Is Liberalism Merely Ruling Class Ideology?

In order to answer this question one has to determine what ruling class ideology is. It is possible to interpret ideologies as particular combinations of meanings from an indeterminate range of meanings. Therefore ruling class ideology would be a mutually accepted decontestation of the essentially contestable by a group that can be identified by parameters of power and influence. This group would have, in feudal times, been considered to be the elite: those with an abundance of disproportionate wealth and natural resources at their disposal. In a Capitalist society the ‘ruling class’ as such is polarised: between the corporate powers and the governmental powers. Since capitalism and Liberalism emerged at the same time, hand in hand, one would be forgiven for supposing that Liberalism as an ideology benefited the Capitalist ruling class, however I intend to argue the opposite through my essay.

            In practise Liberalism in the UK has crossed over significantly with Conservatism. The post war consensus entered UK politics into an era whereby Modern socialist, liberal and conservative parties worked under the mutual umbrella of Capitalist Liberalism. The new right movement under Margaret Thatcher returned to a form of ideology closely linked to classical liberalism. The specific Classical Liberal values of free market trade, low taxation and reduced government were combined with neo-right wing views in this movement. The conservatives have been long associated with the preservation of the elite’s wealth and of preserving the social hierarchy, therefore Thatcher’s adoption of certain aspects of Liberalism can be seen as evidence for Liberalism being ruling class ideology. In fact most Liberal theorists would not contest that Liberalism, in this way does benefit the ruling class. They would however, argue that when Classical Liberalism first emerged, social inequality, although taken into account, was not foreseen as being so unjust. In fact social justice was seen to exist within inequality. It was not until mid 19^th century, when an internal conceptual morphology occurred. Liberal concepts of individual liberty and free markets were counterbalanced against Liberal beliefs in progress and general interests. It is at this point that Liberalism separates itself from ruling class ideology.

            In order to determine ruling class ideology as it exists today, one must consider a typical member of that class, and the identifiable social categories they are likely to fall into. Stereotypically middle aged, middle class, white men are considered to be the most powerful social group. Within this group, the most popular religion is Church of England and they are often educated to a university standard. It is presumed that the are inherently conservative in nature, in order to preserve the society and establishment in which they flourish. Within this class, as mentioned above, there is a polarisation and two clear sub-groups: firstly those who have their power base in government in some way, those who are MP’s, High ranking Civil Servants, the Prime Minister, Judges, the Cabinet, representatives in the House of Lords etc…( this group is notorious for being typical white, middle class men, with the relatively few exceptions being exclusively the handful of female and ethic MP’s in recent years). The second sub-group have their power base in Business, this includes a variety of careers such as Bankers, lawyers, Entrepreneurs, high ranking Business Managers etc…( this group are easily more diverse than the latter).

            Perhaps the strongest argument against Liberalism being a ruling class ideology will become apparent when, considering which social groups, based on statistics from the USA, are most likely to be Liberal. It was shown that Blacks identified almost unanimously with Liberal concepts, more so than Whites or Asians. Women overall identified with Liberalism more than men, since the 1960’s. Other typical Liberals tended to be young, urbanised and secular. Thus Liberalism loses out to conservatism when considering the ideological leanings of the ruling class.

            In the UK the ruling class are generally assumed to be based in the South East, specifically Westminster. Yet it is the conservatives alone that stand to preserve this centralisation, whilst other more liberal parties sponsored devolving power to Wales and Scotland as well as regional and local devolvement of power. It is also clear that northern areas, which are predominantly working class, are more liberal in their outlook than they are conservative; however, the main support in poorer areas remains with socialist parties. 

            Equal opportunity is the ethos to be found in most institutions of today, including schools and businesses. It is a fundamental Liberal principle and when it is put into practise, it protects the rights of the more vulnerable members of society, sometimes to the detriment of the business side of the ‘ruling class’. Recently, this concept has had extensive implications in the UK. The disability Act of 2000 gave businesses until 2005 to make sufficient provisions for the disabled to access their facilities. This conceptually liberal legislation legitimises government enforced sanctions on businesses that fall short of providing equal opportunities. Therefore, although Liberalism stresses the importance of a free market, it has, in this instance, undermined this concept in favour of a more social-liberal concept. This is evidence that Liberalism can both work for and against the business side of the ruling class.

Liberalism is inherently suspicious of the government, advocating limits, controls and checks on government power. Evidence for this in the UK can be seen in our constitution. Although uncodified, it does guarantee a certain level of separation of powers, ensuring the state cannot become overbearing. Core concepts of Liberalism theory are designed to safe guard the rights of the individual: in practise these concepts are translated into ‘civil rights’ and are cherished by Liberal thinkers. Mill, who is used as a point of reference to forge a sense of liberal ideological community even through expanding horizons stressed: ‘Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’. This is evidence that Liberalism actually undermines ruling class power, jurisdiction and authority by undermining parliamentary sovereignty and by challenging the legitimacy of the state to intervene in an individual’s life.

Therefore Liberalism as an ideology is certainly not the same as ruling class ideology unless the ruling class are willing to adhere to an ideology that does not serve their own interests as sufficiently as the alternative mainstream ideology: conservatism. However, ideology has a difficult relationship with political practise, with parties acting upon popular opinion rather than ideological beliefs. Another conundrum with Liberalism is that the people represented to implement it are members of the governmental ruling class, which Liberalism is inherently suspicious of. This allows the government to act with the shield of legitimacy that liberalism provides whilst ignoring selected concepts as and when it threatens their power. As an ideology it severs to progress society fairly and justly but in reality it is weak because it is so easily manipulated and is rarely criticised.

Part A: How far do the sources support the conclusion that, during the period 1780-1914, the economy and society of Britain was transformed, and with remarkably little conflict?

1780-1914 is associated with innovation, industrialisation and urbanisation. But do the sources really show Britain changed in this period? The sources will have to support the interpretation that there was a massive growth in economic output or change in nature of the economy or both. They must support the interpretation that social structure had altered, for example greater inclusion or exclusion or certain groups or the middle classes swelling, disappearing or changing in composition. To corroborate the assertion there was very little conflict, the sources may challenge the types of conflict sometimes associated with change: opposition to new imports, strikes, lock outs or banks refusing to lend and even civil war.

Source 4 shows the proportion of workers in ‘Agriculture…’ decreased between 1801 and 1914, this gives the impression there was a shift away from the ‘organic economy’. Svendenstirena, from a foreign perspective, marvels at the invention of ‘spinning machines’ and ‘steam driven engines’. The data in source 4 suggests the ‘transformation’ of the economy took place from agriculture to ‘Manufacturing and Mining’. Svendensriena’s sentiment is supportive of this conclusion but he lacks any substantiated evidence or notion of the extent of change, so his source alone is of little value. The data in source 4 reveals the fact that the main occupation in 1801 was the smallest occupation by 1914, however employment percentages alone are a limited representation of the entire economy, the Gross National Product would have been far more useful. Based on the information in source 4, it could be further assumed that the majority of workers in this period would have had different occupations to that of their parents, thus dramatically altering society. ‘Public service and domestic service’, stayed relatively stable during the entire period, the extent of transformation was limited to manual workers, leaving the service industry untouched. Neither source reveals much about conflict but source 1 gives the impression that the transformation took place with ease.

                Sources 5 and 6 imply social stability in a changing economy. Charles More notes that in 1867, ‘groups in the population seem not to have altered much,’ and qualifies his assertion by suggesting that industry had not been completely transformed either: ‘the small workshop was still prevalent in industry’. He represents the interpretation that the middle-classes remained ‘one fifth’ of the population, however, he emphasises that their composition was changing from manual to non-manual workers. This source is limited to ‘measuring’ the middle and working classes rather than analysing society, he fails to mention far more significant influences on society such as the ‘inclusion’ of the working classes in politics by extending the vote to almost all men and that this led to a more homogenous society and therefore prevented social conflict. There is a similarly limited interpretation from Edward Royle of a ‘structured class society’ existing towards the end of the eighteenth century. Yet his evidence suggests that social transformation had happened earlier, isolated in two decades: 1830’s and 1840’s. His interpretation of this period is corroborated by source 2 as a ‘trade depression’ in the textile industry. The social conflict in this period is demonstrated by Engles who, in 1845, wrote of tension between the ‘working men’ and the ‘English money-mongerer’. Engles concurs with Royle but W. Cooke Taylor contradicts them by implying that both workers and owners were harmonious, blaming the government for wage shortages. The difference in judgement between Engles and Taylor, is likely to be the product of their politics. Taylor, opposed to the Corn Laws, is likely to represent an industrialist viewpoint whereas Engels represents the working classes from a socialist perspective however, neither refers to any ‘hot’ conflict so it is presumable this never occured.

                The extent to which the sources support the notion of social transformation is limited to indirect implication because they do not, in themselves, depict a broad enough range of information. Sources 5 and 6 offer interpretations from modern historians, they subtly emphasise different issues of social structure but both seem preoccupied with defining and measuring the middle classes and reveal more of the context in which they are writing, than the period they are writing about. The assertion of economic transformation is proven, to an extent, by source 4. But this source only offers data on internal employment, for example cotton companies may have used slaves in America but these workers are outside of the range of data. Although source 4 generally implies a massive shift, it is not conclusive evidence that there was a transformation because the ‘service’ industry remains continually stable. Sources 1, 2 and 3 are primary accounts so they have the draw back of offering a limited perspective and are largely biased. Source 1 offers sentiment but no explicit evidence and without the option to cross-examine the authors of sources 2 and 3, their contradictions cannot be solved, it can only be inferred that the omission of direct reference to conflict means there was none or very little, however more evidence is needed.

                Part B: ‘The expansion of heavy industry from c1850 was the key turning point in making Britain a fully industrial society by 1914’. How far do you agree with this judgement?     

                A fully industrial society has completed the change from an agrarian, ‘family-based self-subsistent unit’[1] into a capitalist specialised society, according to Deane. To determine whether this has happened Mathias’s measure for a fully industrial society can be applied: when over half the working population work in industry. However, it is important not to over-emphasise the role of heavy industry: Mathias does not differentiate between heavy and light industry, he leaves scope for debate as to when exactly a society becomes fully industrial. It is certain that heavy industry alone cannot create a fully industrial society; development in heavy industry is reliant upon human skill, capital investment and transport. The criteria for what constitutes a ‘key’ turning point must be long-term cause and effect, Deane reaffirms the importance of long-term effect by suggesting: ‘when the revolution is sufficiently advanced to generate continuous productivity growth’ this is the key turning point.

The judgement assumes that heavy industry did expand after 1850; this is widely accepted by historians, particularly Deane who refers to it as the beginning of the ‘second industrial revolution’. The decade following 1850 is characterized by major developments within the chemical, electrical, petroleum, and steel industries. Large-scale expansion of railroads both in Britain and abroad in countries such as India increased the market for iron and steel. This led to an expanding and modernizing steel industry which in turn reduced the price of steel significantly, steel could then be used for many social purposes including bridge building and housing construction, this directly links developments in heavy industry to wider developments within society, namely the modernization of Victorian Towns. The expansion of heavy industry also allowed communication to develop and expand, by 1858, the first transatlantic cable was laid between Valentia Harbor in Ireland and Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, America. Advances in communication inevitably impacted upon world trade: between 1800 and 1840, world trade increased by 90%, after 1850 until 1870 it increased by 260%. From 1850 there was an influx of foreign capital from the British Empire and venture settlements in America and Australia, the City of London became the first the financial center of the world. After 1850 the evidence suggests that heavy industry did expand at an unprecedented rate for several decades, Britain was the ‘work shop of the world’[2] and this did have profound implications on the rest of British society. But by 1914 Britain’s economy was in decline and this had been the trend since 1870, therefore the effects of heavy industry expanding in 1850 seem to be only short term.

The expansion of heavy industry may indeed have accelerated after 1850, but the key turning point from agriculture to industry could have rested on the expansion of transport almost 30 years earlier. Transport developed in response to the demands of ‘light’ industry or textiles, from the late 1700’s canals were harnessed to link major towns with ports and with London: ‘by the 1820’s a national network [of canals] existed’[3].Canals were also associated with the movement of coal that was needed to generate steam to fuel machines used in textile production. The railways were a turning point for transport, according to Deane: ‘there were…a number of ways in which the impact of the railways, at least in scale if not principle, greatly differed from the impact of the earlier transport revolution’. The expansion of the railways allowed ‘other sectors of economic activity to expand’[4], since it increased demand for iron and steel. However the nature of change went beyond that of economic expansion, it ‘consumed raw materials and stimulated investment’[5]. It also connected markets and people by aiding communication and led to the standardisation of time throughout the whole of Britain in 1845 after ‘companies successfully lobbied parliament’[6].The extent of change brought about by railways reached from heavy industry to individuals of all classes especially after the introduction of tiered ticket prices in 1845. Therefore ‘Railway mania’ in 1846 can be considered as a key turning point since it was the year where the transportation of goods and people, in principle, changed most dramatically. 1846 was the year where the most railway mileage was sanctioned: according to H.G Lewin 4,540 miles, this figured had double from the previous year where 2,816 miles were sanctioned, by 1850 the government approved only 7 miles. This shows that heavy industry expanded before 1850 as well as after and this undermines the judgement that 1850 was a turning point. 

The expansion of heavy industry gave Britain a world advantage and in 1851 technological advancements were show-cased at the Great Exhibition. This was also true in 1800 of Britain’s ‘unprecedented, unrepeatable world advantage’[7] in the textile industry. However the textile boom, as a whole, cannot compete as a key turning point for society, it does, however, illustrate why the expansion of heavy industry after 1850 was. Many social effects of the textile industry were due to short term fluctuations in the trade cycle, the economic cycle and still, the harvest cycle. The expansion of heavy industry stabilised economic fluctuations and the effect these had on society by being less affected by uncontrollable cycles. The expansion of the textile industry did change Britain, however, it coincided with the decline of agriculture and together they changed the composition of the workforce and the composition of the GNP. In 1750 agriculture was the biggest single contributor to national produce, by 1821 exporting material was[8]. By comparison, the expansion of heavy industry changed the composition of the GNP without a massive decline in another area. The expansion of heavy industry can be highlighted as a process of change that is a ‘turning point’ when contrasted by the process of ‘biological’ expansion in textiles.  

Given the nature of a turning point, are single inventions more suited to be analysed than expansions in entire sections of industry? Most change in Britain during the nineteenth century took place in the commercial context. Technical innovations were motivated by market demands, for example machines that could increase the speed of productivity. Therefore inventions are difficult to consider as turning points; only the most profitable inventions lead to innovation, Mathias terms this, ‘Commercial Darwinism’. Until momentum was gained in key industries such as Iron and textiles, new forms of power were not fully exploited- there was an astonishing gap between knowledge and action[9]. However the single development of Automatic mules in 1824 had such profound implications for society, distinguishable from the rest of the textile boom or other single innovations, that it warrants being considered as a rival key turning point to the expansion of heavy industry after 1850. Before this point family-based labour had naturally adapted from the old putting-out system into the new cottage or small-factory based industry. This meant it was socially acceptable for women and children to be found employed in factories since it was usually under the care of the head of their household[10]. However, after the development of the automatic mule, more children were needed per man and therefore the family unit became spilt up. Power began to accumulate in the hands of a few men; old patterns of employment from a pre-industrial society were forced into this new context. This eventually led to a condition where public authorities began implementing social controls. The general belief in laissez-faire governing and in the self-help ideology were obstacles to reform but the motivation for change sprung from invention of Automatic mules since they led to an exposure of traditional practises being exercised in a factory setting. The final determinate in establishing the key turning point will be, for the purposes of this essay, the one that had most effect on women.

Valenze interprets the process of  industrialisation as the "defamation of women workers". But how did the ‘turning points’ of change affect societies attitutude to women? Before the Agricultural Revolution, women were an active part of farming and did equal work to their husbands. Work was often based in the home and the ‘spheres’ of life were integrated. New labour saving farming technicques were meant less of an argicultural labour force was required, this made many women redundant. The Automatic Mule in 1824 compounded this problem, separating the two spheres of life even further, changing the traditional functions of the family as work became more specialised and ‘managers’ took the place of parents. For working-class women it was an economic necessity to supplement their family’s income, ‘factory girls or mill hands symbolised the new economic order’[11], power relations were defined since men did the skilled work whilst conventional ‘women’s work’ was unskilled and poorly paid. As heavy industry expanded women were formally excluded from work for the first time: by the Mines Act in 1842 and further legislation that continued to limit the work accessible to women. This led to women becoming increasingly financially dependant upon their husbands. By the late 1850’s, ‘the angel in the house’ symbolised the social role ascribed to women, underpinned by a patriarchal ideology. However, the formal exclusion of women presented the means for evaluating of the role of women as legal entities. Rather than continuing to have their social status oppressed, by 1867 the London society for women’s suffrage was founded. The momentum after 1850 was for equality, symbolised by the invention of the bicycle which gave women a great deal of freedom and changed women’s fashion thereafter, making such restrictive Victorian clothing impractical. Both possible key turning points effected women to a similar extent but the expansion of heavy industry provoked an a solid social movement for change that grew until world war one in 1914.  

This evidence shows that by 1914 Britain had completed the transformation from an agricultural to an industrial society and that the expansion of heavy industry had an extensive impact upon this. From social and political attitudes concerning children, with regard to work and education, to the jurisdiction of public authorities in private relations between employer and employee and the advent of ‘social poilicy’. An acceleration in the pace of change in heavy industry cannot take full credit for social change in this era, the single innovation of the Automatic Mule in 1824 had significant implications for society, most notabley changing the role of the family unit and the role of women in relation to men. Many of the differences between Britain after 1850 were the result of changes that happened earlier in the century, the expansion of heavy industry simply acted as a catyalst for them to be inflicated upon society, this is best illustrated by changing attitudes to women. The role of women was altered already by 1800, but it was not untill after 1850 that this was formally realised and the social momentum for change gained. Therefore an acceleration in pace for heavy industry caused an acceleration of pace for social change and this is the basis for agreeing that the expansion of heavy industry from 1850 was the key turning point for creating the society in 1914.  However, in 1850 Britain’s economic hegemony was under threat from Germany and North America, by 1870 there was an economic plateau and shortly after 1914, it was in decline. Ironically, the acceleration of pace in 1850 led to an unsustainable boom that post-1914, led an economy solely composed of tertiary trade, absent of any notable industry.

Word Count for both parts= 2, 632

Bibliography

www.bbc.com

Chapter 8 of photocopied sheet titled: ‘To what extent did the status and role of women change by 1914?’

John H Woods, A history of central Banking in Britain and America

Pat Hudson, The Workshop of the World, 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution#Canals

Mathias, First Industrial Nation

Hobsbawn, The Age of Capital