This essay will argue about the conditions of the people affected by the first Industrial Revolution. More specifically, it will focus on the living conditions of the common people, concerning health, education, consumptions and domestic life. Taking under scrutiny Great Britain, at the end of the 1840s, an analysis of the political context will incur, regarding the mechanisms which influenced society due to the first Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, considering a pessimistic view, ideas of different theorists will be defined, such as Marx and Engels. In the final analysis, an attempt to explain the causes of the working conditions and exploitation will incur.
According to Hobsbawm (1999) “there is, indeed, a relation between the Industrial Revolution as a provider of comforts and as a social transformer” (Hobsbawm, 1999: 80). In other words, it is possible to define the Industrial Revolution as the cause of the transformation of the society in England, at the end of the 1840s. On the other hand, this transformation, as explained by Allen (2017), was characterized by the technological innovation since it was an element which increased the difference between the classes, within the structure of the society.
With this in mind, it is important to be aware of the birth of a new class of society: the commoners. Considering this group, its main element was the poorest living condition since it did not belong to the aristocracy or the bourgeoisie and it did not benefit from the innovations of the Industrial Revolution (Allen, 2017). However, as expressed by Allen (2017) “the working class was always the largest” (Allen, 2017: 62), even if it was the class with the less earning and the worst standard of living. Therefore, it is fundamental to understand that the commoners were the workers and they were not able to achieve an appropriate wage due to the consideration of labour as a commodity (Landes, 2014).
Taking under scrutiny the living conditions of the commoners, it can be argued that it incurred, mainly in England due to phenomenon which characterized this innovate society such as demographic growth, agricultural revolution and urbanization (Hartwell, 1971). For what concerns demographic growth, “between 1700 and 1871 England experienced a faster rate of population growth than any other country of western Europe” (Wrigley & Taylor, 2014: 73). In that case, England was defined by the necessity of labour due to the technological innovation and the higher capital that Great Britain owned. Hence, factories were built to benefit from these innovations, the household was numerous and labourers were moving from rural countryside to the cities, enhancing a phenomenon defined as urbanisation (Taylor, 1958).
Considering urbanization and demographic growth, it can be argued that the wage of commoners would have increased, however, as expressed by the speculation of Malthus on An Essay on the Principle of Population (in 1798), labourers were suffering due to the poverty (Thomas, 1985). With Malthus’s prediction in mind, workers were increasing the population, on the other hand, they were decreasing the salary of each labour, creating a raise of the capital of the Nation, owned, mainly, by the landed. Therefore, demographic growth was blamed to be the cause of the poverty and poor relief was not a solution since according to Malthusian prediction was enhancing birth rate (Allen, 2017). In contrast to this point, McCloskey (2010) was focusing on the fact that this pessimistic view was regarding the initial moment of the end of the Industrial Revolution and that the population growth would be a benefit in the future.
This is further shown by Allen (2017), who presented evidence regarding the falling of birth rate and the main problems causing poverty which reside in health, education and nutrition.
Taking under scrutiny nutrition, according to Meredith and Oxley (2014) even if Great Britain was the most wealthy country, “England’s growing cities were most vulnerable to food shortage” (Meredith and Oxley, 2014: 121). Hence, the lowest class was suffering from this supply since they were not able to purchase different variety, on the other hand, they were not aware of the important nutrients, consequently, the diet was determined by the availability of the food (Mathias and Davis, 1990). Moreover, as expressed by Meredith and Oxley (2014), it is important to consider the diet of two different part of the commoners: agricultural and industrial workers since farm labour was characterized by a limited diet and households, working in mining, as defined by better nutrition. Considering this difference, it is fundamental to be aware of the higher wage of the industrial workers, who were able to assume animal protein and afford the price of the grain, on the other hand, malnutrition was not disappearing due to the ignorance regarding the assumption of the right food (Braudel, 1981).
In view of this, The Great Famine of 1845-1850 in Ireland is an important example, because it demonstrated how the food diet determined the health and the standard living of commoners (Meredith and Oxley, 2014). Hence, in Ireland, mostly in the rural areas, the diet was limited and the poorest started to be reliant to the potato due to the establishment of law regarding the assumption of grain and the unaffordability of meat (Allen, 2011). With this in mind, the potato blight was an important event, which brought about famine, starvation and disease for the labour class, such as the adulteration of food.
However, the landed class was not completely unaware of the right nutrition, hence, they were educated with a higher wage which caused a different standard of living and as explained by McCloskey (2010) education and ideas were fundamental for economic growth. On the other hand, this optimistic view of McCloskey, regarding the bourgeoisie, enhanced criticism concerning the materialistic orientation. This is further emphasised by Braudel (1981), underlined the fact that “ All these realities of material life -food, drink, housing, clothes and fashion- cannot be so closely correlated that the relationship can not be taken for granted. The distinction between luxury and poverty is only a crude classification, one that recurs all the time, but does not in itself provide the necessary precision.” (Braudel: 2010: 333).
In other words, it expressed the fact that this difference between the poorest and the wealth class does not just concerned to the material life, but there is a deep cause defined by the historical context, in that case, during the industrial revolution, there were optimistic view or pessimistic view regarding the cause of the condition of the commoners ( Clark and Cummins, 2014).