The Beginning of the Modern Era in England - Case Study Example

The beginning of the modern era is generally ascribed to the period of the ‘Reformation’ at the beginning of the 16th century. It must first and foremost be understood as a newfound belief in the ‘progress’ of humanity, whereby the ‘golden age in the past’ and ‘original sin’ are replaced by Man’s ‘perfectibility through reason’, in the process achieving fundamental alternations in the social and legal relationships of men (Laski 82). Such changes took place in every area of human existence during the three centuries that followed, from the homes to the economic theatres and to the ecclesiastical and political arenas. The catalysts came from rebellion, from geographical expansion, from scientific discovery but mainly from the body of philosophical thought that was developing in support of man’s individuality and rights. By fits and starts European countries were either instrumental in change or affected by it – or both. The latter was also true for England, although here too this was by no means a uniform process. The new philosophical doctrines, a new attitude to knowledge and technical innovation combined to propel England into the modern age. By1789 England had developed into a relatively modern society in institutional and economic sectors and in some areas of private life, although there was still a working class that was excluded from privileges, evidence of religious intolerance and strong monarchical influence, albeit more by custom than law. Emphasis will here be on the sectors of English society that were already modernising rather than on those that had as yet significant obstacles to overcome, due to the brevity of the paper. To gain a sense of the extent to which England was ‘modern’ in 1789, it is necessary to map out the political, economic and human landscape before modernity. This had been dominated by feudal empires, with clearly defined class distinctions, under the control of powerful sovereigns, and under the aegis of God, by way of the papacy (Laski 12). The philosophies underpinning feudal societies were highly theological in nature, subordinated the individual to the overall goal of salvation and the absolute control of the monarch, and severely restricted individual and economic activity. This ‘status quo’ was challenged with the Reformation, which eventually broke the papal monopoly and substituted the church with the prince, only to be substituted in turn with the Parliament by ‘Locke and his school’ (Laski 46). Thinkers of the period of struggle that followed were reconsidering every aspect of life, from new concepts of morality and ‘social contract’ to new understandings of ‘wealth’, the powers of the state and its relationship with the individual. Men from every corner of the European continent re-assessed what had so far been taken for granted (Laski 118). Although English philosophers and scientists had a high profile in this period of “Enlightenment’, this was very much a European effort. The fertility of thought was staggering, propelled by ‘the belief in the possibility and desirability of human progress and perfectibility through reason and knowledge. The works of Hume and Smith synthesise to a great extent the ideas of many of these thinkers into cohesive theories (Schumpeter qtd. in Mokyr 33) although Perkin suggests that when The Wealth of Nations (TWN) was published in 1776, Smith was mapping out ideas and processes that were already ‘a century out of date’ (Perkin in Mokyr 33). The most important of the many theoretical elements proposed by Hume and Smith are here those concerning the natural drives of the individual and self-interest as a force for ‘betterment’ (Hume [1752c] 1955, 21-22; Smith [1776] 1925, I 323:24), and that they must be left to work without interference from the state: The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition...is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations. (TWN, Book IV, Ch V, b 43) Smith thus believed that the ‘powerful’ instincts to ‘better conditions’ would be able to overcome restrictive laws, leading to wealth for all through ‘free markets’. This, he believed, had the best chance of achieving ‘maximum efficiency’ at the cutting edge of commercial activity (Fry 33). However, Smith was sceptical of these ideas ever being embraced by the English government: …to expect, indeed, that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain, is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices of the publick, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals, irresistibly oppose it. (TWN IV, ii, 43) Hume too was sceptical, but rather of the effectiveness of self-interest without external stimulus, and had in fact proposed that in addition to Smith’s self-interest, luxury must be introduced to stimulate such sentiments into producing surplus, which then could be used to buy luxuries The encrease and consumption of all the commodities, which serve to the ornament and pleasure of life, are advantageous to society; because, at the same time that they multiply those innocent gratifications to individuals, they are a kind of storehouse of labour, which in the exigencies of state, may be turned to the public service. (Of Luxury 293). Thus unfettered greed was needed as an additional ingredient to produce the economic growth that was needed to provide prosperity for all, although this avarice was tempered, as Hume points out in Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS), by the inherently moral sentiments of Man: How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in His nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. (TMS VI, ChI, I, 9/1). Both Hume and Smith were concerned about the impact of government on the possibility of ‘free trade’ and independently set out to define the conditions that would be conducive to commerce as well as to the wellbeing of the ‘virtuous man’. Both stressed the best strategy must be induce Man to produce surplus, but only Hume is emphatic that ‘It is … best policy to comply with the common bent of mankind and give it all the improvements of which it is susceptible’ (On Commerce) – in other words use inducements such as luxuries. As far as the form of government is concerned that is most conducive to commerce and perhaps because England was a ‘mixed’ government, Hume came to the conclusion that ‘free governments’ can be either republican or ‘mixed’, merely emphasizing that no one particular group must be able to gain control of power within either one of these forms of government (On Commerce). Altogether, Hume and Smith have drawn a picture of a modern, progressive and desirable society, where ‘Natural Man’ owns himself, is largely virtuous in a variety of ways and has strong drives to better his condition. In this society, commerce is free, guided by the ‘invisible hand’ of markets, thereby increasing wealth for everybody. This takes place under the aegis of a benevolent government, where autocratic royal impulses are severely curtailed and accountability is strong. There are other elements to this society– too many to discuss here in detail. Those singled out here are sufficient as a basis for a discussion on the extent to which England was modern in 1789. With this, we are perhaps on most solid ground when discussing institutional modernity around 1789. The English state had been centralised as early as the 12th century and had by the 14th ‘transcended its original judicial function to become a political body’, providing opportunities for the exercise of ‘strong and effective government’ (Brewer 1,2). A series of restrictions placed on the Executive had to some extent diminished its power and Parliament as well as the sovereign by and large respected property rights. There were also few monopolies and an absence of crushing taxation, which, together with patents, allowed for some flexibility in economic matters. However, these were by no means signs of a ‘laissez-faire’ economy but rather these changes had occurred gradually, starting as far back as the Stuarts and Tudor’s days (North qtd. in Mokyr 30). Their effect was bolstered by a general reluctance of the public sector to get involved in ‘entrepreneurial’ activities. Thus public facilities such as railroads and canals were built by private enterprise, which also patronised science and technology, built, owned and ran schools and universities and even supplied money (Mokyr 31). This was possible despite the fact that England was still in the grip of mercantilism and whilst commercial and industrial enterprises had to operate under mercantile monopolies and constraints, these were made less severe by numerous exceptions and by poor enforcement. Thus ‘de facto laissez-faire’ existed … through ignoring and evading rather than abolishing regulations’ (Perkins qtd. in Mokyr 33). Smith also finds that the ills of mercantile monopolies, where they refer to the colonial trade, are minimised by the enormous benefice of colonial trade (TWN IV, vii, c, 47). There were, however, state-generated dangers to the burgeoning (free) markets, but they were not of property as such but rather the threat that military action by the state might pose to an international commercial enterprise (Enduring Riddle 22). It was not until 1786 that England experienced its first real act of free trade economics, when William Pitt entered into a commercial treaty with France that did away with most of the tariffs that would normally have applied (Fry 84). Whilst this one act alone cannot be considered to have propelled English commercial activity into modernity, together with the ‘relaxed’ mercantilism, English commercial practice had significant modern features by the time of the French Revolution. England was also surprisingly modern in a rather unexpected way, but one that proved to be pivotal to many other areas of human existence – knowledge. The proliferation of ideas of the enlightenment period was accompanied by what Mokyr calls ‘diffusion’, whereby a desire to build reputations overcame secrecy and led to ‘open science’ and ‘a culture of shared knowledge’ (Weber Lectures 11). Mokyr names this emerging large knowledge base as one of the pre-requisites for economic growth, together with a control of ‘rent-seekers’ and the removal of negative theoretical frameworks (Enduring Riddle 6). This also makes ‘knowledge’ a catalyst for modernity, having established that ‘wealth’ (and thus economic growth) has been a feature of the vision of thinkers for the past 200 years. Wrigley (104) questions this and labels it ‘a happy coincidence’ that modernity occurred at the same time as technological progress. Wrigley’s understanding comes from his comparison of England with the Dutch empire, where there was modernity without technological advance, although it would seem that this comparison cannot easily be made, given the fact institutional structures were vastly different in both countries. Be that as it may, the new ‘open’ exchange of knowledge then was at the root of international and national exchange of ideas and existing knowledge. In England, in the absence of government control and interference, this led to a spate of inventions in all sorts of areas. And although few were initially of great importance, they led to the perfection of models by others and eventually to more significant innovations. The first of these was the steam engine, which propelled the cotton industry into the limelight but others followed soon, such as Hargraeves ‘Spinning Jenny’ in 1764 (Enduring Riddle 8). What makes this exchange so surprising is that it is empiricism in action, something that had begun with Bacon and Locke (to name just two) and had gained momentum to such an extent that it was able to help break the cycle of negative feedback to which had kept the English economy at subsistence level (Enduring Riddle 10). There had been growth in the centuries prior to 1750 (Smith qtd. in Enduring Riddle 6), but it had been inconsistent and Mokyr argues that Smithian prescriptions alone would not have been as effective as they later were, had they not been aided by the removal of ‘negative feedback’ mechanisms discussed above. He posits that it was the change of these parameters that caused constant growth to occur after 1750, aided by the technological advances that came from an increase of the knowledge base. There can also be no doubt that economic growth was aided by the creation of Hume’s luxuries. Eighteenth century England had a thriving middle class that had become avid shoppers, even in the more modest income ranges. Home furnishings and furniture, together with clothing and adornments conveyed ‘codes’ of social and financial status, as well as ‘identity and self-respect’ (Berg 204, 217). The above discussion is limited but conveys a strong sense of an England that is rapidly advancing towards the conditions that were the utopian vision of the thinkers of the past centuries including those of the Enlightenment. The progress is uneven but unstoppable, although by 1789 progress is more visible in the institutional and economic sectors than elsewhere. There is little evidence that the working class took part in the unprecedented wealth and good fortune. The common man was notably absent from this picture of the ‘modern’ England. Locke’s, Hume’s and Smith’s vision for him had not materialised by 1789 and it was not for another three decades until there was some real progress in this area. Works Cited Berg, Maxine. Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth Century Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005. Print. Brewer, John 1988.The Sinews of Power. London: Century Hutchinson. Print. Fry, Michael eds Adam Smiths Legacy: His Place in the Development of Modern Economics. New York: Routledge. 1992. Print. Laski, Harold J 2nd ed The Rise of European Liberalism. London: Unwin. 1962. Print. Stewart, John. The Moral and Political Philosophy of David Hume. New York: Columbia University Press. 1963. Print. Hume, David. Essays. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. Mokyr, Joels. The New Economic History and the Industrial Revolution, Revised Introduction. Web. _ _ _ . 2002 The Enduring Riddle of the European Miracle: The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Web. _ _ _ . 2007 The European Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and Modern Economic Growth. Max Weber Lecture Series. EUI. Badia Fiesolana. Web. Smith, Adam [1776]a 1976 The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie, Oxford: Clarendon Press. _ _ _ . [1776] 1976. The Wealth of Nations. Edited by Edwin Canaan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Print. Wrigley, Ernst. Continuity, Chance and Change: The Character of the Industrial Revolution in England. 1988 New York: Cambridge University Press. Print. Read More