Progress as Regression: An Analysis of Political Violence and Its Relation to the Path of Progress
Progress is a concept, and like any concept its worth is viewed subjectively by those it impacts. Throughout history, different manifestations of progress have been both accepted and rejected, many at the same time. Sometimes, the process of acceptance results in a synthesis of old and new values into a composite ideology that dominates a culture (Hegel, 1). Other times, rejection of the new values results in a denial of synthesis or in violence. I will examine two examples of a people rejecting a new paradigm of progress, violence primarily emanating from different sides (one supporting, one detracting). The first, Luddism, was an anti-technological perspective whose original incarnation lasted from 1811 to around 1816 in response to increasing industrialization during the vanguard of the industrial revolution. The second, Manifest Destiny, was the idea that America’s rightful destiny was subdual of all the lands it currently occupies, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, and whose vehicle was brutal suppression and relocation of the indigenous peoples. By examining these two periods of human history with the assumption that social values are subjective, I will attempt to prove that progress does not process in a straight line, that it does not reach toward some indefinable goal: progress is merely the ebb and flow of human preference, and those who hold power can lift themselves above the waves to avoid its negative consequences, or can strike the water and move it according to their preference. In a sense, I’m just going to be extremely cynical and pessimistic with regards to human nature and our future.
The first manifestations of the Industrial Revolution were not huge factories and gushing steam, but quiet, gradual use of complex machines in households. As early as the 1600s drastic improvements were being made on common household machines like looms, and prompting an increase in production and an easing of poverty. However, more and more workers were hired to work at someone else’s machine, instead of using their own. This exploitation was the newest form of capitalism, and drew increasing criticism from both the lower and, to a much lesser extent, upper classes. Lord Byron famously supported the Luddite movement, and argued against parliamentary resolutions against their actions.
The term “Luddism” grows from an urban myth of England; that in 1779 a man named Ned Lud broke into a house and destroyed two stocking frames. People who identified with the insane man, having presumably lost their jobs or seen their livelihoods threatened by the capitalization of low-scale industry, took on his moniker and began mimicking his actions. Industrial sabotage of this sort had been going on since 1710, but it erupted in 1811 with the formation of a radical militia of Luddites, parallel to today’s American Patriots movement in scale and purpose. Skirmishes between the British Army and the Luddite forces resulted in the death penalty being enacted for any acts of “machine breaking”, or industrial sabotage, in an effort to curb the violence and to appease the merchants whose capital was being vandalized.
The Luddite movement was “eyes wide open class warfare” (Pynchon, 1). It is a perfect example of Marxist theory’s class warfare, the start of a socialist revolution, in a sense. The theory of relative deprivation fits the Luddite movement very well, when combined with Marx and Engel’s treatises. Relative deprivation, basically, states that when people expect X, and they receive Y, and Y is less than X, then there will be unrest of a sort. Lordy Byron’s rejection of the Frame Breaking Act of 1812 was based not on any anti-capitalism leanings, nor any fear of technology as humanity’s downfall, but because the drastic increase on the price of wheat was combining with high unemployment (perceived as an effect of the hiring of low-wage apprentices to work simple machines) to increase poverty to unbearable levels for the lower class. He wrote in 1812:
“Some folks for certain have thought it was shocking,
When Famine appeals, and when Poverty groans,
That life should be valued at less than a stocking,
And breaking of frames lead to breaking of bones.
If it should prove so, I trust, by this token,
(And who will refuse to partake in the hope?)
That the frames of the fools may be first to be broken,
Who, when asked for a remedy, sent down a rope.”
(Byron, 1)
The Industrial Revolution, when devoid of its proud title of “Progress”, had the following effects: pollution, extreme class disparity, unemployment, and direct contribution to much larger, more directly lethal events (the World Wars spring to mind). All of these effects overwhelmingly negatively impacted the lower-classes far more than they did the upper. Luddism was merely a lower-class rejection of an upper-class value and the consequent clash over dominance, at which the upper-class eventually won out.
Social Conflict theory also explains rather well the Luddite movement. It argues that acts of deviance (in this case, industrial sabotage) are not labeled as deviant because of some inherent quality of the act, but because of the way they are viewed by those in society who hold the power. To put this into perspective, the general population would consider industrial sabotage against government sponsored or affirmed power plants to be deviant and wrong, but would be less likely to label a military demolition of private power plants as wrong. Even in today’s supposedly enlightened and civilized society, much of the time, those in power transparently decide what is right and wrong according to their own interests.
Additionally, the sociological theory of Social Control theory illuminates the situation of the Luddites. Social Control theory states that an individual consciously or subconsciously weighs three factors before engaging in deviance. First, are the gains worth more than the risks? Second, is the person too involved in socially acceptable means of pursuing goals to engage in deviance? Finally, do they reject social mores or rationalize their actions within those mores? A convenient parallel to the actions and situation of the Luddites when viewed from this perspective is that of pirates 200-100 years earlier.
The gains for both were worth more than the risks, as the perceived likelihood of being caught was so low. Also, both deviances arose out of extreme poverty and adverse living conditions, and both were seen as a way to improve those conditions.
The majority of Luddites had no jobs or were being paid very little, and so had no involvement in the current means of improvement.
Finally, the Luddites rejected the social mores of the time; those of the developing hegemony of the rich. The sought to break that hegemony by breaking the physical manifestations of it: the machines.
Luddism turned out to be a mere hiccup in the progress of industrial capitalism, but its significance lies, in a sense, in its failure. By realizing that progress is not necessarily in the best interests of everyone, one can come to understand the forces at work behind social change.
The concept of Manifest Destiny, later viewed as greedy and capitalistic, and closely tied with the gold rushes of the 1860s and 1870s, was first optimistically conceived in an 1845 piece by John L. O’Sullivan. He wrote:
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (Brinkley, 1)
As in the above quote, it was first perceived as a philosophically and religiously reasoned right to further the growth (a good thing) of America (a good thing, so, a good thing ²). This feeling, when fueled by the discovery of gold in the Oregon Territory, brought about a direct conflict of interest between the American government and People and that of the Native Americans. The influx of settlers began to wear on the Native’s land and resources, and the formation of the Transcontinental Railroad, begun in 1863 (PBS, 1), prompted the US Government to displace thousands of Natives and enstated precedence that allowed for the slaughter of entire Native American communities with little or no provocation. From this dichotomy the title of my essay arises. Between Brinkley’s concept that envisions a free, inclusive, and benevolent nation and the nation that is evidenced from events such as the Trail of Tears or the Sand Creek Massacre there is a terrible schism. The public’s synthesis of Brinkley’s progress accepted the destiny to spread and possess, and rejected that of liberty, instead maintaining the old standbys of violence and oppression to further the new concept of progress.
I hereby hypothesize that synthesis might not only be the combination of two different value systems, but also could merely be the more supported value system hijacking the language of the lesser to further its own means, destroying the weaker value system in all but name. In a way, progress as a concept behaves virally, with the current value system representing an immune system, and the new theory being a virus. Applying this metaphor allows us to see progress in a new light: not as cooperative and organic and positive, but simple mathematics. If the current value system is not strong enough to shrug off the invading concept, it becomes infected, and its fundamental processes are distorted to further the cause of the virus in multiplying. Because progress itself seems to be the rather sterile process of synthesis of totally subjective value systems, it itself is devoid of any qualitative value.
I believe this also illuminates an unfortunate aspect of most historical forms of progress: the infected cell will survive for a time, but will ultimately burst. We see this in the example of the American Indians. Their culture was slowly destroyed by the new system of living they were thrown into, and is only now being exhumed, long after the concepts and perceptions that fueled its demise have now themselves died out.
When applying this new concept of viral progress to the Luddite Movement, the conflict jumps into a different contrast. The slow invasion of the upper classes into the everyday industry of the lower classes was too insidious for the “immune system” of the lower classes to fight off, though they sporadically tried. The values of the lower-class: individual government, freedom, and reasonable living slowly gave way to mere survival in the face of upper-class dominance of societal goals.
As the inheritor of social traditions that claimed to value peace, justice, and non-violence, our society has evolved out of hypocrisy. The purest, brightest, and most ideal concepts have consistently been overridden by the personal interest of those who hold power. In order to further our own views; affect our own subject ideas of progress, we must understand completely both what our view of progress is and the current social forces that may twist and warp it into a vehicle for future pretense. Further, we must understand the vehicle that will bring about our preferred social change; the hammer that allows us to drive the nail home. We must understand the power of power in the course of social change.
Bibliography:
Hegel, 1: Enzyklopädie ,Paragraphs 79-82
PBS, 1: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/tcrr/timeline/
Pynchon, 1: http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html
Brinkley, 1: American History: A Survey, Volume 1, pp. 352
Byron, 1: Morning Chronicle, 2 Mar. 1812
Progress is a concept, and like any concept its worth is viewed subjectively by those it impacts. Throughout history, different manifestations of progress have been both accepted and rejected, many at the same time. Sometimes, the process of acceptance results in a synthesis of old and new values into a composite ideology that dominates a culture (Hegel, 1). Other times, rejection of the new values results in a denial of synthesis or in violence. I will examine two examples of a people rejecting a new paradigm of progress, violence primarily emanating from different sides (one supporting, one detracting). The first, Luddism, was an anti-technological perspective whose original incarnation lasted from 1811 to around 1816 in response to increasing industrialization during the vanguard of the industrial revolution. The second, Manifest Destiny, was the idea that America’s rightful destiny was subdual of all the lands it currently occupies, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, and whose vehicle was brutal suppression and relocation of the indigenous peoples. By examining these two periods of human history with the assumption that social values are subjective, I will attempt to prove that progress does not process in a straight line, that it does not reach toward some indefinable goal: progress is merely the ebb and flow of human preference, and those who hold power can lift themselves above the waves to avoid its negative consequences, or can strike the water and move it according to their preference. In a sense, I’m just going to be extremely cynical and pessimistic with regards to human nature and our future.
The first manifestations of the Industrial Revolution were not huge factories and gushing steam, but quiet, gradual use of complex machines in households. As early as the 1600s drastic improvements were being made on common household machines like looms, and prompting an increase in production and an easing of poverty. However, more and more workers were hired to work at someone else’s machine, instead of using their own. This exploitation was the newest form of capitalism, and drew increasing criticism from both the lower and, to a much lesser extent, upper classes. Lord Byron famously supported the Luddite movement, and argued against parliamentary resolutions against their actions.
The term “Luddism” grows from an urban myth of England; that in 1779 a man named Ned Lud broke into a house and destroyed two stocking frames. People who identified with the insane man, having presumably lost their jobs or seen their livelihoods threatened by the capitalization of low-scale industry, took on his moniker and began mimicking his actions. Industrial sabotage of this sort had been going on since 1710, but it erupted in 1811 with the formation of a radical militia of Luddites, parallel to today’s American Patriots movement in scale and purpose. Skirmishes between the British Army and the Luddite forces resulted in the death penalty being enacted for any acts of “machine breaking”, or industrial sabotage, in an effort to curb the violence and to appease the merchants whose capital was being vandalized.
The Luddite movement was “eyes wide open class warfare” (Pynchon, 1). It is a perfect example of Marxist theory’s class warfare, the start of a socialist revolution, in a sense. The theory of relative deprivation fits the Luddite movement very well, when combined with Marx and Engel’s treatises. Relative deprivation, basically, states that when people expect X, and they receive Y, and Y is less than X, then there will be unrest of a sort. Lordy Byron’s rejection of the Frame Breaking Act of 1812 was based not on any anti-capitalism leanings, nor any fear of technology as humanity’s downfall, but because the drastic increase on the price of wheat was combining with high unemployment (perceived as an effect of the hiring of low-wage apprentices to work simple machines) to increase poverty to unbearable levels for the lower class. He wrote in 1812:
“Some folks for certain have thought it was shocking,
When Famine appeals, and when Poverty groans,
That life should be valued at less than a stocking,
And breaking of frames lead to breaking of bones.
If it should prove so, I trust, by this token,
(And who will refuse to partake in the hope?)
That the frames of the fools may be first to be broken,
Who, when asked for a remedy, sent down a rope.”
(Byron, 1)
The Industrial Revolution, when devoid of its proud title of “Progress”, had the following effects: pollution, extreme class disparity, unemployment, and direct contribution to much larger, more directly lethal events (the World Wars spring to mind). All of these effects overwhelmingly negatively impacted the lower-classes far more than they did the upper. Luddism was merely a lower-class rejection of an upper-class value and the consequent clash over dominance, at which the upper-class eventually won out.
Social Conflict theory also explains rather well the Luddite movement. It argues that acts of deviance (in this case, industrial sabotage) are not labeled as deviant because of some inherent quality of the act, but because of the way they are viewed by those in society who hold the power. To put this into perspective, the general population would consider industrial sabotage against government sponsored or affirmed power plants to be deviant and wrong, but would be less likely to label a military demolition of private power plants as wrong. Even in today’s supposedly enlightened and civilized society, much of the time, those in power transparently decide what is right and wrong according to their own interests.
Additionally, the sociological theory of Social Control theory illuminates the situation of the Luddites. Social Control theory states that an individual consciously or subconsciously weighs three factors before engaging in deviance. First, are the gains worth more than the risks? Second, is the person too involved in socially acceptable means of pursuing goals to engage in deviance? Finally, do they reject social mores or rationalize their actions within those mores? A convenient parallel to the actions and situation of the Luddites when viewed from this perspective is that of pirates 200-100 years earlier.
The gains for both were worth more than the risks, as the perceived likelihood of being caught was so low. Also, both deviances arose out of extreme poverty and adverse living conditions, and both were seen as a way to improve those conditions.
The majority of Luddites had no jobs or were being paid very little, and so had no involvement in the current means of improvement.
Finally, the Luddites rejected the social mores of the time; those of the developing hegemony of the rich. The sought to break that hegemony by breaking the physical manifestations of it: the machines.
Luddism turned out to be a mere hiccup in the progress of industrial capitalism, but its significance lies, in a sense, in its failure. By realizing that progress is not necessarily in the best interests of everyone, one can come to understand the forces at work behind social change.
The concept of Manifest Destiny, later viewed as greedy and capitalistic, and closely tied with the gold rushes of the 1860s and 1870s, was first optimistically conceived in an 1845 piece by John L. O’Sullivan. He wrote:
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (Brinkley, 1)
As in the above quote, it was first perceived as a philosophically and religiously reasoned right to further the growth (a good thing) of America (a good thing, so, a good thing ²). This feeling, when fueled by the discovery of gold in the Oregon Territory, brought about a direct conflict of interest between the American government and People and that of the Native Americans. The influx of settlers began to wear on the Native’s land and resources, and the formation of the Transcontinental Railroad, begun in 1863 (PBS, 1), prompted the US Government to displace thousands of Natives and enstated precedence that allowed for the slaughter of entire Native American communities with little or no provocation. From this dichotomy the title of my essay arises. Between Brinkley’s concept that envisions a free, inclusive, and benevolent nation and the nation that is evidenced from events such as the Trail of Tears or the Sand Creek Massacre there is a terrible schism. The public’s synthesis of Brinkley’s progress accepted the destiny to spread and possess, and rejected that of liberty, instead maintaining the old standbys of violence and oppression to further the new concept of progress.
I hereby hypothesize that synthesis might not only be the combination of two different value systems, but also could merely be the more supported value system hijacking the language of the lesser to further its own means, destroying the weaker value system in all but name. In a way, progress as a concept behaves virally, with the current value system representing an immune system, and the new theory being a virus. Applying this metaphor allows us to see progress in a new light: not as cooperative and organic and positive, but simple mathematics. If the current value system is not strong enough to shrug off the invading concept, it becomes infected, and its fundamental processes are distorted to further the cause of the virus in multiplying. Because progress itself seems to be the rather sterile process of synthesis of totally subjective value systems, it itself is devoid of any qualitative value.
I believe this also illuminates an unfortunate aspect of most historical forms of progress: the infected cell will survive for a time, but will ultimately burst. We see this in the example of the American Indians. Their culture was slowly destroyed by the new system of living they were thrown into, and is only now being exhumed, long after the concepts and perceptions that fueled its demise have now themselves died out.
When applying this new concept of viral progress to the Luddite Movement, the conflict jumps into a different contrast. The slow invasion of the upper classes into the everyday industry of the lower classes was too insidious for the “immune system” of the lower classes to fight off, though they sporadically tried. The values of the lower-class: individual government, freedom, and reasonable living slowly gave way to mere survival in the face of upper-class dominance of societal goals.
As the inheritor of social traditions that claimed to value peace, justice, and non-violence, our society has evolved out of hypocrisy. The purest, brightest, and most ideal concepts have consistently been overridden by the personal interest of those who hold power. In order to further our own views; affect our own subject ideas of progress, we must understand completely both what our view of progress is and the current social forces that may twist and warp it into a vehicle for future pretense. Further, we must understand the vehicle that will bring about our preferred social change; the hammer that allows us to drive the nail home. We must understand the power of power in the course of social change.
Bibliography:
Hegel, 1: Enzyklopädie ,Paragraphs 79-82
PBS, 1: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/tcrr/timeline/
Pynchon, 1: http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html
Brinkley, 1: American History: A Survey, Volume 1, pp. 352
Byron, 1: Morning Chronicle, 2 Mar. 1812
posted by evan at 3:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home