creating work). But ‘marginal cottagers and smallholders’ undoubtedly lost out
heavily, losing their common rights to pasture, firewood, etc (p 102). Above
all they now became ‘inferiors dependent on the rich.’ (Hobsbawm p 102 quotes
from a concerned Suffolk clergyman writing in 1844 abut the loss of the village
green etc).
By the end of the
18th century in England there was concern at the number of people
being driven off the land into penury, and the industrial sector was not yet
large enough to take them up: ‘By the 1790s the consequent decay of the village
poor had reached catastrophic proportions in parts of southern and eastern
England’ (Hobsbawm p 104). Hence changes were made to the Poor Law - the ‘Speenhamland System’ - in 1795, to try
to ensure workers had a living wage. A minimum rate was fixed according to the
price of corn, and if wages fell below it they would be supplemented from the
poor rates (loc cit).
On the other hand,
Gibson (p 220) points out that larger farms with fewer labourers were the
outcome, and the labourer’s outlook became more insecure, with contracts down
from annual ‘hirings’ to monthly or weekly contracts. Thus a workforce was
being created that would eventually become the factory workers of the
industrial revolution.
Opposition:
Gibson points out
that ‘Widespread resistance... was far more common than is often assumed’ (p
223).
Examples in
literature:
Gerard Winstanley
1649 Declaration from the poor oppressed people of England.
Poem by John Clare
in ‘The Tragedy of the Enclosures.’ Gibson p 223...
Oliver Goldsmith:
The Deserted Village 1770
William Cobbett’s
Rural Rides 1830
2. The industrial revolution.
2.1 Industrialisation.
New technologies -
sometimes but not always resulting from the application of pure science, says
O’Hara – together with improved food production marked the beginnings of the industrial revolution:
Once standards of
living in the countryside improved, workers were tempted to move to the towns,
where factories promised even more improvement to their standard of living.
With these demographic changes, and the increase in trade with the colonies,
technology grew.
Hobsbawm (1968)
discusses the many factors that led to Britain starting the industrial
revolution – especially: the flexibility and adaptability of British
institutions, the urgency or need for transformation, and the risks. Thus, the
aristocracy had become bourgeois by the end of the 17th century and
had ceased to resist capitalist development; ‘two revolutions had taught the
monarchy to be adaptable’; and the technical challenges/risks were not high
(since the process started on a local, small scale). We should add to this: the
imports from our colonies, favourable geo-physical factors (availability of
coal and iron ore, temperate climate), the monarchy’s concern to protect the
‘middle classes’, and Voltaire’s observation that ‘Commerce, which has enriched
the citizens of England has helped to make them free, and that liberty has in
turn expanded commerce.’ (Hobsbawm p 26).
Since it was economic demand rather than curiosity
that motivated technological discoveries, most developments occurred in
countries such as England and Scotland, where commerce was ‘less of a dirty
word’.
2.2 The British disease?
Scientists, it has
been argued, were not good at getting their ideas applied…
applications of science spread more through social gatherings e.g. Lunar
Society in Birmingham than through the scientific institutes.
It has often been
argued (e.g. by Anthony Sampson in The Anatomy of Britain) that this inability
to apply scientific knowledge is a feature of English culture: my own view is
that science was practised, and scientific knowledge publicised, by an
intellectual and social elite, and
this elite was often more interested in traditional landowner pursuits such as
hunting and shooting than in running factories, or in commerce.
One negative consequence
of this is that an ‘engineer’ has never had the status in England than in
Europe. This is reinforced by a quirk of language: the English word has connotations of
‘engines’ whereas the French: ingénieur
means someone skilled or clever (German uses the same word as French – but
engineering is of course Technik in German [Vorsprung = advantage – literally a
leap in front]).
Another
consequence is that individuals with high ambition in this country aimed to
become landowners rather than to go into industry. Finally, we have seen the
development of a separate ‘managerial’ (or ‘entrepreneurial’) class to run our
businesses.
2.3 Inventions.
On the other hand,
there were many discoveries and
innovations associated with the Enlightenment and the industrial
revolution, which are well known, e.g.:
- Abraham Darby
developed coke instead of charcoal for smelting (1709), leading to less need
for timber, and the possibility of locating iron works away from forests;
Darby’s iron was superior, and thinner – so kettles etc were cheaper. Later his
family produced bar iron for forges, thus boosting small manufacture. (Gibson p
230) One consequence of this was a growth in the number of coal mines – and
Davy’s ‘safety lamp’ is usually cited (however, there is controversy over this
– see David Albury’s book Partial Progress). The lamp – it is argued by Albury
– enabled owners to get coal extracted from mines hitherto regarded as
dangerous from methane.
- steam power was
first developed in the Newcomen engine in 1705, then in 1712 the ‘atmospheric
engine’ which was more reliable - used to pump water from the mines; steam
engines could also be used to pump air into mines, so they also enabled deeper
mines... By 1733 there were 100 Newcomen engines in use in England (Gibson).
Elsewhere, water power was used.
- later James Watt
produced more steam engines, to power e.g. locomotives - leading to trains of
course;
- John Wilkinson
established a steam-powered blast furnace in the 1750s at Willey – he produced
large iron cylinders, which in turn could be used to build more and larger
steam engines (at first they had been used to make cannon...). Watt used
Wilkinson’s iron to build his engines.
- machines for the
cotton industry were crucial to this country’s economic growth:
Kay’s flying shuttle (1733) enabled
looms to be much wider, so weavers could work faster;
Hargreaves’ spinning jenny (1764) led
to an 8-fold increase in what a worker could produce;
Arkwright’s water frame (1769)
harnessed looms to water power, enabling increased production of stronger more
evenly woven cloth;
Crompton’s mule (1779) combined the
spinning jenny and the water frame.
(See Gibson op cit
p 234)
3. Critiques:
3.1 reason and the imagination:
A contemporary
critic of ‘Newtonian mechanics’ was William
Blake (1757 – 1827). Blake saw reason
and imagination as two opposed faculties, and imagination is liberating (he
also equates the imagination to Jesus), whilst reason imprisons us (reason and
law he equated with Satan).
http://www.tate.org.uk/learning/worksinfocus/blake/imagin/cast_05.html
For Blake, Newton
omitted God, as well as all those significant emotional and spiritual elements,
which cannot be quantified, from his theories. Blake boasted that he had
‘fourfold vision’ while Newton with his ‘single vision’ was as good as asleep.
To Blake, Newton, Bacon and Locke with their emphasis on reason were nothing
more than ‘the three great teachers of atheism or Satan’s doctrine.’
Note that in
Blake’s print Newton is a prisoner of reason, and the light and colour on the
left is displaced by darkness on the right…
See also: 'Imagining Other': William Blake.
3.2 nature as ‘female’ and science as ‘male’:
A writer who
questions how ‘reason’ has been (mis-)used in science, (and in economics and
politics), is Brian Easlea… He
argues in Science and Sexual Oppression (1981) that the practice of science
(‘natural philosophy’ especially ‘mechanical philosophy’) has been seen as a
way for men to control nature – and that nature being seen as female indicates
that the new science and patriarchy went hand in hand:
- Newton describes
how his pursuit of science is a deliberate attempt to ‘avert’ his thoughts from
sex (p 77)
- Locke, Halley,
Hooke and others (later Hume) use sexist language concerning nature and science:
Isaac Barrow, Newton’s teacher: the aim of natural philosophy is to ‘search
Nature out of her concealments, and unfold her dark mysteries’…
- some of this
originates in Bacon, (p 84): the ‘experimental philosophy’ would inaugurate the
‘masculine birth of time’ – man could ‘bind her [nature] to your service and
make her your slave’ ‘conquer her and subdue her, to shake her to her
foundations’ – men should turn their ‘united forces against the Nature of
Things, to storm and occupy her castles and strongholds’…
Men seem to have
been sexually insecure during this time, Easlea argues, and this is reflected
in the way they thought about science.
Roy Porter
(reviewing Brian Easlea 1982) says that Easlea is in the tradition of the
Romantics, William Blake, Lewis Mumford, Arthur Koestler, Herbert Marcuse,
Theodore Roszak. Easlea contextualises the mechanical philosophy, alongside the
history of witches (– see week 3).
3.3 the need for wholism:
I would add that
some ecologists also look for a more ‘wholistic’
or organic way of understanding nature, and our place in it.
The problem is,
says Porter, that ‘the living and spiritual Ptolomaic-Aristotelian cosmology
was replaced by the mechanical philosophy, which saw the natural world as
essentially inert, dead… governed by regular laws (which were ultimately
divinely created).’
One approach to this
issue is adopted by those who oppose the ‘mechanistic use of reason’ associated
with the particular view of scientific method adopted by e.g. Malthus, Bacon,
Newton, Descartes. Instead it is argued that we must adopt a more ‘wholistic’
or ‘organic’ approach.
Others, e.g. Fritjof
Capra believe there are links to be made with quantum physics to find a better
understanding of science (Bookchin, M in Dobson, 1995, p 40).
See also:
Notes on the environmental movement especially
section 4 d