HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/anarchy/essays/schoolsucks/victor.txt

Text File | 1996-04-27 | 8KB | 130 lines

The Differences In The Social Classes Of Mid-Victorian England

I. Introduction
In the Mid-Victorian period in English history there were distinct class
differences in its society.   There were three classes in England.
These were the Aristocracy, the Middle-Class (or Factory owners)  and
the working class.  Each class had specific characteristics that defined
its behavior.  These characteristics were best seen in four areas of
British society.

        During the time-period known by most historians as the
Industrial Revolution, a great change overtook British culture.  Aside
from the political and economic change which occurred, a profound social
alteration transpired.  The populace seeking to better their lives,
sought employment in newly-formed industries.  Many of the workers which
included women and children, labored through 12 hour work shifts, with
poor  nutrition, poor living conditions and completing tedious tasks1.
These factors, accompanied by various ideological precepts by Britain's
intellectual community, and those concepts imported from France, provoke
a crucial social evolution.  Though no government was overthrown, a
distinct transformation took place causing rebellious behavior to erupt
among the working class.  This essay will address the questions of how
and why this behavior was expressed by the lower order of British
society.  It will also discuss methods the ruling class used in
suppressing and controlling the rebellious behavior exhibited by the
working class.
         The middle class held to two basic ideologies that served in
the exploitation of the lower order of the British society.    Richard
Atlick  identified them as Utilitarianism (or Benthamism) and
Evangelicalism.  Both served the self-interested inclinations of the
middle class.  Utilitarianism created the need to fulfill a principle of
pleasure while minimalization pain.  In the context of the "industrial
revolution" this meant that the pleasure extracted from life would be at
the working classes' expense.  This provided a perfect justification for
the middle class to capitalize on.  The working class of Britain,
throughout the industrial revolution and through the Victorian age,
acted in a defiant manner toward both the aristocracy and middle class.
 This behavior extended from the everyday activities of the workers to
radical anarchist movements that categorized the underground.
        The middle class seemed to be just as familiar with the inverse
of Benthamism as they were with its normal application.  The pleasure
principle was measured in terms of minimalization of pain.  If the sum
of pain, in a given situation, is less than the sum of pleasure, than it
should be deemed pleasurable.  The inverse principle applied to the
working class was how pain (work) can be inflicted, with the absolute
minimum distribution of pleasure (wages), without creating an uprising.
        This was seen in Andrew Ure's article.  He eloquently defended
the  industrial system and dismissed the infractions as conjecture.
However, the argument made by Ure clearly pointed to the existence of
disciplinary actions being performed by the industrialist and how these
were allowed by the government.  His argument stated that no employer
wished  to beat their young employees and, if it occurred, then it was
on a small level.  The argument did not condemn the use of physical
discipline.  It did not directly acknowledge its occurrence, but neatly
circumvented the issue by saying it was not the "wishes" of the
employer.  This was an example of the beliefs of the middle class to
take disciplinary and suppressive actions taken against the working
class.
        The second, Evangelicalism, was considered to be selfish because
of its inflexibility toward actions outside of its moral realm.  The
Church at that time would help the poor only to pacify its conscience.
Andrew Mearns, in his article " The Bitter Cry of Outcast London",
investigated the misery of the working class and exhorted the church for
inactivity on the working classes behalf.  He stated that "whilst we
have been building our churches and solacing ourselves with our religion
. . . the poor have been growing poorer, the wretched more miserable,
and the immoral more  corrupt."  He continued, listing detailed accounts
of how the lower class survived and suffered.  It was written to evoke a
reaction from the church attending middle class.
        Isolated by these ideologies and rigid social class
distinctions, the lower class began to resent the industrialists that
employed them.  There were basically two types of radicals that followed
a more active part in expressing their disdain for the system that
imprisoned them; as discussed in the book Radical Underworld.  The first
group of radicals engaged in carousing, pamphleteering and the
proliferation of pornography.  This printing and distribution of
resistant and even seditious material toward the system was frowned upon
by the government.  The carousing and debauched behavior was a
rebellious social statement emphasizing the lower classes' rejection of
the hypocritical social restraint the middle class attained to.  A
second group of radicals pursued their anarchist agendas to the point of
destroying machinery in an unbeseeming manner.  These extremists
performed any act that would disrupt the system and discredit the
government by making it appear inept at stopping the social unrest.
This was a direct reaction to the isolation caused by the difference in
social class.
        The behavior of the working class was termed rebellious by the
middle  class and aristocracy of British society.  The expression
"rebellious" characterized their deviation from the conservative norms
established by the middle-class.  James Phillips Kay argued that the
environment industrialization created in Britain was responsible for the
cultivation of this immoral behavior.  He continued by pointing out the
"ceaseless drudgery" of the work that the person must perform; "in
squalid wretchedness, on meagre food and expends his superfluous gains
on debauchery."  This allowed the working class to justify their
departure from the illusionary "traditional" values the middle class
promoted and their adoption of a  system fitting to their social
environment.
        Adam Smith justified the oppressive environment that the working
class was subjected to was in his work "Wealth of Nations".  He
introduced the concept of "Laisser - faire" to government and its role
in the economy.  By adopting the "hands off " policy, the British
government created an environment which was conducive to a pure state of
capitalism.  In this mode, the industries were given a blank check for
the exploitation of the  working class.  The result was large-scale
urbanization and industrialization that produced hideous living and
working conditions.
        Various ideologies arose from intellectuals and radicals of
England, Ireland and the ensuing French revolution.  These ideas of
liberty, rights, equality and revolution were introduced to the masses
and prompted the motivation for change. However, revolution never
occurred as the government allowed the working class opportunities to
vent its social frustrations.  These "opportunities" were found in the
lower classes  leisure time.  Spending time in pubs, theaters, music
halls and sporting activities created an outlet for the miserable and
unhappy.
        Thus, the rebellious behavior exhibited by the working class of
the British society was demonstrated in everyday life and justified by
both the living and working conditions of workers.  The issue of the
disciplinary and suppressive actions initiated by the middle and ruling
class was deliberate and calculated.  This discipline was used in
culling the behavior of the working class and maximizing its
productivity.   Industrialization and urbanization took a toll on the
British lower social order, but, consequently, did not push it into a
revolution.  This is to the credit of a society that had the ability to
express  itself in coping with social inconsistencies and change.