lecture 6, "workshop and factory"
john merriman

-----

today: large-scale industrialization and workers

two general points: (1) everywhere, the industrial revolution was first and foremost a continuation of previous forms of production (the "break" is overemphasized); traditional ways of producing things (domestic industry, etc.) were critical. the second industrial revolution (circa 1850), with electricty, steel, large-scale units of production, is more like the popular understanding. (2) people who did economic history tended to see britain as a classical case of industrialization, and tended to see france as a "retarded" case--the reason was that if you added up the numbers of factories or steam engines, france lagged behind, of course. (but until the mid-19th century, of course, france is the second largest industrial economy in the world). one of the reasons that economic historians argue that france couldn't become a major industrial leader was because capital formation was more difficult (banking and insurance less developed), and disadvantaged also because of geography (in england, 1819, you had railroads carrying coal to important sites quickly; in france, however, mining sites are far from points of production). prof is arguing, though, that industrialization still proceeds in quite significant way at this time, but not "conventionally" -- i.e., it involves domestic industry, rural industry, "putting-out work" done largely by women. in 1871, in paris, the average industrial workshop in paris had only 7 people working in it (very different from manchester and sheffield). BUT: of course, over the long run, large-scale industrialization does develop more and more (story of 1850s/1860s)--in order to have this kind of investment/transformation, you need a surplus of capital and an increase in food production (agricultural revolution).

until 10 years ago, people still talked about the "long depression" (1873-1890s), characterized by low prices, and particulalry hurts rural people (percentage of people in industry is 27.6% in 1876, 29.2% in 1896), though. so we musn't overstate these transformations? (unclear what point is here)

number of people that are "urban": 1872, 21.1%; in 1901, 40.9%. but prof arguing that this can also overstate, because the level of urbanization is still not comparable to the US, prussian empire before 1871--this is primarily the urbanization of very small places, of market-towns.

so we are dealing with a society in which production is overwhelmingly rural, even if the country is becoming a major kind of industrial-producing country.

-----

urbanization is happening, of course, largely due to the "great departure"--people leaving rural areas for cities. you have huge growth in the industrial north, prof is noting. diseases and crises severly devastate rural industries (prof is not supplying a very coherent narrative, however).

flows of this sort, though, began earlier (in 16th centuries, huge migrations from the south all the way to paris, on foot(!), to work on construction industries in the cities).

"depopulation", again, is one of the most salient processes in rural areas throughout this period (new jobs, industry in urban areas, the story of this time)

-----

where is industry?

62.1% of the people in the "nord" are workers--the purest of the proletarian departments. cities growing into each other near lille (mining and textile industries). in the paris regions, of course--but here more high-quality goods being produced, not the mass-produced rubbish of england (products of quality, not victorian junk). fine clothes still being made, put together by individual men and women at home, that are part of the industrial structure of paris. outside, in the hinterland, the suburbs, you have the "dirty production" (soap, chemicals, etc.). and then, though, you have lyon in the south, which becomes a big industrial center--soap, silk production of france. and you still have merchant capital going into rural areas to look for cheap labor in the form of rural females, of course.

in sum, though not gifted with primary waterways, etc., you still have industrial production of some kind in every part of france.

-----

one of the things that hurts french industry, says prof, is that french capitalists start investing abroad in railroads (in italy, spain, etc.). so you have brits saying that the french will never catch up, because french capital is going abroad, and peasants are hiding their savings under their bed.

-----

what about the role of women?

obviously crucial in france, as elsewhere in industrial revolutions ("extremely important and persistent").

again, the story is more continuities than dramatic change (women had always worked in industrial production--and they still do!). we've exaggerated the separation of work and home, and thus underestimated the role of women in all of this.

if you look at industrial production of these fine garments and handbags, many of them are made by single women working by themselves on the very top floors (working for merchant capitalists)--just as their predecessors had done two centuries before. to be sure, they gradually moved into factory production.

at the same time, what does not change is the women's management of the household--women's role in the household economy is always extraordinarly important.

furthermore, aspects of women's work that is not industrial does not change: in england, in 1850 and 1880, the largest two female occupations are textile operatives and domestics (many women come to cities and place themselves in domestic service, of course--and you see, at this time, attempts to combat infanticide committed by these single women in cities, so there are organized foundling homes. though, through the 1870s, in these homes, 1/3 of all the babies die!) this is also the road to prostitution, tragically.

women are the "last hired" and the "first fired," always.

you see socialists, at this time, very concerned about women's wages and unions, but don't support the right of women to go to vote (because they're perceived as church-going and loyal to the priest). don't get the right until after WWII.

-----

in sum: gradually, then, domestic industry implodes into factories on the edge of french cities, big and small--the organization of production, in this sense, is changing. but what women do, doesn't change, they're still doing textile industry work, but in factories. (so, in this sense: the classic picture of industrialization ends up being right, but more gradually and less uniformly than the modernizers might like us to think. the question, of course, remains: is it ok to think in these generalities, when they're being confirmed to be largely correct?)

-----

child labor, too, is of course critical.

-----

how workers viewed what was happening to them?

three things: (1) and (2) proletarianization is both an objective and subjective concept; (3) how workers viewed their bosses and their factories? 1896-1907 has been called the heroic age of syndicalism/unions/strikes.

in america, "you work hard you'll make it"--obviously that's not the case. similarly, there is social mobility in france, but it was, as always, extremely limited for people born into the working-class. in 1968, one of the big issues that students and professors had was that you could work your ass of and your chances of getting into universities weren't very high (and even if you got through there, you would be unlikely to get a great job). people born into a life of hard work, and you would get those jobs.

the more you read about 1890s, the more you learn about how terrible working-lives were. so there's an objective status of being oppressed.

and the subjective aspect, of course, is "class consciousness" (even as people, of course, have multiple identities). one of the reasons there are so many strikes: has to do with people coming to a sense of being conscious of themselves as a working-class, who view the state and the wealthy as conflicting interests. this really begins in the 1830s, in france (socialism first used in 1834).

it's at this point where artisans begin to see themselves as working-class (even though there's always a tension with the uneducated working-class) -- and they create the strike (even though theyr'e well-dressed, etc.). why? why do artisans start targeting capitalism and the state? (1) because of the french revolution, guild protections are gone--anyone can be any trade you want. the old protections are gone. there's serious competition, artisans are making less and less money. (2) industrialization, mechanized production--undercutting the work of crafstmen, by dumping cheaper goods on the market. some comes with capital and employs these craftsmen to make parts of clothing--integrating them into chains of production, etc. (prof's narrative is weak, alas--not coherent...)

gradually, artisans began to ally themselves with ordinary, unskilled workers.

------

how do workers see this?

the organization was "impressive", the factory's response was "depressing", says prof.

during strikes, what was the image that workers had of their bosses? in 1820s and 1830s, when artisans went on strike, they knew the boss, but were kind of mad at him--"you ought to be the guy you can be". fairly good relations, so he may help them out. a paternalistic relation. in 1850s and 1860s, very different--the vocabulary of the people on strike is transformed. personal characterizations that are much more antagonistic. and in the 1890s and 1900s, it has changed dramatically--something has changed in the way people view their own work ("industrial discipline"). now the boss is often in paris, telling the foremen how to deal with the workers. he has become a symbol of capitalism, backed by the state and its army. he's the symbol of a large-scale, oppressive system. the foreman represents the attempt to impose "industrial discipline"--fine for chattering, fired for doing X, etc., etc. ("the three ages of industrial discipline")

so the attempt to create this kind of perfect workforce helps explain this mobilization and calcification of consciousness/identity.