The following is based on part eight of Jacob Bronowski’s BBC series on the history of science and invention, “The Ascent of Man” (1973). This one is about the rise of industry:
In the late 1700s there were three revolutions: one in France, one in America and one in England. In France and America they overthrew their kings and said that all men are created equal and born with certain rights. In England they did not do that, they did something even better: through the rise of industry they gave the man in the street a degree of wealth and freedom that in the past belonged only to kings and other top people.
We are still in the middle of that Industrial Revolution – or we better be because there are still plenty of things to get right. But despite all of its evils, the old days were far worse: many died of the plague or childbirth, ordinary people did not have soap, cotton underwear or glass in their windows – things we take for granted. We feel we can make of our lives what we want of them – in the old days it was hard work from sunup to sundown. Where would most of us be if we were born before 1800?
The revolution was made by men who thought in just that way:
- that life is what you make of it: we are not ruled by the stars or fate;
- that inventions should be useful for the man in the street, not just playthings for the rich;
- that science is not just about the truth, as it was for Newton and Galileo, but about making society better.
A man in America in those days who was just like that was Benjamin Franklin. The Industrial Revolution began in Britain and not, say, in France, because it had far more men who thought that way and acted on it. Men like Josiah Wedgwood, Charles Darwin’s grandfather, who made china sets for queens and then made the very same thing (without the patterns) for the British midde-class.
These men did not go to Oxford and Cambridge. Partly because most of them could not: they did not belong to the Church of England. But also because the kind of men that Oxford and Cambridge produced did not think like that and would have never made an Industrial Revolution.
But the Industrial Revolution was more than just a certain way of thinking or even a bag of inventions, as important as they were. There were also changes in how people worked. For example, before 1760 craftsmen worked at home in villages at their own pace; after 1820 the common practice was to bring workers into a factory to make things there, working with machines.
It also led to a new view of nature that the Romantic poets wrote about. Wordsworth put it this way in 1798 in “Tintern Abbey”:
For nature then…
To me was all in all – I cannot paint
What then I was. The sounding cataract
Haunted me like a passion
See also:
- Jacob Bronowski: The Majestic Clockwork – part 7
- Ammianus – just to compare see how differently people thought in, say, the Roman Empire in the fourth century.
It always amazes me how things we accept as axioms were never a part of human thought for 99% of our history. You wonder how people will think 1,000 years from now.
LikeLike
Right: we take that kind of thinking for granted but that is because we live in an age created by men who thought that way. Through most of history you grew up to do what your father or mother did.
We admire men like Leonardo and Archimedes, who bent science to common use, but men like that were rare before the 1700s.
LikeLike
The only reason knowledge of science was confined to a small group of people was communication.
Books were rare and the people who knew science were an infinitesmal segment of humanity.
Today, virtually all scientific knowledge is universally available and books are free. Why, then, do so few people know anything about science? Answer — They don’t want to.
Today’s stumbling block is human unwillingness to learn science and math. Nevertheless, the US patent office is a busy place.
Meanwhile, today’s inventions are even more impressive than ever.
LikeLike
George Washington Carver made the peanut great!
~ RUN DMC
LikeLike
Would you say that the industrial revolution was primarily an economic or social revolution?
LikeLike