Author: Samuel Smiles, Scottish, government reformer. Born in 1812, he was the second oldest of eleven children. His father died of cholera in 1832, but his mother ran a general store and was able to continue to support all of her children. Smiles had a deep admiration of his mother’s work ethic, which influenced his work later in life.
Context: 1882, beginning of the second industrial revolution. He wrote about many of the same things Frederick W. Taylor, but about thirty years earlier.
Language: Fairly easy to read, he does not use very stilted language. The passage is also rather interesting, both content and the way it is presented, making it easier to read and understand.
Audience: Primarily working class, but also includes upper class and government officials. Smiles wrote primarily about the working class, and thus intended his writing to be read by the same.
Intent: To inspire the working class to strive to be better, and to improve themselves. Similar to Frederick W. Taylor, he wanted to eliminate soldiering and improve not only efficiency in industry, but society as a whole.
Message: Individuals cannot be improved through government intervention alone. No law “can make the idle industrious, the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober.” In order for society to truly progress, individuals need to improve themselves through self-help and the improvement of society will follow. This is similar to Adam Smith’s idea that the industrialist’s self interest will inevitably benefit the social interest; if all individuals strive to be better through self-improvement, society as a whole will progress and improve.
Prof. Qualls' Course Blogs
Blogging and Teaching, Teaching and Blogging…but always learning!
Solid aclaim. I like that you strung together Smile’s ideas with Taylor and Smith. I found the end of Smile’s article to be most interesting where he denounced progress and self-improvement via reading and upheld the experiences learned from work and action. Smiles postulated that schools and universities do not give someone active help, rather, these institutions provide a basis for someone to improve or develop their individual condition.
I understand how this would be used to “inspire the working class to strive to be better,” however I can also see how this could be taken very differently. Much of what he says revolves around the idea that the “root of all genuine growth is in the individual,” and for those who are struggling in their living conditions this also implies that their efforts have not been enough. He may be attempting to teach self- sufficiency, but also bashes those that need aid.