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?

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 13^th and 14^th 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

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

Chapter 9: Nietzsche, Prophet of the Twentieth-Century

(this post is for extra credit)

In the picture section of Age of Empire (in the middle of the book), Hobsbawm says that Friedrich Nietzsche was the “prophet of the era of war, barbarism, and fascism;” I could not say it any better. Nietzsche was born in Germany in 1844 and died, fittingly, in the first year of the twentieth century—the century of "war, barbarism, and fascism".

The composer Richard Wagner heavily influenced Nietzsche, and it is almost possible to hear Wagner’s music in the background while reading titles such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Antichrist. Nietzsche is perhaps one of the most influential thinkers of the turn of the century, and he is also one of the most understood. His ideas of morality and individualism were groundbreaking, for example, “The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: `I, the state, am the people.'... Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth,” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra). This quote makes it evident that Nietzsche was thoroughly against popular democracy and socialism, as well as nationalism and imperialism.

Nietzsche was an activist of individualism, and this is where he becomes misinterpreted. His “will to power” and idea of the Ubermensch (superhuman) have been interpreted by tainted readers such as the Germans in the First World War and the Nazis in the Second as militaristic and anti-Semitic. Thus, when one reads Nietzsche, listens to Wagner, and looks at a painting by Hablik—doing all of this with a national-imperial-militaristic perspective—one will be pushed to go on a Grail-hunting journey or inclined to Blitz across enemy lines in an effort to gain territory for the Second or Third Reich to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries.

-Stefan Larson

Nationalism

In this week’s reading of Age of Empire, Eric Hobsbawn focuses on the creation of nationalism. Nationalism was established through the countries accepting and proomoting a democratic society. Although the united countries under this democracy was not the cause of nationalism. The countries instead had a liberal view under the democracy the each wanted and this liberal view began to cause unanticipated tension both inside and outside the county. People began to develop a strong sense of pride for their country, and began to identify themselves with their nation. However, some took their pride to the extreme and used it as a way to defend its country which in turn caused struggle between certain groups within the countries and people began to clash. I viewed nationalism, at this time to be a concept of saving grace. People identified witht their country and felt a strong sense of pride and belonging which really gave their country hope during war times.
I find it interesting that people at this time was very vocal in how they wanted the government and their country to be ran. Although they came to an agreement that they wanted a democracy, they were all dominantly liberal in terms of their view.
My question is how did nationalism directly aid the countries during war times?

nationalism

In this week’s reading for Global Society, Eric Hobsbawm explores the nature of nationalism throughout the world. People began to came together to see themselves as one nation. The notion of nationalism began a mainstream idea between 1875 and 1914. People and governments began to buy up this idea that their countries were the end all be all of the world. These ideas would then lead to conflicts between nations; this would be something that governments would use to explore different ways to exploit people’s nationalism. But the people, who did not fit in with these nations or nationalism, would want change from government. Hobsbawn also touches on how the socio-economic gap between the working class and the middle class was big. It was hard to move forward at the time and the super rich and the rich were getting even richer. The exclusive ways of the rich gave them their own class. Membership to this class was having money, they made it impossible for anyone else to be as powerful as them. Women also were trying to fight for equal rights, as he says, “like democratization of politics, a greater degree of equal rights and opportunities for women was implicit in the ideology of the liberal bourgeoisie” (202). This was the beginning of women striving for equal rights and voting was something that was in the near future.
Something new I learned and wanted to talk about, which was discussed about in class but was not able to be fulfilling discussed because of volunteer domination, was why this idea of nationalism became mainstream? I think nationalism was a great thing for governments; it gave them such a tool from keeping power of the people. By telling the citizens of the country that they should believe in it, they gave them ultimate control of these citizens.
One concern I have for the people that were thinking there nationalism was right, why did this only become so big until now? I think people had pride in their countries and area much before this. I would have liked the author to dive in more deeply into the subject. Nationalism today is more important than ever with not having a draft, the government needs people to back up their decisions and feel pride in how they view their homeland.

Nationalism, Democratization, and the Bourgeoisie

In the 19th and into the 20th century, several interrelated social, political, and psychological transformations were taking place. As one-by-one countries began steering their ways toward more democratic governments, nationalism -- as a result, it seems -- became extremely popular. It was contagious among homogeneous groups and politicians and leaders took advantage of that. People were identifying themselves as citizens of countries, as members of communities with geographical borders that were something to be proud of. This pride and important sense of duty that came with it gave leaders leverage for recruiting soldiers and support for campaigns. In it's principle and practice, democracy lead to this kind of emotional relationship between individual and state because individuals can suddenly make the decisions for the state: the democratic state is supposed to be a state for the people by the people. It was favorable for people to identify with their country when they felt like they had a hand in it.

While democracy was fostering nationalism (or vice versa?), it was enfranchising more and more classes. The equalizing effect of this threatened the bourgeoisie's enjoyment of the political power their money and social power had afforded. Though residentially they began marking themselves off from the rest, the petite insisted on identifying themselves with them. The luxury of leisure amongst the bourgeoisie, which they could enjoy while not having to work thanks to inheritance and interest) became an identifying characteristic that popularized it for the petite and brought about the tradition of sports.

I find it really interesting that nationalism is so closely tied with democracy, but the relationship still isn't entirely clear. In some countries nationalism seemed to actually precede democratic rule. Why is that? The world had become more communicative by this point and more commoners were literate and could learn the sentiments of people in other nations, so perhaps getting a sense of others' pride in their countries, people elsewhere thought they should feel that same sort of pride, but couldn't if they had no part in their government, which then mobilized them to democratize.

Bourgeoisie

“With an immense zest. . .they begin shopping. . .they plunge into it as one plunges into a career; as a class they talk, think and dream possessions.” This was quote from H.G. Wells in 1909 describing the new middle class, known as the ‘Bourgeoisie.’ Hobsbawm goes on to say that it wasn’t until the late 19th century that this class began to be physically comfortable, decorated with solid objects, possessing a copious amounts of textile goods, and partaking in the consumption of fine cuisines. Hobbs sites another quote by William James to describe this new kind of society. It states, “In its widest possible sense. . .a man’s Self is the sum-total of what he can call his, not only his body and his psychic powers, but his clothes and his house, his wife and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands and horses and yacht and bank account.” This quote helps to illustrate that this class was primarily concerned with material possessions. Although these passages were written to describe the people of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, I found the descriptions to fit modern day society very well. Today, people are very concerned with their material possessions and often go to great lengths to secure these, even when they don’t have the means to do so. People obtain and max out multiple credit cards, mortgage their homes, and get loans to pay for what they can’t on their own. This over-reliance on credit has left many people in massive debt, bankrupt, and is even causing some to lose their homes. More specifically, it has landed America in what is now referred to as the mortgage and credit crisis. Do you think it was these early standards established in the late 19th century that created peoples obsession with material goods and caused many to get in too deep, or do you believe America’s current obsession with material goods was brought on by some other ideals and standards that deserve their own categorization?

Blog 6: Nationalism v. Anarchism

This week Hobsbawn discusses the nature and development of the bourgeoisie, as well as the idea and power of nationalism. The nationalism aspect was what intrigued me the most. It is interesting to me that an ideology that was once used as a powerful tool in the French Revolution and liberalism. As it became a more widespread idea, governments manipulated it to become a way of spreading national propaganda and foster unity with in the nation. It is said to see how quickly a positive idea can turn into a weapon. Hobsbawn discusses how poly-ethnic states were divided by the burst of nationalism on the scene. Nationalism was used as a twisted into a tool of discrimination and racism. As it developed farther it had not only the potential for hating other nations, but for hating individual cultures and subcultures within their own nation.
Nationalism is not all bad. It can unify a country under a common goal. It can empower a national government. Nationalism has even torn down tyrannical governments. Something I don’t understand even though it isn’t in the text is anarchism. I don’t understand its purpose. A society based in chaos cannot survive. According to some scholars, individuals are natural ruled by their needs and desires. Without restriction of those needs and desires individuals are unable to rationally satisfy any of them. We establish systems of government in order to protect ourselves. Government represents a tradeoff. We trade some of our individual rights for the best chance as satisfying most of our needs. What is anarchy’s purpose? How is it effect? If everyone believed in anarchy wouldn’t our entire system collapse?

Blog 6 - Nationalism

    As I continue to read The Age of Empire by Eric Hobsbawn, I am becoming more intrigued by the topics presented and the method at which it was presented. This week of reading was very interesting. In chapter 6, Hobsbawn discussed nations and nationalism. With the rise of democracy, nationalism played a key role within the development and sustainability of it. There was a positive correlation between the rise in democratization and the rise of nationalism. Nationalism popularized from 1880 to 1914. During this time period, nationalism evolved to include both right wing and left wing politicians. An important aspect of nationalism was that it related to democracy and education. Because of these factors, it helped nationalism become mainstream. Since people were being educated and it was becoming ever so popular, people were becoming a lot more interested in pride. People began to identify themselves with their nation and individual patriotism evolved again.

    What is nationalism? According to Hobsbawn, the readiness of people to identify themselves emotionally with their nation and be politically mobilized as citizen of a country. People were mobilized by way of elections. The countries used elections to give citizens the buzz of being a impact to society. By way of that, the person would be able to effectively participate in the countries affair and politics. When the people become involved it would be easier for the country to mobilize in time of trouble and stress. Why is nationalism important? Nationalism is important because it was important for every nation to have their people have a sense of national pride. It would be easier for countries to recruit soldiers, defend themselves, and advance in technology. Despite all the nationalism, tensions arose with various countries.

    As previously stated, nationalism became favored because of ties with democracy and education. Democracy and nationalism had a very specially relationship. The idea of democracy allowed the people to utilize their freedoms and right. Also, education was important as well. Education informed people about their country and heritage.

    The end of the Eighteenth century had seen revolutions in the name of freedom and equality in the New World as well as in France. While the new United States continued to wend its way Westward under basically democratic principles, France's revolution essentially replace a rotten hereditary monarchy for militarism, under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte. At the beginning of the century, Germany was not a united nation, but a conglomeration of duchies and principalities, perhaps with a common purpose, and a common language and culture, but separated politically.

        As previously stated, nationalism became favored because of ties with democracy and education. Democracy and nationalism had a very specially relationship. The idea of democracy allowed the people to utilize their freedoms and right. Also, education was important as well. Education informed people about their country and heritage. One final question: Did nationalism really been incorporated in Basketball and education. What the importance of emotional in Nationalism?

Age of Empire 3

This weeks reading was a direct result of last week's. With rise of the working class, nationalism followed. The working class was growing and getting stronger and the upper class were not the only people in power anymore. With the masses gaining more and more say in the countries politics, unification began to form. This unification caused nationalism. Everyone was beginning to have pride in their country because for the first time they were dictating their own lives. However, this immense pride also had the effect of a xenophobic population. Immigration was frowned upon and outsiders were the new second class citizen. No longer were people open to new people, they just wanted to focus on their own solid country. This really blocked off any chance of expansion or globalization. A good thing did come out of the national pride of the country. Education and Technology boomed and were taking off in advancements.

With the change in society, also came change with women. For centuries women's only role in life was to stay at home and have children, but not anymore. They were leaving their homes in search for jobs and roles in their local towns and politics. This new turn for women really made a huge impact on their future. Birthrates were substantially lower, so women had more time to do things for themselves, not just stay at home and watch the babies just pop out of them. Women began marrying later in life because they wanted to pursue their goals and then settle down. This social change brought the beginning of a fight though- women's suffrage. This was around the time that they were truly fighting for their right to have a say in government and what was going on around them. Although the result took some time, without these strong ladies to begin the surge, our life today might be extremely different.

The Age of Empire - Blog 3

With the rise of democracy, nationalism took a major role. It was also changed from its original form into something much more potent. Nationalism came to be identified with the political right instead of the left, the promotion of an independent sovereign state for any and all nations, complete autonomy for those nations, and the definition of a nation based on ethnicity and language. Many nations were created at this time based on a group of people who were able to commonly identify through a spoken language. Governments took on a much more central role in citizens’ lives through mailmen, policemen, teachers, and railway workers. Schools also became the preferred method of inculcating children with traits of nationalism. Religion and nationalism became linked in order to more strongly promote political action. At this time, the bourgeoisie and middle classes also learned how to spend and live in comfort. This caused the lines between the classes to blur greatly. The middle class was no longer as simple to define, which caused numerous clashes, but the major criterion was eventually determined to be formal education. This large class of bourgeoisie quickly grew to think of itself as elite, although with the expansion of education, it became harder to differentiate it from its inferiors. Thus private schools developed to train citizens to be leaders. Membership of the bourgeoisie was also inherited, which vastly increased the numbers of the class. This class indentified itself through various means such as education, lifestyle, and disassociation from the working class by joining the political right. Interestingly enough, one way that people were able to flaunt their wealth was by enabling the women and children to participate in non-profit activities, which actually aided the emancipation of women and promoted philanthropic ventures. Women began to have fewer children, the use of birth control increased, and more women became part of the work force. Women also took on a more managerial role within the family while working- and middle-class women finally earned wages. Women suffragists became more prevalent as women took on a more prominent role in the economy. Education for women also increased, social conventions became looser, styles of dress were less restrictive, women’s sensuality was more recognized, and women were noted to have aspirations. It is necessary to remember, however, that this nearly exclusively applied to women of the middle and upper classes. In fact, feminist groups were very concentrated and many women did not even support them, although voting for women and women’s sexual freedom were very important topics. The largest problem was the question of what would happen to the nuclear family if women were emancipated.

I thought it was extremely interesting that nations had previously not been defined by ethnicity or language. As Hobsbawm stated, “We are now so used to an ethnic-linguistic definition of nations that we forget that this was, essentially, invented in the later nineteenth century” (146). I cannot imagine any other way of determining a nation. Geography does not seem like it would be enough to keep people from moving to other areas because it would not give them a tie to their “homeland.” I suppose my view is merely a reflection of being inundated with nationalistic ideas from a young age. I also found it intriguing that the development of homogenized and standardized language had its origin in nationalism.

Although Hobsbawm actually went into a fair amount of detail with this, I still think it would have been interesting if he had expounded on how social inferiority was the main cause of devotion to patriotism. As the gap between the rich and the poor grew, the middle class was left without a distinct identification. It was kind of like how the Third World term developed to indiscriminately include all of the countries not a part of the Eastern or Western Bloc. Hobsbawm’s explanation of the respect that nationalism could gain a middle class person is very interesting. I would have liked to know how this affected Nazi Germany. It seems to me that since nationalism and patriotism were able to unite and elevate the middle class so much, that that could have been why so many Nazis let that power go to their heads. Hobsbawm could have further expanded to how this feeling of power and control affected other nations.

Nationalism, Democracy...and Awesome?

This week, we discussed the topic of nationalism.  More specifically, we talked about how nationalism ties directly into things such as democracy, education, and war.  (Just so we all have the right idea on nationalism, this is not it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJmouowPH5k )  It seems that nationalism and democracy in particular are connected.  The rising wave of nationalism coincides exactly with new systems of government or a greatly expanded franchise leading to a large number of first time voters.  Many of these voters were not educated and tended to be rural farmers.  Through no fault of their own, they tended to not be the most informed on matters of state and government.  Therefore, they became easy targets for campaigns based around whipping new voters into a nationalist frenzy, driven to the polls by fear of those who are different and a belief that their nation was better than all others to around it, and they should see their country rise to greatness (or restore former glory, or maintain its strength, etc).  This tactic was very, very successful, and led to a string of electoral victories across Europe for right wing nationalists.  This led to an upswing of nationalism across the continent, leading to an increased call for (and an increase in) territorial expansion and colonialism.  This obviously created a need for an increase in armaments for all nations.  The combination of all of these factors, stoked by the nationalist fervor of each populace (which had been, in turn, stirred by government officials as candidates for office) led, inevitably, to armed conflict between nations.  This is because, as several sources (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism#Philosophical_issues_of_patriotism) nationalism, unlike patriotism, implies a hatred (or aggression, at least) towards other countries.  At a minimum, it causes rivalries, as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTk26zIQ_gk&feature=related and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs&feature=PlayList&p=BA7EACBC723B5995&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3 and at most it can lead to wars such as the Franco- Prussian War and World War One.  Nationalism arose as a tool to win votes and exploit new voters by appealing to their base instincts in order to win elections, and it often led to bloodshed and hatred between countries.  I do have a question to pose however.  We’ve discussed nationalism and unification and independence, but how do you feel about nationalism and patriotic feelings when not directed at the system governing you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVjNPNNxySc for an example of nationalism not directed to the nation in charge).  Is this still nationalism and patriotism?  Is it only one of the two?  Is it something else entirely?

Chapter 6

In this week’s readings, Hobsbawn discussed the come up of nationalism and the role change of women in society. Nationalism first began to rise at the end of the 19th century. Following the rise of the working class, politics was not solely run by upper class individuals. With other class’s voice being heard, people began to identify with their nation, causing nationalism. A lot of the early nationalism was centered on radical and liberal movements of the French Revolution.

With nationalism came advances in technology and education. The focus on education, lead to more people being able to read and write. This was very important in terms of communication and literature.

As I mentioned before Hobsbawn talked about the changing role of women in this time period. Women no longer were just seen as stay at home moms, who cooked, cleaned and left the money making to men. Women got jobs of their own and took on a totally role in society. With these changes came other changes, such as the decline in birth rates. Women weren’t marrying as early, most likely because they had more control of their lives. Women also fought for rights. One of the main rights fought for, was the right to vote.

I found the section interesting about women’s role change in society, because I have a hard time visualizing a society where women don’t have the freedom or rights that they have now. So it is cool to me to read about how these changes came about.

-Justin Lovett

Nationalism and the Rise of Women

This weeks readings in The Age of Empire by Eric Hobsbawm started off by talking about the rise of nationalism, “one major by-product of democratization” (142). Nationalism appeared and grew between 1880 and 1914. It was during this period that people began identifying with their nation specifically in places like Germany and Italy. Nationalism worked its way into politics by affiliating itself with the political right and with patriotism. Nations changed during this period, and nations were formed. People began “to define a nation in terms of ethnicity and especially in terms of language” (144). Although nations formed around language, many chose to move to America, start a new life, and learn English “as a matter of necessity or convenience” (147). Hobsbawm then moves to talk about the “new woman.” The lives of women changed around the period of the rise of nationalism, they were now marring later and having fewer children due to the increase in life expectancy. Women were also beginning to enter the work force. While in the past there had been a few women working, they were by far rare and brilliant. During this time period, the number of laboring women grew significantly, although not for the best. Women worked because of industrialization and out of necessity to support their families because of economic revolution. Women with younger children also needed someone at home, so many could not enter the industrial world. Families still needed money, so many women began doing jobs within their houses so they could take care of their kids and help support the family financially. Women’s rights were increasing, and eventually women pushed and gained emancipation. Hobsbawms statement that “a century after Napoleon, the Rights of Man of the French revolution had been extended to women” was one of the most interesting and moving in the entire book (217). This weeks readings overall were about the rise of nationalism and the creation of the new woman.

The second part of chapter six begins with stating that some resisted the spread of nationalism. I thought it interesting that people did not go with the flow and desire to identify with their nation. There were people such as in the United Kingdom who refused to identify with England as a whole and continued speaking Welch. While I do not understand people who speak French, living in France, choosing to identify with France as a whole, I can understand Welshmen desiring not to loose their identity.

I also found it interesting that people were now finally deciding to have fewer children. Hobsbawm states that people in cities were “stimulated by the desire for a higher standard of living” (194). I am wondering why you think people finally decided to have fewer children and start marrying later. Why now did people desire a better life? While “conditions of life change, and even the pattern of women’s existence does not remain the same through generations” what made this change occur so quickly (195)?

blog 6

Nationalism is connected with the rise of democracy however it is not necessarily the reason for it. It connected because people of a democracy connect with their government and has proud goals, which comes along with loving your nation. Therefore, when there was a rise is democracy, there was also a rise in nationalism. During this time of democratization and nationalism there was a serious change in the balance in good relations with people. Nationalism made people want to represent their own selves so there was lots of a tension between minorities and Jews etc.

Now a days I think there are a few important parts of nationalism even though technically it probably shouldn’t be a part democracy. I think it is important for people to not only feel connected to their government but also to their country. Language can connect people to one another and their country.

The more governments democratized; unfortunately the more classes of people were disenfranchised. However, before democracy they never had the right to vote to begin with so maybe this is still an okay upgrade. However, as time went on those classes regained back their rights and eventually even women were granted the right to vote. With this the importance of education grew. With all of these new changes the bourgeoisie slunk farther and farther out of their time of domination.

---Dorothy Smith "Bunny"