The decades before World War I marked the upheaval of many previously held scientific ideas. Mathematics, especially, became a more abstract concept that moved farther away from the real world. Oftentimes, ideas developed out of nowhere simply because they could plausibly solve some problem, not because they were actually in existence. However, as in the case of physics, facts were found and analyzed through legitimate observation. The idea of eugenics developed before genetics, but both were extremely politically charged because they were seen as directly relating to the innate superiority of certain races or classes of people. Evolution also fed into this political theme. Marxism was therefore the only major science-related ideology that continued unmarred, although the upheaval in thinking really only directly affected a minority of people. Inevitably, the spread of science and reason, along with the rise in social sciences, led to a conflict with religion. This was emphasized by an increase in pushes toward revolution, which actually succeeded in some of the less stable nations (the Ottoman Empire, Russia, etc.). A world war quickly became inevitable, although a straightforward cause is unrecognizable. Capitalist development and imperialism were both blamed. The arms race was extremely exciting, especially since the possibility for a major economic shift according to the outcome of the war was highly likely. Overall, World War I was unexpected, even by those who participated. Patriotism rose to a new level as millions of citizens enthusiastically responded to the call to arms. Later, nearly everyone would wonder what had happened to the era of peace and progress to make such a major shift occur.
To me, the change in thinking that occurred in the field of mathematics greatly reflects the overall change that occurred in society’s mindset around that time. Leading into the 1920’s, priorities vastly shifted, at least in America. Everything became more airy and removed, while at the same time, it became more extravagant. This again reminds of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. In the novel, the characters were extremely focused on fulfilling the “American Dream,” which consisted of having an excess of money and time so that one could enjoy their leisure through elaborate parties and celebrations. Hobsbawm describes how mathematics became increasingly distant from the “real world” and centered more on its own rules. I found it interesting that the general shift in society seemed to be toward the same ideology.
Along the lines of my previous paragraph (meaning society’s viewpoint), I would have been very interested to learn how pulling away from the church inadvertently led to such a drastic change in society. Hobsbawm describes the emergence of “sexologists” and Sigmund Freud, who created a stir among the accepted beliefs related to impulse. It makes sense to me that people would be more open to exploring “taboo” topics as they grew farther away from church and religion, but I would have liked to know why the Church did not employ more preventative measures. Did the Church not learn that it loses when it tries to go against popular notions? I realize that proclamations against birth control and other similar topics might be seen as such endeavors by the Church, but I would have thought that some attempt to reconcile science and religion would have been made. I wish Hobsbawm had more fully explained the reaction of the Church to science and the effect this had on society as a whole.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Education, Religion and War
This weeks readings focused more on the sciences, and the mind than the previous chapters. Hobsbawm takes us through the decades leading up to the First World War. It was a rare period where people’s entire way of viewing the universe changes in a short period of time. During this period physics was turned upside down. Due to these changes in how people saw the universe, people reacted in many different ways. One way that Hobsbawm mentions is by rejecting “reason and science altogether” (262). Many people also were self-educating during this period due to the increase in the working class, and more and more emphasis was being put on education and reading. With the emphasis on education increasing the number of “school teachers grew by anything between one-third…to seven or even thirteen times its 1875 figure” (263). With the increase in education and science, people were beginning to move away from their superstitions and from religion. Although, there were societies were religion remained very strong, thus “on a global scale, it would be absurd to think of religion as significantly weaker in 1914 than in 1870” (265). The decrease in religion was also related to urbanization almost directly. In this weeks readings the growth of Marxism is also talked about. Marxism received a strong following partially due to the fact that it interested intellectuals. There began to be a new separation between history and science with the theory of evolution. These centuries before the First World War had turmoil because “the bourgeois century destabilized its periphery” by undermining its economic structure and destroying trust in its political regimes (277). Social unrest led to the lives of Europeans after 1914 being shaped by wars. While there was unrest, no one truly expected war, although it had been growing nearer and nearer since the start of the 1900’s. Hobsbawm ends the reading in 1914 and a tortured world where war, upheavals and explosions would take over much of the next decades.
One of Hobsbawm’s interesting quotes in this weeks readings is about revolutions, he states that “the ancient empires…seemed destined for collapse” (279). I found this interesting because I feel like whenever nations become powerful others say they are destined to fail. Why did Hobsbawm state that these powerful nations seemed destined to fall? Because all great nations fall?
One thing I thought interesting was Hobsbawm’s way of describing the intellectual transformation. The way he went into detail and gave a visual about seeing the world through an architect’s eye fascinated me. The world used to be “a building made of facts,” until evolution was discovered (244). The other thing I found interesting was that during this period that science and reasoning took over religion to an extent, such as “in Marseilles half the population still had attended Sunday worship in 1840, but by 1901 only 16 per cent did so” (265). If you lived in this period would you lean away from religion or not? Relating to my previous question about religion, do you think the weakening of religion was related to the separation between history and science? If you had grown up in a religious family and then heard about the theory of evolution what do you think you would believe?
One of Hobsbawm’s interesting quotes in this weeks readings is about revolutions, he states that “the ancient empires…seemed destined for collapse” (279). I found this interesting because I feel like whenever nations become powerful others say they are destined to fail. Why did Hobsbawm state that these powerful nations seemed destined to fall? Because all great nations fall?
One thing I thought interesting was Hobsbawm’s way of describing the intellectual transformation. The way he went into detail and gave a visual about seeing the world through an architect’s eye fascinated me. The world used to be “a building made of facts,” until evolution was discovered (244). The other thing I found interesting was that during this period that science and reasoning took over religion to an extent, such as “in Marseilles half the population still had attended Sunday worship in 1840, but by 1901 only 16 per cent did so” (265). If you lived in this period would you lean away from religion or not? Relating to my previous question about religion, do you think the weakening of religion was related to the separation between history and science? If you had grown up in a religious family and then heard about the theory of evolution what do you think you would believe?
Revolution!
(This post is likely to go better with the following music [this post will not be televised] again, if you are particularly offended by certain types of language, you may not enjoy all of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3098rDY9s4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rZbvi6Tj6E&feature=PlayList&p=D00C878167B66DBC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWlvOolOic4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez1bcd9d8ps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiF5dtsB1Gc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QG4iImf8pY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzZ6GsSpsUQ&feature=PlayList&p=A2E9CA2B3CD9189C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBYoNYuUVk0&feature=PlayList&p=2DAE19684041B4B8&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvvwIvzs8nE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuc4BI5NWU&feature=PlayList&p=C6D452AD502DA4EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15 )
You work 12 hours a day. You make minimal money, and can just barely afford to feed your family, if you are lucky enough to make that much. You have no rights in society. Your government preaches democracy, but seems to leave you behind. You try to bring your concerns to your boss, who doesn’t own you, but he may as well. He doesn’t care. You bring your troubles to the attention of “your” government…they don’t care either. You are put down at every turn of life, and are denied access to basic services, food, or education, ensuring your children will forever have to deal with these horrendous conditions, and will never climb out of it. You have nowhere to go, so what options do you have? Too many throughout history (particularly in the late 19th century, early 20th century) the answer is simple.
Revolution.
This week in class and in Hobsbawn we discussed the idea of revolution and its goals, tactics, styles, and effectiveness throughout time. Particularly, we talked about the similarities between the revolutions of peasants, industrial workers, and others in the 1700s, 1800s, early 1900s and today. Particularly, it was noted that the goals of revolution have changed. For instance, the much discussed French Revolution of 1789 had a completely different set of goals and tactics than the Civil Rights Movement or pro-democracy protests in Beijing in 1989, or even the operations of the Weather Underground or guerrilla movements in Cuba and around the world. In France in 1789 (and subsequently throughout nineteenth century France and around Europe) the pattern was simple: “the people,” usually in relative disorder, storm a government building, normally something symbolic or useful (that stores weapons), barricades are erected in various cities, and the rebellion becomes more organized as urban fighting takes place. Unless it was peasant initiated, that was the pattern (peasant rebellions began sporadically in the country until gaining enough power and attacking a city, then it follows, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_revolution for a variation on that theme). Later, other targets for armed revolts turned to media (particularly in coups and revolts in Latin America and the “third world”) where the first goal was state owned media, which served as a precursor to the later non-violent movements (though not all were later, like Indian independence). In the present day, the goal isn’t necessarily to destroy or replace the state, but to pressure it into acting according to the will of the people. Instead of taking over state media, the goal is often to gain the attention of the world media, creating pressure on the governments of the world to lend support. Often this is used in non-violent attempts more than violent revolutions, which mostly resort to guerrilla tactics and irregular warfare.
So why are some revolutions successful? This is an often-asked question, but I think the more correct answer is if any revolutions are successful. In most cases, the goal of a rebellion is to improve the life of the downtrodden underclass. Often though, even a “successful” revolution will simply create a different underclass. Certainly some cases will see limited success (labor organizing, expanded rights for groups, etc), but almost always the wide, sweeping change is denied, or simply does not occur. Why is that, and what is the ultimate effect of that on the people of this planet?
Revolution
Hobsbawm focuses his attention in Chapter 12, of the book, The Age of Empire 1875-1914 on Revolution. Revolution as defined in class as “violent seizure of state power through class-based revolts from below,” allows for an insight. A fifteen year time period is described a belle époque which in basic terms is a “Golden Age,” for the upper class at least. This was a time of possible and inevitable revolutions in the future. Many ancient empires are accounted for and their demise and rebirth with new governments, mostly reformed to Western standards, as the case of the Japanese. A few such cases are that of the Russian, Chinese, Habsurg, Ottoman, Mexican, and Irish empires to name a few took place. Ancient empires should not be crumbling unless due to some sort of legitimate cause, so why the need for revolution?
Revolts in this time period consistently occurred wherever there was internal pressure such an upset working class, not to mention under educated. I believe the people revolted one reason internally is to be find equality with westerners and upper class alike. Governments like Russia’s misuse of peasant labor, serfdom, certainly cause a suppressed upheaval in it population. The case of China and many of its ancient views led to revolution and rebellion. Empires such as these were not without their external influences as well. The West played a huge role in shaping the East. The core empires did not have much to worry about but many of the periphery countries were affected by the West. The Irish as they sought independence from Britain, and Poland as they were torn between Germany and Russia as well. The United States and other Western Empires played a key role economically and socially to influence revolution in empires throughout the world. The book goes on in detail to describe reasons of internal and external cause for revolution and change in major empires, ancient and small.
While I find revolutions are necessary to accomplish goals of change especially when in absolute rule, these revolutions were destined to come about in these ancient empires. The only way for survival is adaptation and these empires were stuck on the old ways. Suppressing the rising working class and ancient narrow minded views led inhabitants to want reform. People do not “rebel” without at least a solid cause to support. I feel it was inevitable for such reforms to occur do you?
Revolts in this time period consistently occurred wherever there was internal pressure such an upset working class, not to mention under educated. I believe the people revolted one reason internally is to be find equality with westerners and upper class alike. Governments like Russia’s misuse of peasant labor, serfdom, certainly cause a suppressed upheaval in it population. The case of China and many of its ancient views led to revolution and rebellion. Empires such as these were not without their external influences as well. The West played a huge role in shaping the East. The core empires did not have much to worry about but many of the periphery countries were affected by the West. The Irish as they sought independence from Britain, and Poland as they were torn between Germany and Russia as well. The United States and other Western Empires played a key role economically and socially to influence revolution in empires throughout the world. The book goes on in detail to describe reasons of internal and external cause for revolution and change in major empires, ancient and small.
While I find revolutions are necessary to accomplish goals of change especially when in absolute rule, these revolutions were destined to come about in these ancient empires. The only way for survival is adaptation and these empires were stuck on the old ways. Suppressing the rising working class and ancient narrow minded views led inhabitants to want reform. People do not “rebel” without at least a solid cause to support. I feel it was inevitable for such reforms to occur do you?
Blog 7
A lot of information was covered in these chapters. There was a new age of science. One that went far beyond what the world as used… so far in fact that many people did not believe and even tried to punish these new scientist. Also, while science was growing so was art. Along with this growth was the growth of knowledge. People were thinking of new ways to think right and left. However, in the midst of all of this growth, organized religion was being left in the dust. On the other hand, most of these advances were taking place in the western world so those countries that lay beyond were still in a more traditional time.
All of these advances and growths seem to me like a big step forward. However, they came with a price. It seems to me that the more a country developed itself scientifically, educationally, etc. the more likely it was to find a war to enter. During this time, war and revolution were on the mind of almost every man in the west. And unfortunately, it seems like they took out their desire on the periphery countries.
This began an age of fighting. With education and scientific and technology advancements came the knowledge that people could change the way they lived their lives. They were able to realize that they were not stuck in their ways and the ways of those who ruled over them. People began to understand that they could be independent. And they could have their own voice if they just put it out there in the right way.
Personally, I think this time was very important despite the blood shed. I feel like this is the time when people started to realize what was rightfully there. Without this time period, I think our society today would look completely different and I don’t think I would enjoy being a part of it.
--- Dorothy Smith
Thursday, October 22, 2009
From Religion to Science and Back Again
I like that a lot of people gravitated towards the portion of the readings about the rise of scientific thought and the subsequent "downfall" of religion. This is a particular area of interest of my own, and I very much liked Hobsbawn's discussion of it.
I think it's strange for us, living in America and being college students, to even conceive of what it was like to be first confronted with scientific thought, in an age when religion (and mostly religious superstition) was all people had, and all they had grown up to really comprehend.
When science (that is, SCIENCE!) first took hold of the minds of human beings, it was pretty hard for most people (even the most intelligent on the planet) to figure out what the hell was going on in the world around them.
In fact, it could easily be argued that Religion was man's first attempt at Science. Religion is, in its barest form, a crude, simplistic attempt to explain why things are the way they are. For most people, even today, it's still the best way to explain everything. Why does it rain? God makes it rain. Why is fire hot? Because God made it that way. Easy.
But when scientific thought started to arise, intelligent people started to get together and saying to each other "OK, so maybe God makes fire hot, but what exactly is fire? Why doesn't fire work in the rain? Why doesn't it work if you put a bucket over it? Are there a bunch of different ways of making fire, and are there things that are the same about all the different ways?"
So people started observing, really observing the world around them, and doing little experiments to see (for example) what were the specific processes involved in making fire. And that's science. It's basically religion, but taking it a step further. But people were so used to just floating through life in little happy clouds of the simple explanation that everything happens because of God, it was scary to them to hear people talking about how they had invented a new kind of fire, a bigger kind of fire, big explosions of fire that looked like God himself might have created the explosions, but he didn't it was just some guy. How are you supposed to deal with something like that? (Hobsbawn talks about this a lot too, the psychological problems people had in reconciling science and religions)
And that's basically the whole point of Philosophy. Philosophy is a discipline that I personally abhor, and the reason I don't like it is a perfect example of how pervasive Scientific Thought is now that it's pretty much become obsolete. I don't struggle with the sorts of problems with realizing the true nature of reality and being human because I've grown up in a modern, scientific society, and I've always accepted that it rains because of the cycle of water vapor, and that fire is a chemical process of the burning of a fuel and oxygen.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Award-Winning Actor Tom HanksAll these strides we've made scientifically and socially over the course of civilization was this really gradual buildup of all these small ideas piling on top of each other so modern, civilized societies like America are highly literate and have all this knowledge surrounding everyone so most people in this country never questions what the difference is between Right and Wrong, because they've been taught it over and over since birth, and we don't question that there are planets in the solar system and that the Earth revolves around the sun and that humans are made up of organs and tiny cells and cellular processes, because we've been taught it.
But that's the only difference between us and the people in the year 1900 who were still holding onto these superstitious religious beliefs that God was in control of everything and trying to understand how that fit in with these scary new steam engines and big smoke-spewing factories that were like magic, or something God could do, the only difference between us and those people is the societies we were raised in. We have the EXACT same brains as those people and the EXACT same inclinations to want to believe, with all our might, that there is life after death, that God (or SOMETHING) has a plan for us, that everything is not just random events and chaos and then death.
Humans are incredibly superstitious, and really bad at forming beliefs and hypotheses based on patterns, and if anyone's ever had a really bad day and decreed "I'm Having A Really Bad Day, Everything's Been Going Wrong Today (and more things will probably go wrong for the rest of the day," that's a perfect example of the really shitty way our brains work. We might read psychologists like Freud and think "this guy is a complete idiot, how could he possibly believe half the stupid things he's saying?" but barely a century before Freud the most intelligent people on the planet firmly believed that personality traits of a person can be derived from the shape of the skull.
We think we're so much smarter than our predecessors, but if all of us had been born in 1800, we could be studying the bumps on the skulls of convicted felons looking for similarities right now instead of the history of science.
-katie dempsey
Conclusion of book
The last chapters of this book have ended in a transitional period of science, religion, peace and war. New concepts of science were emerging into life with the development of industry, and machines and guns for war, and it became harder to understand. New ideas were starting to come out with led to progress which became a beacon of opportunity to new people. Industry was starting a new revolution from a predominantly agricultural society. A lot of the industry starting to be created was created for WWI and the technology needed for that war. The machines and guns were made by the new industries that were needed. WWI was a war that encountered major advancements for its time. Religion suffered for the western world with the rise of science and education. This was an age where reason was taking over, due to the rise in Nietzcheism and through education since science was becoming more advanced.
The importance of science to the western world had an increasing advantage for war. Chemical weapons were starting to be figured out, and the advancement of their guns and machines used were starting to be made with more skill. If the western world at this time were to start a massive attack on a “tribal” culture than the technology advancements for the developed countries would sure end many “tribal” cultures. The western world also used technology that created an arms race between many countries, and competition is not always bad. The advancements in technology led to globalization, and with that a country can communicate more effectively. The spread of the technology creates a competition that can bring a discovery to a more important stand point. A disease for example, can be found by one scientist but can prevented from spreading by a scientist in a different country.
The importance of science to the western world had an increasing advantage for war. Chemical weapons were starting to be figured out, and the advancement of their guns and machines used were starting to be made with more skill. If the western world at this time were to start a massive attack on a “tribal” culture than the technology advancements for the developed countries would sure end many “tribal” cultures. The western world also used technology that created an arms race between many countries, and competition is not always bad. The advancements in technology led to globalization, and with that a country can communicate more effectively. The spread of the technology creates a competition that can bring a discovery to a more important stand point. A disease for example, can be found by one scientist but can prevented from spreading by a scientist in a different country.
Blog -7
Chapters 10, 11, and 12 discussed the era leading up to the first World War, and how the emergence of science played a part in it. Hobsbawm discussed how the masses found it hard to understand science, and how it was a completely new way of thinking for people because people believed everything stemmed from religion. In the western world, there was a sort of religious reform in which religion became less of a priority. This new change in thought also led to a new outlook of the world where people were looking for self betterment through education. Obviously, this lead to revolution. Advancements in science, math, medicine, and physics, along with new concepts were also being examined, such as psychology and sociology.
The chapter which focused on distancing of the layman was a really interesting reading, a really new concept to me. In our modern world, it is IMPOSSIBLE for somebody to be a ‘scientist’. Today, science, for example, is much too broad, and each individual field is so in-depth that even then a person has a specialization in that field. At the turn of the 20th century any educated person actually knew a lot about science. If I had been alive back then, having one year of chemistry in high school, I would have been considered ‘highly educated’ . Today, because anyone who specializes in chemistry goes through years of schooling, I basically know nothing. People knew less then than we do now.
Hobsbawn discussed how religion was being devalued at the time, and how the science process deviated from the typical teachings and practices of religion. Was it because of science people stopped practicing religion, or was it because of less religion that more science was developed? It is a question of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
The chapter which focused on distancing of the layman was a really interesting reading, a really new concept to me. In our modern world, it is IMPOSSIBLE for somebody to be a ‘scientist’. Today, science, for example, is much too broad, and each individual field is so in-depth that even then a person has a specialization in that field. At the turn of the 20th century any educated person actually knew a lot about science. If I had been alive back then, having one year of chemistry in high school, I would have been considered ‘highly educated’ . Today, because anyone who specializes in chemistry goes through years of schooling, I basically know nothing. People knew less then than we do now.
Hobsbawn discussed how religion was being devalued at the time, and how the science process deviated from the typical teachings and practices of religion. Was it because of science people stopped practicing religion, or was it because of less religion that more science was developed? It is a question of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Commentary 7- Hobsbawm 10-13
The Age of Empire
Hobsbawm – Chapter 10-13
Commentary 7
Chapter 10 was probably my favorite of the chapters in Hobsbawm’s Age of Empire. Chapters 11, 12, and 13 present vital knowledge, key to a rounded understanding of history, but in my own life, Chapter 10 seems very pertinent. The Scientific Method is a systematic process of factually identifying truths. I have spent so much time using this method, but have never been educated on the history of its emergence.
I like how Hobsbawm identified two main effects of the age of enlightenment on society, but I would have preferred a more in depth description. The first outcome was the termination of one school of thought regarding the universe and onto new, factually based theories. Secondly, the idea of evolution materialized, ensuring the end of one era and the start of a new one.
It was especially interesting to picture the process of this scientific transformation in regards to the collective absorption of a new thought process. I imagine it was similar to learning something in class and relearning it to be something opposite, but to a revolutionary degree. How do you envision the process of modernizing and standardizing knowledge? What kind of negative effects did this change have on the common person?
Hobsbawm – Chapter 10-13
Commentary 7
Chapter 10 was probably my favorite of the chapters in Hobsbawm’s Age of Empire. Chapters 11, 12, and 13 present vital knowledge, key to a rounded understanding of history, but in my own life, Chapter 10 seems very pertinent. The Scientific Method is a systematic process of factually identifying truths. I have spent so much time using this method, but have never been educated on the history of its emergence.
I like how Hobsbawm identified two main effects of the age of enlightenment on society, but I would have preferred a more in depth description. The first outcome was the termination of one school of thought regarding the universe and onto new, factually based theories. Secondly, the idea of evolution materialized, ensuring the end of one era and the start of a new one.
It was especially interesting to picture the process of this scientific transformation in regards to the collective absorption of a new thought process. I imagine it was similar to learning something in class and relearning it to be something opposite, but to a revolutionary degree. How do you envision the process of modernizing and standardizing knowledge? What kind of negative effects did this change have on the common person?
aoe 10-13
In this week’s reading, Hobsbawm discusses decades leading up to WWI and the expansion of science and reason. First he talks about how the theories of science were hard to understand for most people because it completely changed the intellectual view of the world. Previously, science was thought about as a continual learning process that one day, complete knowledge would be attained, however, with this new science, knowledge was changing, evolving, and even being questioned. With this new intellectual ideology, emotion no longer played a role, and people were becoming more educated. I thought it was really interesting when Hobsbawm talks about this time period and the working class attitudes toward self-improvement and self-education. It seemed that all of a sudden during this time period, people were so eager to learn new theories and try to make sense of the world. In addition, with the rise of education, different fields of study also motivated to expand knowledge. For example, sociology wanted to understand the workings of society without just the aspects of politics and economics. Finally, Hobsbawm explains that with all this change of knowledge and thought, this naturally led toward a revolution.
Western Thought and Revolutions
In this week’s class we focused our discussion on the transformation of the Western mind, and revolution. In the late 1800’s education was on the rise, and there was an explosion in science. New discoveries were constantly being made, and the people had a much better understanding of the world around them. Religion’s power on society decreases as science gained influence, however people soon became disillusioned with science, just as they were disillusioned with religion. We also discussed how the politically and economically unstable periphery countries were ripe for revolution. The people were dissatisfied with colonial governments, social inequality and economic failure and the result was often violent revolt.
I found the discussion on the differences between historical and modern revolutions to be especially fascinating. Historical revolutions, such as the American Revolution focused on completely over throwing the government and creating a new government. Modern revolutions often focus on social reorganization, improving the existing government or gaining independence from foreign powers. The comparison between the French Revolution and the Tiananmen Square Protest exemplifies the differences. The French Revolution is described as the first modern revolution because the destruction of the monarchy was followed by the reorganization of society and class structure. The Tiananmen Square Protest differs in that it was a non-violent movement that called for political change, instead of a bloody and violent struggle for power. Both the French Revolution and Tiananmen Square can both be called “revolutions” in that they are the actions of an unhappy populace, but they took very different forms.
The comparison of these two events leads me to consider what makes a revolution successful. In class we mentioned that violent revolutions, often descend into chaos and infighting within the revolutionaries, unless the revolution is carefully organized from the beginning. In comparison, nonviolent revolutions are often seen as more respectable by outside observers, as revolutionaries calmly present their demands, and work towards a peaceful agreement, instead of outright destruction and warfare. Non-violent revolutions are also far easier to recover from, as no one was wounded and no infrastructure was destroyed. And while both methods of revolution can be successful, I would far prefer a non-violent revolt.
a world in turmoil
I think it's really interesting that Hobsbawn highlights how engulfed in war the world (and particularly Europe) has been for the last century. It's something that I didn't really think about before, either. Since the shadow of the first world war cast its shadow on Europe, it has forever been in some state of turmoil. Even when Europe was not in a direct war, it has always been surrounded by hostile tensions, if not in between (specifically, the cold war). Even after the cold war ended, tensions within and around the middle east continued to rise, and are still quite elevated. Though only a few countries in Europe are directly involved in the conflicts in the Middle East, the rest are unfortunately just along for the ride.
I think this is prevalent because of how many autonomous groups, or groups that desire autonomy (not even nations, really), in such a small area. It almost forces tensions to be high, because of all of the stepping on toes going on. I know there has been conflict for centuries in the middle east, and an end is still not very plausible, as well as in many parts of the world. I think the world has gotten too small, truthfully, for the amount of people and different groups that live on it. If people would be willing to move to another location and groups were more spread out, and utilized all the space of the world, it might work. But, no one wants to leave their land for various reasons (tradition, religion, status quo, etc).
I wonder though, what caused it to begin? And can it ever cease? Hobsbawn mentions that in the 1870's and before there wasn't even really much thought to tensions and large-scale conflict, but since then it has escalated and deescalated, but never really stopped existing. So how then did it begin, and can the same means be approached and ending it? As globalization becomes a universally shared goal, can we finally lay down our arms and begin to demilitarize? The sad part is, I don't really believe it's ever going to be possible.
10/22 Blog
I was always fascinated by men in previous eras that were specialists in many, many fields of study. This week’s readings looked into that, and helped me understand the change in laypeople and their relation to the sciences. The scientific revolution caused societies to be rethought in this era. Instead of relying on the church or common sense to solve everything, people began to look to science and educated people. The educated people became specialists, as the sciences became more in-depth and specialized. This sort of upheaval in the way of understanding the world had to deeply change the way people viewed the world, and it certainly did. There became a greater degree of openness to new ideas in this time period, where people stopped to listen to new ideas, instead of shutting them down completely and calling them ungodly.
Instead of seeing the world as a place to completely understand, in this era it became evident that knowledge and understanding was ever expanding. The more science discovers, the more to discover there is. This changed society completely, and allowed for more and more new ideas to spring up. There was finally no ‘right answer’ to be had. Also mass education was becoming popular, bringing those who would otherwise have not been educated into the mix. I’m sure that new ideas came out of the expansion of teaching.
I am interested, as always, in understanding why of all times did this sort of intellectual revolution occur at this time period. Why should people start listening to new ways of thinking now, when their old ideas usually worked in the past? Also, I find it interesting that religion and knowledge could not be reconciled. How and why did people start turning their backs on religion when this new intellectualism came about? Can the two live side by side?
--Arielle Parris
Science and Revolution
This week brought up a lot of interesting points about science and revolution. Hobsbawm discusses the influence science had on different cultures and societies during the time period discussed. Science brought a new understanding for the way we thought during this time period and was a revolution in itself. The transformation is broken down into two different kinds by Hobsbawm. One can be of intellectual thinking and the understanding of the universe. This was a huge leap for many cultures at this time as it separated the “intellectual structuring of the bourgeois world.” This way of thought almost eliminated the religious and spiritual beliefs of how our universe works proximately and ultimately. In order for this to happen there would have to be a societal change in which the church did not always have the right answer, and if someone else has a different explanation or reasoning society would have to allow them prove what they found before they were burned at the stake. Also, thinking became more about general intuition and common sense. I was trying to think of an example so if you have one call me out.
While people became more self aware with common sense, they also began to separate science from intuition. This had psychological effects on the new thinkers as well as the old. From talking about science and reasoning to discussing the revolutions occurring. Many revolutions were happening during this time period. These revolutions were mostly not the violent overthrowing of core governments as we have seen, but sub-revolutions that had great influences on society.
I feel like science or the evolution of self-awareness and common sense go hand and hand. I like how Hobsbawm discusses the different topics in the order that he does. He made it all come together for me and I do not study this time period on a regular basis. This is such an interesting time period as core countries find their identities, but are quickly changed by new ideas. I feel like this was a time period that started our exponential growth of knowledge and technology through science, and as a species we could not handle it. I am saying we could not handle it because we would soon move from a time of peace into a time of massive death and destruction. Science and technology allowed core countries to gain much more than the peripheries and this created chaos. I am interested in seeing what Hobsbawm goes into in his chapter from peace to war. Why after a time called the Golden Age or Gilded Age to we end up in a world war? And what can we learn from a time period like this?
While people became more self aware with common sense, they also began to separate science from intuition. This had psychological effects on the new thinkers as well as the old. From talking about science and reasoning to discussing the revolutions occurring. Many revolutions were happening during this time period. These revolutions were mostly not the violent overthrowing of core governments as we have seen, but sub-revolutions that had great influences on society.
I feel like science or the evolution of self-awareness and common sense go hand and hand. I like how Hobsbawm discusses the different topics in the order that he does. He made it all come together for me and I do not study this time period on a regular basis. This is such an interesting time period as core countries find their identities, but are quickly changed by new ideas. I feel like this was a time period that started our exponential growth of knowledge and technology through science, and as a species we could not handle it. I am saying we could not handle it because we would soon move from a time of peace into a time of massive death and destruction. Science and technology allowed core countries to gain much more than the peripheries and this created chaos. I am interested in seeing what Hobsbawm goes into in his chapter from peace to war. Why after a time called the Golden Age or Gilded Age to we end up in a world war? And what can we learn from a time period like this?
Blog for week of the 19th
From the discussion questions, I think people rebel because most obviously they do not agree with authority. In some ways, people feel that just stating your disdain for certain government platforms and regulations isn't enough and isn't justification enough for why you are against said platforms; these people want action and see that the only way to make a statement and perhaps make a change is by implementing rebellions or protests to make their voices heard to whomever is listening. Those "rebels" who deface buildings and cause violence in certain terms, are defeating the purpose of their cause: people only see their violence and therefore the rebels' ideals are blundered. While, peaceful protests may still not accomplish all, they are still standing for their cause by not turning to violence (usually their cause surrounding anti-violence in some way). Like that of the Tiananmen Square protests- the protesters were peaceful, but because they stood for exactly opposite of the government, the People's Liberation Army killed hundreds and injured many more protesters. While, the events that happened are sad and unfortunate, the Chinese government was seen in condemnation for their violent acts, therefore the protesters somehow proved that without Yaobang, there was corruption, even if it was through sad and horrifying ways.
AoE Commentary 4
Chapters 10-13 in Hobsbawm's AoE follow a general path to changes in certainty - as well as the belle epoque - and the consequences these upheavals had. The changes in the sciences I thought was an interesting phenomenon. Up until that point in time, many people were knowledgeable in science and the qualifications one had to be educated or a master in something were so minimal that one could be an expert of everything. However, with the changes in science and math based on less tangible ideas and more theoretical phenomenon, the laymen became greatly distanced from science and math. In addition, the sciences became something hard to understand and more complicated in depth and concepts. Hence, it was no longer feasible to be an expert in everything as there was so much knowledge to be had. One could say there was a scholarly specialization that went on during this time. The schools of thought like Nietzscheism also changed how people thought and what was thought of the belle epoque.
With all these changes occurring in the schools of thought and what everybody knew to be facts about society and the universe, there was naturally a move toward revolution as a response to the upheaval. I think this in context of preWWI is closely tied to nationalism. Minority groups [whether by virtue of size or rights] combined nationalism with what is considered revolutionary - violence - in order to bring about change. I find Hobsbawm's statement in an eariler chapter, that the masses do not fully understand sometimes that complete social change is needed to implement they changes they want, i.e. they want these specific changes without changing the whole system.
Going along with the nationalism, people in WWI at first were very patriotic and surprisingly, there was a small amount of people who resisted or skipped out on the draft. As can be seen my sentiments in the later WWI and post WWI, this enthusiasm was really a result of the people expecting the war to be quick, short and easy. People in Britain and France surely thought they would win the war quickly and maintain their supremacy and get rid of the German problem quite easily. This obviously was not the case. The chapters leading up to the final chapter in AoE is quite fittedly a rendition of the consequences of the long chain of events and phenomenon described in the preceding chapters.
I found the chapter regarding the distancing of the layman and science very interesting. Obviously, in today's day and age, everybody is not a scholar and everybody is not a scientist. This roles are specialized. I found it interesting to see that at one point everybody knew a lot about science. However, it is important to point out that "a lot" back then was not much now, because as a whole, we knew less back then as compared to now.
I understand how sciences changed and how people and society changed based on these changes. However, I am unsure about the equivalent changes and responses in reason, and also philosophy, like nietzscheism?
The Age of Empire
In chapters 10 and 11 in the novel The Age of Empire Hobsbawm explores the theories of science and reason. During the decades leading up to the World War I a transformation in the sciences started to occur. Although transforming, not everyone saw or could understand the direction science was heading. Only a few countries saw the tranformation of science and within those countries only a few citizens could comprehend the changes. The transformation also changed the intellectual view in which the world was previously seen. Up until this point the world was seen in terms of a building which eventually would be completed and all knowledge would be known about. During this time knowledge was now seen as continually changing and evolving, meaning no one person could comprhend everything science had to offer. With the rise of intellectualism and reason emotion no longer had a role in society, as well as the supernatural. The masses at this time were becoming more widely educated. In countries such as Great Britain the number of teachers increased by thirteen times the previous amount. In Europe traditional religion started to have a diminshing role while in nonwhite countries religion was still a large part in communicating about science and politics. In large urban areas church attendence decreased while in politics there were fights against the church. In a time where science and reason were on the rise the church rejected reason and progress and therefore lost members. Through the rise of reason and intuition came the science of sociology. Sociology attempted to understand a society in ways that economics and politics could not.
What I find interesting about the growth of science is how the church was impacted. When science started to play a larger role in society the role of the church, at least in western societies, started to diminish. Although I can understand how reason and the church may be seen as opposites, because church is based on faith not facts, I dont see how so many people turned their back on the church. Although this transformation took place over decades the decrease in church importance seems to be a little out there. Although maybe not explained in the book when did church once again gain importance? Because we live in a world today where reason and science are pretty prevolent, yet church is still important. When did the change come back around?
What I find interesting about the growth of science is how the church was impacted. When science started to play a larger role in society the role of the church, at least in western societies, started to diminish. Although I can understand how reason and the church may be seen as opposites, because church is based on faith not facts, I dont see how so many people turned their back on the church. Although this transformation took place over decades the decrease in church importance seems to be a little out there. Although maybe not explained in the book when did church once again gain importance? Because we live in a world today where reason and science are pretty prevolent, yet church is still important. When did the change come back around?
AGE OF EMPIRE 10-13
In The Age of Empire, Chapters 10 through 13, Hobsbawm summarizes the history and progression of the global structure right up until World War I. From science to religion, from nationalism to imperialism, and from sexism to war he really delves into the pre World War I period and meticulously explains the political, economic, scientific, and social. Here are a few points throughout the chapters that I found interesting: in chapter 10, I thought the way Hobsbawn describes the progress of science was extremely pertinent to the era. He explains the “transformation” in two distinct ways—intellectual and political. The first implied an end of an understanding of the universe in the view of the engineer or architect. The second implied simply “evolution” or progress, by means of which the state could grow, prosper, and conquer in the eyes of the bourgeois. Another point that interested me was the evolution of the social sciences, especially sociology. Hobsbawm depicts the field (not an academic subject because it was not yet that well defined) of sociology as the first education endeavor to explore the transformation of peoples and societies over history. In this era, the political was the most important of the so called sociological topics. Lastly, in chapter thirty I thought the third quote opening up the chapter was odd in some form. It said, “We will glorify war—world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for women”( 302). First off, I believe this statement, which emphasized the words militarism and patriotism, reinforces Hobsbawm’s main point—the dominance of imperialism and nationalism in the world before the time leading up to World War I. However, the last part of the quote,” …and scorn for women” I do not quite understand. I do not understand why Hobsbawm decided to keep this part of the statement in or even why the original speaker needed to add this statement to the sentence. Although women did not even have the right to vote in America at this time, women were treated respectfully. Why would anyone equate war (in the modern sense) to scorning women? And what is the purpose of Hobsbawn inserting this statement at the beginning of the chapter?
In the Epilogue, the author describes the distinction by prominent figures of the time that war aids the development of industry. In fact, the author describes the first time the idea that war was not only an economic developer, but a political necessity. My question is why was this idea not expressed earlier? Was the advancement of technology and the need for industry because of this technology, the only reason industry flourished? Without these advancements, what would have happened?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Hobsbawm chapter 13
Hobsbawm’s chapter thirteen discusses the transition from a relatively peaceful Europe to one of war. Before 1914, Europeans enjoyed a period of peace. However, this concluded and Europe was presented with a new sensation; world war. Back when this book was written in 1987, approximately every European over the age of seventy had experienced two world wars. Their children were not immune to this and had their chance to experience WWII (Hobsbawm 302). Even after these two world wars peace did not ever truly return to Europe. Hobsbawm believes that even though the fighting has spread beyond the borders of Europe, its people are still affected. The clod war hung over Europe until the 90’s, three years after Hobsbawm’s book was published. These were frightening times, living in the shadow of a third world war, one of devastating consequences. Nuclear technology left the world in fear, which was only put to ease with the competition between sides towards complete annihilation. The rise in technology has pushed warfare to terrifying limits. What was once a relatively peaceful Europe was now under a blanket of fear, hoping their enemies had the same opinions on another world war.
However, it was not always like this in Europe and I found it very interesting how peaceful Europe was for the most part before the outbreak of WWI. It was not only common; it was the norm, expected by all Europeans. For almost fifty years, European nations refused to initiate war between each other, though they chose to challenge weaker non-European nations in order for expansion. Hobsbawm sheds light on this subject by stating, “Yet it is absolutely certain that no government of a great power before 1914 wanted either a general European war or even – unlike the 1850s and 60s – a limited military conflict with another European great power” (Hobsbawm 310). These nations decided to focus their efforts in overseas colonization and any major disputes between them were handled in some sort of a peaceful arrangement. I felt this was interesting because I never knew of this peaceful period in Europe.
My question is if the Treaty of Versailles would have not placed such harsh penalties on Germany for WWI, basically placing the blame squarely on their shoulders, would Hitler have been able to rise to power in 1920’s and 30’s depression struck Germany? Would WWII have still taken place and would different nations be the focus of history?
However, it was not always like this in Europe and I found it very interesting how peaceful Europe was for the most part before the outbreak of WWI. It was not only common; it was the norm, expected by all Europeans. For almost fifty years, European nations refused to initiate war between each other, though they chose to challenge weaker non-European nations in order for expansion. Hobsbawm sheds light on this subject by stating, “Yet it is absolutely certain that no government of a great power before 1914 wanted either a general European war or even – unlike the 1850s and 60s – a limited military conflict with another European great power” (Hobsbawm 310). These nations decided to focus their efforts in overseas colonization and any major disputes between them were handled in some sort of a peaceful arrangement. I felt this was interesting because I never knew of this peaceful period in Europe.
My question is if the Treaty of Versailles would have not placed such harsh penalties on Germany for WWI, basically placing the blame squarely on their shoulders, would Hitler have been able to rise to power in 1920’s and 30’s depression struck Germany? Would WWII have still taken place and would different nations be the focus of history?
The Age of Empire conclusion
In the final chapters of The Age of Empire, Hobsbawm explores the societies and trends of nations leading up to World War I. He also explores the causes of the Great War. Imperialism and nationalism really made the war inevitable—or at least the global scale of it. Imperialism also opened the door to economic competition among powerful nations which created deep tensions. In the competition, the powerful nations had military power already from imperializing that they were confident in and ready to mobilize in case a competitor were to make a move. During this era, European nations also allied amongst each other and swore to protect their allies. Due to this readiness to fight and to join allies, the World War began almost immediately after a small conflict between just two nations. A student from Bosnia assassinated the Archduke of Austria causing Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia, and then many other nations followed in a domino fashion. The politics and foreign affairs of this time were a hurricane, similar to the social sphere.
Chaos ensued in society during this time, the ‘belle époque,’ as it grew more secular as science grew. The issue of science versus religion was, and is to this day, a very controversial issue, which was introduced mostly at this time which led to a complete transformation in the Western mind and society. Science exploded and many new branches developed. This led to the demand for specialization and as it exponentially evolved, it became impossible to obtain as much relative knowledge as previously. The evolution of science was a true spark for progress which is a quintessential aspect of modern Western culture. With the rise in popularity of science and its development, major advancements were made in communication, military things, technology, productivity, etc. The progress experienced in the sciences became the new distinguishing factor between a core country and a periphery.
Clearly, the West was the core in this new scientific society, but I am simply wondering the ‘what if’s. As we learned from Abu-Lughod, the East used to be the core of the world system in the 13th and 14th centuries, but the West took control. It’s not a matter of if this hadn’t happened, but if it was the East instead of the West that had moved away from religion and looked towards the sciences. What would it have been like if it was the East who set the precedent for scientific progress and who had all the technological advances and power in their hands during this era?
Towards the Revolution
Hobsbawm does a very nice job of wrapping up the Age of Empire by pulling together all of the final ideas leading to the fact that this origin for the following era of war, revolution, and crisis was carried by the era of peace, a growing middle class, an increase in wealth, and western empires, which is thoroughly described throughout the book but through these last chapters especially. In this reading he describes a wide variety of new ideas and their influence on society, and he also depicts the events preceding revolution, followed by the change from peace to war. The mathematical change in ideas was led by the exploration of infinite magnitudes, and of course the Galilean or Newtonian universe of physics was replaced by Einstein’s concepts of relativity. I think Hobsbawm did an excellent job of explaining the way that scientists reconsidered theories at this time with the comparison the emperor’s new clothes. There was also self-education and self-improvement as the driving force behind the new working class, and the majority of humans were becoming “freethinkers.”
I was intrigued by the fact that during the nineteenth century, the period of social and political stability was not present everywhere since there was often possible, impending, or actual revolution throughout the world. The problem with the obsolete empires of Europe was that certain contradictions within, such as being both strong and weak, made them seem destined for collapse. Hobsbawm also went into more detail about the conflict in places such as Persia, Morocco, China, Turkey, and Russia and why they were different.
Something that caught my attention the most was the way that Hobsbawm chose to address the effect of armament. I am rather used to works of history simply describing how destructive certain weapons were or maybe what made so many people die in battle, but this reading is quite different. He says that during the 1880s the technology of killing advanced, which seemed like a different angle to me. For example, the electric chair was invented in 1890. This clearly made the preparation for war more expensive even if it wasn’t competitive armament that launched Europe into war. I found that Hobsbawm’s explanation of the role of new weaponry was more memorable and bared more significance than much of what I have previously read relating to war, why do you think he chose this tactic?
Ch 12- Age of Empire Blog
Some political systems were considered a belle époque because of the prosperous life that attracted those with a bountiful supply of money. However, others were not considered a belle époque because there were areas of the world that were impending an actual revolution. Most places entered into the world war. Some, like the Ottoman empire, only experienced one episode of the war in a series of military conflicts. The world war in Russia was the product of the insolubility of the problems of domestic politics. In places like Mexico, China, and Iran, the war played no important or significant role. Why did the world war not play a role in some areas, but play a major role in others?
Western bourgeois societies were also being drawn into the global revolutionary upheavals. The bourgeois century took on a beginning. It destabilized its periphery in a few different ways.
1. It undermined the old structures of its economies and the balance of its societies.
2. It destroyed the viability of it established political regimes and institutions.
The first effect of these accounts for the difference in historical impact between the Russian and Chinese revolutions and the Persian and the Turkish. The second impact was more visible because the area consisted of a bunch of ancient empires. Many thought these ancient empires would decline, which many like China, Persia, and The Ottoman Empire did.
Religion and Science
The issue of science versus religion became more prevalent as the transformation of the western mind occurred. The distinctions between science and intuition evolved into a crisis. Science was harder to teach and harder to understand at this point because science became more abstract. The world reached the point where no one person could obtain all knowledge. Despite the battle of rationality in science, science was on the rise with new areas of study established. Organized religion and abstract modes of thought were left behind in the western world. Science was transforming the western world.
All of society grew into a more rational mindset. Science can be thought of as part of our foundation for progress and opportunity. A cycle was created of science creating progress, progress requiring science, and on and on. Because science was on the rise, more people were into science, more funding was put into it, and there was a higher population of both students and teachers. Science became the primary mode of growth through technology, communication, military, etc. The core and periphery nations can be more or less distinguished by the advancement of their sciences.
Globalization's relation to science is one of much importance, I feel. Transportation, communication and military are a few examples of how science can implement globalization. On the other hand, globalization is able to affect science by providing ample opportunity for discovery and research. With the study of languages and new modes of communication, researchers are able to gain information from those of other cultures including, for example, experts in a certain field of science. It also provides the option to find funding or location for new studies, new discoveries, new experiments. Science ties all cultures together because even though the battle between science and religion continues, every country has science, and it is the same everywhere. It is common ground for all of humanity.
Cubist Warfare
(Chpaters 10-13)
In Age of Empire, chapters 10 through 13, Hobsbawm paints a clear picture of what society looked like in the decades before the Great War. We find that in the belle epoque (roughly 1874-1914) religion began to play a lesser role in the western countries, science was on the rise and rising quickly, the industrial class was controlling industry as always, and nations were flexing their muscles economically and militarily. This new nationalism was also expressed through the new sciences, where scientific innovation meant national progress.
Hobsbawm says that nationalism and imperialism largely caused the First World War. Economics, which is definitely connected to nationalism, played a big role as well: the imperial nations were jockeying for new lands to take over and new markets. This led to heightened tension between the rival powers. Since each power was so built-up militarily, they each thought that, if they ever had to use force to compete with other powers, they would win easily. Hobsbawm gives examples where this tension almost exploded into war even before 1914: affairs in Morocco and Egypt, as well as elsewhere. On 28 June 1914, a Bosnian-Serb student assassinated the Archduke of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia; there is no doubt that the assassination was a result of imperialism. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia one month later. Russia, ally to Serbia, mobilized their forces. Germany, Austria-Hungary's ally, quickly mobilized their army. France, in response, mobilized theirs. Germany declared war on Russia. France, ally to Russia, declared war on Germany. Germany, invading France, went through Belgium. Britain, Belgium's ally, declared war on Germany...
We see here, in the months prior to military engagement, that one of the worst wars was started over something so trivial (assassinations happened all the time), and that the great European powers, "bound by allegiance", were so eager to enter the fray. Little did they know that their swift choices would lead to one of the greatest disasters in world history: the technological advancements in military technology would prove devastating. Hobsbawm did touch briefly on the cultural and societal causes of the conflict, but mostly he wrote about the diplomatic and economic causes in chapter 13. Here are some other insights*:
As Nietzsche philosophized (with a hammer), the moral fabric of European (or Western) society was shredding in the period of the belle epoque; the growth of science, nationalism, aesthetic-based art, and capitalism all caused the slow decay of morality. Nietzsche's The Gay Science is a perfect illustration of his thoughts on the matter: there is a scene when a "madman" wanders into a village market asking, "Where is God?" Several young scientists and atheists in the village market poke fun at Nietzsche's madman, and ask him if he has lost his god. The madman replies, "God is dead... And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, we murders of all murderers?" Aside from being very misinterpreted, Nietzsche uses this passage to illustrate that society--with its new sciences, technologies, economies, and arts--has lost its faith in the thing that had once held people and morality together. By saying "God is dead" Nietzsche's madman gives a warning to 20th century society: if there is no objective truth or morality, then nations begin to fill that void with nationalism, and this leads to conflict and war, as we have sadly seen.
An example of this new nationalism in literature, we can look to Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That: An Autobiography. "...[L]et me at once record my... earliest memories. The first is being loyally held up to a window to watch a procession of decorated carriages and waggons for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897." We can also look to Ernst Junger's Storm of Steel: "We had come from lecture halls, school desks and factory workbenches, and over the brief weeks of training we had bonded together into one large and enthusiastic group. Grown up in an age of security, we shared a yearning for danger, for the experience of the extraordinary. We were enraptured by war." This is the way the 20th century started. Parallels can be drawn between the beginnings of the 20th and the 21st centuries. Are these parallels worthy of a second look? Is today's international society similar to that of the belle epoque (or the antebellum of WWI)? Are we in an antebellum today, a "before the war"?
*See Modris Ecksteins, The Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age. And Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory.
-Stefan Larson
In Age of Empire, chapters 10 through 13, Hobsbawm paints a clear picture of what society looked like in the decades before the Great War. We find that in the belle epoque (roughly 1874-1914) religion began to play a lesser role in the western countries, science was on the rise and rising quickly, the industrial class was controlling industry as always, and nations were flexing their muscles economically and militarily. This new nationalism was also expressed through the new sciences, where scientific innovation meant national progress.
Hobsbawm says that nationalism and imperialism largely caused the First World War. Economics, which is definitely connected to nationalism, played a big role as well: the imperial nations were jockeying for new lands to take over and new markets. This led to heightened tension between the rival powers. Since each power was so built-up militarily, they each thought that, if they ever had to use force to compete with other powers, they would win easily. Hobsbawm gives examples where this tension almost exploded into war even before 1914: affairs in Morocco and Egypt, as well as elsewhere. On 28 June 1914, a Bosnian-Serb student assassinated the Archduke of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia; there is no doubt that the assassination was a result of imperialism. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia one month later. Russia, ally to Serbia, mobilized their forces. Germany, Austria-Hungary's ally, quickly mobilized their army. France, in response, mobilized theirs. Germany declared war on Russia. France, ally to Russia, declared war on Germany. Germany, invading France, went through Belgium. Britain, Belgium's ally, declared war on Germany...
We see here, in the months prior to military engagement, that one of the worst wars was started over something so trivial (assassinations happened all the time), and that the great European powers, "bound by allegiance", were so eager to enter the fray. Little did they know that their swift choices would lead to one of the greatest disasters in world history: the technological advancements in military technology would prove devastating. Hobsbawm did touch briefly on the cultural and societal causes of the conflict, but mostly he wrote about the diplomatic and economic causes in chapter 13. Here are some other insights*:
As Nietzsche philosophized (with a hammer), the moral fabric of European (or Western) society was shredding in the period of the belle epoque; the growth of science, nationalism, aesthetic-based art, and capitalism all caused the slow decay of morality. Nietzsche's The Gay Science is a perfect illustration of his thoughts on the matter: there is a scene when a "madman" wanders into a village market asking, "Where is God?" Several young scientists and atheists in the village market poke fun at Nietzsche's madman, and ask him if he has lost his god. The madman replies, "God is dead... And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, we murders of all murderers?" Aside from being very misinterpreted, Nietzsche uses this passage to illustrate that society--with its new sciences, technologies, economies, and arts--has lost its faith in the thing that had once held people and morality together. By saying "God is dead" Nietzsche's madman gives a warning to 20th century society: if there is no objective truth or morality, then nations begin to fill that void with nationalism, and this leads to conflict and war, as we have sadly seen.
An example of this new nationalism in literature, we can look to Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That: An Autobiography. "...[L]et me at once record my... earliest memories. The first is being loyally held up to a window to watch a procession of decorated carriages and waggons for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897." We can also look to Ernst Junger's Storm of Steel: "We had come from lecture halls, school desks and factory workbenches, and over the brief weeks of training we had bonded together into one large and enthusiastic group. Grown up in an age of security, we shared a yearning for danger, for the experience of the extraordinary. We were enraptured by war." This is the way the 20th century started. Parallels can be drawn between the beginnings of the 20th and the 21st centuries. Are these parallels worthy of a second look? Is today's international society similar to that of the belle epoque (or the antebellum of WWI)? Are we in an antebellum today, a "before the war"?
*See Modris Ecksteins, The Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age. And Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory.
-Stefan Larson
Monday, October 19, 2009
Blog 5
This week, the readings included chapters 4 and 5 of Hobsbawm's Age of Empire. In these chapters, the discussion was centered around industrialization and the political atmosophere in the 19th century, and the interaction between the two. Up until this time, agriculture had been the staple form of subsistence and economic stability for the common man. However as industrialization took hold, more an more people turned to the wage labor that factories provided. With the sub-par conditions of factory life, workers became increasingly discontent with their positions causing turmoil between the employees and the factory owners- and on a macro level, the aristocracy in general. Democracy, became a viable solution to the proletariat cause. With the implementation of democracy as the new form of government, commoners would then have a voice in legislation that would lead to an increase in power and economic freedom. The bourgeoisie of course did not agree with democratization. They did not want to share power or economic freedoms with the lower class causing a factionalism between the two parties giving credence to Marxian ideals. With the growth of the working class, they began to outnumber the upper class and could no longer be pushed around. The corrupt tactics that the aristocracy had previously used to stage elections and such no longer worked and democracy became the staple form of government.
I found it interesting how industrialization as was used to try to exploit workers even more so than in the agricultural realm. The upper class thought that they could overwork and underpay the people while remaining in complete and total control of the entire situation. That plan backfired and instead of reaping all the benefits, the tide was turned and social movements inevitably changed the fabric of European society. One question I would raise regards the importance of the mass media in the reform. Does anyone think that unification would have possible to such a high degree if the media had not been created? Would democracy have prevailed?
A. Reed
I found it interesting how industrialization as was used to try to exploit workers even more so than in the agricultural realm. The upper class thought that they could overwork and underpay the people while remaining in complete and total control of the entire situation. That plan backfired and instead of reaping all the benefits, the tide was turned and social movements inevitably changed the fabric of European society. One question I would raise regards the importance of the mass media in the reform. Does anyone think that unification would have possible to such a high degree if the media had not been created? Would democracy have prevailed?
A. Reed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)