Category Archives: HIST107-Archive

The Battle against Victorian Values

Posted on by

Emmeline Pankhurst, the founder of the “Women’s Social and Political Union,” was an integral contributor to the women’s suffrage movement in Britain. Born in Manchester to politically active parents, Pankhurst was introduced to the suffrage movement at a young age. She subsequently married Richard Pankhurst, a supporter of women’s suffrage who supported her activist work. In her 1913 writing “Militant Suffragist,” Pankhurst asserts that the suffrage movement in England, unlike its counterpart in the United States, had progressed past the state of advocacy into a revolutionary and civil war. ((Emmeline Pankhurst, Militant Suffragist, 1913)) The text was authored in the midst of the WPSU’s energized campaigning. The group condoned destruction of property and even arson as tactics to achieve suffrage, staying true to the title of “militant.” The use of such approaches explains Pankhurst’s self-conceptualization as a soldier rather than simply an activist. Part of her duty as a soldier fighting for liberty was a willingness to die for her cause; Pankhurst states that her group forced the government to accept that “either women are to be killed or women are to have the vote.” Her impassioned writing aimed at converting men to her cause. She beseeched men in the United States specifically to consider whether they would rather kill women they respected than give them equal citizenship. ((Emmeline Pankhurst, Militant Suffragist, 1913))

Emmeline_Pankhurst_in_prison

Pankhurst during her first prison sentence in 1908. She was imprisoned for “obstruction” after attempting to give a document of protest to the Prime Minister.

Pankhurst represented a significant shift away from the glorification of middle class “virtues” prevalent in the Victorian Era. During the nineteenth century, female authors such as Elizabeth Poole Sanford and “Mrs. Beeton” authored self-help works instructing women to be contented with their inferior position and avoid leaving their domestic sphere. Pankhurst’s text was the antithesis to the concept that a woman should live to please her husband, an idea which bred anti-suffragist concerns about a man simply deciding for whom his wife would vote. Victorian middle class values were largely an illusion, only attainable by the wealthy and perpetuated by those it subjugated. Pankhurst aided in the eventually successful fight for women’s suffrage, accounting for the partial destruction of values oppressive to women. In thinking about the dramatic differences between the writings and lives of the two Victorian authors versus Pankhurst, I would ask what major social, cultural, or economic factors may have influenced the divide.

Picture from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Emmeline_Pankhurst_in_prison.jpg

Victorious Victorian ideals?

Posted on by

Samuel Smiles, a Scottish reformer involved in the Chartist movement, declared that individualism leads to success of society. Written in 1882, his book Self-Help inspired progress through rationality, attention to detail, and “patience and perseverance.” ((Samuel Smiles: Self-Help, 1882)) Smiles, a Victorian who promoted Victorian ideals, detested inheritance and rather believed that success should be determined through—or rather achieved by—relentless determination. Victorian ideals practiced in Britain during this time period separated Britain from the rest of the world, notably countries such as France, who dabbled through numerous Revolutions seeking to find the truth to society’s success. It is in these Victorian ideals that success is most possible; thus, Smiles sought to promote the Victorian ideas of self-reliance and self-responsibility. Smiles not only writes to his own people to proudly affirm the integrity of the Victorian model, but also to other countries such as France. Smiles sought to create a prosperous society with Victorian ideals, and thus writes with enthusiastic, inspired fervor. He uses enhanced, passionate language to further engage his audience: people who are searching for the truth. Furthermore, Smiles refutes the assumption that government plays a significant role, or often times the primary role, in the success of society. Smile believes that individualism is the cornerstone of society and therefore will determine the fate of the nation. Thus, all individuals—regardless of skill, appearance, or reputation—have the ability to make a difference in society.

Smiles goes on to say that it’s not only the General of the war or it’s not only the owner of the business that play a significant role in society. ((Samuel Smiles: Self-Help, 1882)) All members of society who work hard to achieve a certain goal or who simply show respect towards others while being humble should be equally as recognized. As Smiles says, the people glorified in the history books should not—and do not—deserve all of the credit. ((Samuel Smiles: Self-Help, 1882)

A society with a focus on individualism should, at least in my honest opinion, be the most successful. Individualism teaches people to act responsibly and rationally, thereby increasing their intellect and increasing their level of maturity. This level of maturity pertains to the honorable traits Smiles sets forth in his passage: respect, humility, inspiration, vigor, among others. These qualities, if practiced by even a few individuals, can be spread to the masses with ease simply because of their nature. They are infectious traits.

I do think that some of Smiles’ ideas have translated to today’s society. While I think we do not do the best job of giving contributors equal credit, and we do rely on government for much of our help, we still practice individualism in a great capacity. Without our determination, without our self-reliance, without our vigor, we would not be living. We would be simply alive.

Have we adopted the ideas of self-help? Did the Victorians do their job—were they effective? Do we admire the contributions of everyone in today’s society, not just the people at the top? And are the Victorian ideas themselves “victorious” (i.e. the most effective at achieving societal success)

Females on the Front: The Evolution of Women’s Rights and Societal Roles

Posted on by

Mrs. John Sandford’s work Woman in her Social and Domestic Character was published in 1833 from Industrial England.  The work is difficult to comprehend as its intent reach out to every wife in the country.  The intent of this work was to inform women of the ways in which they are influenced and who they influence as well as their responsibilities as the familial matriarch.  Sandford’s message comes directly from the text when she wrote “Domestic life is a woman’s sphere, and it is there that she is most usefully as well as most appropriately employed” ((Sandford, Woman in her Social and Domestic Character, 1833)).  The author explicates the thesis of this section by saying women are in charge of the home and are best suited for tasks in and around the household.

I found all of the readings for Monday to be very peculiar; they all are dealing with women and their roles in society, but I can’t tell if they’re advocating for improvement of those rights or accepting what is observed as their natural position because women are perceived as more delicate or well-mannered.  Sandford supports this by writing “Delicacy is, indeed, the point of honour in woman.  And her purity of manner will ensure to her deference…” ((Sandford, Woman in her Social and Domestic Character, 1833)).  This statement draws conclusions to women’s roles in society based on the socially acceptable mannerisms, making them seem weak and vulnerable.

Obviously these traits do not define women today.  With the recent surge in feminist movements and the push for better treatment of women, we have seen some incredible changes in large sectors of our society, specifically in the military.  These preconceived notions of delicate women and roles solely in the the household were shattered not only when Captain Kristen Griest and First Lieutenant Shaye Haver became the first two females in military history graduated Army Ranger School in August 2015 ((Macias, These 2 badass female Army Rangers just made history — here’s the grueling training they endured, 2015)), but also when all combat roles in all military branches opened to women in December 2015 ((Rosenberg, All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Defense Secretary Says, 2015)).  These two occasions are incredibly momentous in for women’s rights; the dainty female Sandford portrayed is long behind us.

Female Army Rangers

CPT Griest and 1LT Haver

(http://www.businessinsider.com/first-women-to-earn-army-ranger-tab-2015-8)

 

As a commissioning officer into a combat arms branch within the next three months, this will affect me greatly as I will be working with females in a predominantly male environment.  I see this as an opportunity to widen perspectives and opportunities for all soldiers in the Army, regardless of gender.

The questions I pose to our class are:

Are there any other large changes we see on the horizon for women’s rights?

In what other ways do we see women’s potentials limited because of restrictions based on gender in our country?

Smiles’ Contradiction

Posted on by

Samuel Smiles was a firm believer that growth comes from the individual; hard work, perseverance, and application all made an individual strong and knowledgeable. ((Samuel Smiles, Self Help, 1882)) Smiles was a Scottish writer who learned the importance of self reliance from his childhood; as one of eleven children with no father, he learned from his mother the meaning of individual strength. When he was a little older he moved to England where he joined the chartists in fighting for worker’s rights. His writing is said to be some of the most reflective writing of the Victorian era, exemplifying a lot of common identities and ideas from this era.

 

Something very interesting about Smiles’ writing is that he seems to advocate for child labor, saying that schools don’t give the best education. ((Samuel Smiles, Self Help, 1882)) Instead he advocates for students to be “in the workshop, at the loom and the plough, in counting-houses and manufactories”. ((Samuel Smiles, Self Help, 1882)) As a chartist who generally fought for worker’s rights, women’s suffrage, and other very liberal ideals, I found it surprising that he is inferring that children should be kept out of schools and instead should be in workshops. I found it especially surprising because at one point in the excerpt we read from his book he mentions that biographies of other men are especially useful and should be read by individuals. If children are not going to school, how does he expect them to read these biographies? It was a little unsettling that he wasn’t opposed to child labor, but I found that Smiles was a big advocate of capitalism and was even heavily involved in the railway business. A lot of industries at that time (including the railroad industry) relied on child labor.

 
Is Smiles’ position as a railroad tycoon swaying his opinion on child labor and education?

Defining Etiquette

Posted on by

In the nineteenth century as capitalism was established in many developing countries around the world, the middle class grew significantly. People began to have more money and high society and socializing became something that was not just for the aristocracy. Thorstein Veblen discussed this phenomenon in his Theory of the Leisure Class where he wrote that this upper class consumes just for show and as a performance to solidify their social standing. He also briefly mentioned that women were responsible for consuming and demonstrating on their own behalf, but also to show the wealth and stature of their husbands. ((Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899)) While Veblen wrote in 1899, he was clearly observing a phenomenon that was put in place partially by works such as The Book of Household Management by Isabella Beeton. This work outlined what the rules and duties of a woman were in this time, especially with regards to their relationship with their husband and the best and most proper way to run their household.

Isabella Beeton was an English woman, married to a magazine editor and publisher. She began writing by publishing weekly magazine articles for her husband’s publication on cookery and French fiction. She then began writing longer pieces for his “Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine” about the correct etiquette for Victorian society. These pieces were eventually published into a single Book of Household Management, which described how to conduct oneself in a variety of situations from hiring servants to throwing a dinner party. ((Isabella Beeton, The Book of Household Management, 1861)) The book became extremely popular and the name ‘Mrs. Beeton’ became synonymous with a domestic authority. One reason that this book was likely so popular was that many women were entering into the upper middle class society for the first time. The middle class was growing, and many women likely looked for a codified authority on what proper etiquette was so that they would not make any social blunders or embarrass their husbands in social settings. Victorian society was also one with a lot of rules and standards of what was considered acceptable and not, so having this book with the rules written down likely assisted many women in making sure they fully understood what the proper action was in each situation.

Mrs. Beeton’s Book of Household Management is still being published today, and while it is now largely used as a study on Victorian etiquette, are there other similar publications today? Do magazines such as Good Housekeeping, Better Homes and Gardens or the Oprah Magazine perform similar functions as The Book of Household Management? Is social etiquette as clearly defined today as it was in nineteenth century England?

The Race to Consume

Posted on by

Thorstein Veblen wrote his “Conspicuous Consumption” towards the end of the industrial revolution in 1902. The work intended to highlight what Veblen saw as frivolous consumption for the sake of status rather than for a necessity. Veblen witnessed large scale consumerism in its early stages and pinpointed the essential characteristics of a caste system based entirely upon one’s ability to purchase the correct things.

The upper level of Veblen’s caste system was known as the “leisure class,” a class which ostensibly consumed luxuries, and was wealthy enough to indulge in leisurely activities. ((Thorstein Veblen, Conspicuous Consumption, 1902)) This class was also able to consume alcohol and narcotics, indulgence in which was considered noble. In the early stages of a nation’s economic development, consumption of luxuries was strictly limited to the leisure class. According to Veblen’s model, a later “peaceable stage” would eliminate this restriction. The “peaceable stage” of development included private ownership of goods and a system of wage labor which resulted in more money in the hands of the middle or lower classes. ((Thorstein Veblen, Conspicuous Consumption, 1902)) Veblen observed the increasing prominence, both economically and socially, of the middle class, and he recognized their entrance into the practice of conspicuous consumption. He attributed this entrance to the “the norm of reputability imposed by the upper class extend[ing] its coercive influence with but slight hindrance down through the social structure to the lowest strata.” ((Thorstein Veblen, Conspicuous Consumption, 1902)) If one failed to consume as much as his peers, he appeared inferior and lost social standing.

Members of the leisure class displayed their status through both leisurely activities and conspicuous consumption. The former was a waste of time and energy while the latter was a waste of goods or resources; both demonstrated possession of wealth to garner the good opinion of neighbors. ((Thorstein Veblen, Conspicuous Consumption, 1902)) Veblen described a leisure class which had always existed to some degree. The explosion of production abilities during the industrial revolution fueled the tendency of this class to squander its wealth on luxuries for the sake of appearing elite.

Does our background influence how we look at others?

Posted on by

In the “Theory of the Leisure Class” by Thorstein Veblen, he critiques the upper class for their behaviors regarding their dress and speech. He observes that their odd behavior stems from capitalism and the effect is has on their need to consume goods that are seemingly un necessary. He starts off by critiquing the way they dress and the emphasis they place on the value of clothing and its ability to show ones status. His tone remains critical throughout the entire reading, stating that he sees it as wasteful to place such an emphasis on clothing for status rather than for the obvious use of clothing. He then goes on to critique the English they speak. According to Veblen, the upper class spoke in classic English, as opposed to the regular English that everyone else spoke.

Veblen is very critical of the upper class, perhaps this comes from his back ground, being raised by an immigrant family and not knowing wealth as many people he later observes do. Do you think that where we come from, our backgrounds, influence the way we look at others/society? Do you think it is fair to have these biased views about others? Perhaps they were born into a family of wealth, but does that give us the right to judge them?

The Leisure Class

Posted on by

“The Theory of the Leisure Class”, written by Thorstein Veblen, was a piece written from observations on the effects of capitalism of the leisure class. Veblen mentions that the only purpose for the wealthy/leisure class is to consume. Veblen sees this type of lifestyle as a waste. He does not say it out right but Veblen looks at this time period as a sort of step back in terms of society and not a step forward. Veblen makes a mockery of the clothing as well as the language of those in wealthy positions.

In the second excerpt from chapter 7, Veblen talks about the dress of the leisure class and how that shows to the others they have status in society.[i] “One portion of the servant class, chiefly those persons whose occupation is vicarious leisure, come to undertake a new, subsidiary range of duties–the vicarious consumption of goods”.[ii] This quote shows Veblen saying that the main purpose for the leisure class is consumption. Veblen also talks about how one can look like they are in a leisure class just by the way they choose to dress. This gives the illusion of a lower person in society appearing as a member of a higher class. With dress being an area of focus for Veblen, he focuses on language as well.

Just as dress is a way to show status so is language. Those in the leisure class who use old/classic English are showing they have higher status within society and are better than those below them.[iii] He also mentions that since the leisure class speaks classic English, they spent their lives doing work other than useful.

[i] The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899

[ii] The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899

[iii] The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899

The Vicarious Consumption of Goods

Posted on by

In 1899 Thorstein Veblen wrote “The Theory of the Leisure Class” on his observation of division of labor; specifically the effect capitalism had on the upper/leisure class.  As a child of immigrant parents being raised in Wisconsin, Veblen had trouble adjusting and felt isolated from the American way.  This detached upbringing seems to have an impact on the way he describes the leisure class, as he speaks as though he is on the outside of society looking in.  Veblen is very critical of the effects capitalism had on the leisure class and believed it was leading to regression rather than progression. His writing calls out those of the leisure class for their over consumption of goods and their archaic values.

Veblen starts off by describing how the leisure class has taken on the duty of “…the vicarious consumption of goods” ((The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899)).  It’s obvious that he is poking fun at the wealthy, as he sees that their only role in society is to buy the products the working class makes.  In a visual sense he is basically comparing them to a parasite, as they received goods without contributing anything back to society.  Veblen goes on to describe the unnecessary waste of goods that go into how people dress.  Dress is considered the easiest way to show others your class, as all observers will know your status at first glance ((The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899)) .  Veblen has trouble trying to fathom why people give up life’s necessities just so they can afford more expensive clothing.  The value of clothing is based on fashion, rather than their practical use which Veblen sees as unenlightened.

After his rant on dress, Veblen decides to go after the very language used by the leisure class.  Those of wealth practice classic English rather than the common tongue seen with the rest of society.  Just as dress shows class status, the use of old/classic English shows that you are of an important, wealthy family.  Veblen describes the word “classic” as word that carries the “…connotation of wasteful and archaic” ((The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899)), implying that the use of classic English is simply inefficient and backwards.

Do you agree with Veblen’s statement that the leisure class’ duty is only to consume products?  Why is there such an emphasis on class status during this time?  Do we still stress importance on the way we dress and speak today?

 

 

 

 

Imperialism and “The horror!”

Posted on by

Jules Ferry, a two-time prime minister of France, supported the ideals of Imperialism. In 1884 France, competition amongst Britain, Germany, and the United States sparked a sense of urgency in people like Ferry. Germany conquered nations in Africa, prevailing over Britain and creating pressure in Britain. Ferry notes that this competition, as well as supply and demand and freedom of trade are major problems. In a proud, almost desperate tone, he insists that “the superior races have a right because they have a duty. They have the duty to civilize the inferior races.” ((Jules Ferry, On French Colonial Expansion)) Ferry implies that men of higher rank need to be on board in order for French colonial expansion to take place, and he speaks to them often in his piece, addressing them as “Gentlemen.” He says, “Gentlemen, we must address them more loudly and more honestly!” ((Jules Ferry, On French Colonial Expansion)) Ferry writes in a convincing, enthusiastic tone to try to improve support for French Imperialism, which was somewhat lacking upon his writing. With competition in Western Europe and the United States increasing, Ferry notes that the time to act is now; he notes that market success in South America is dwindling because of North American products. A weak French navy needs to be improved in order to face this increasing competition, as it needs “harbors, defenses, [and] supply centers on the high seas.” ((Jules Ferry, On French Colonial Expansion)) Previously conquered territory such as Vietnam did not suffice, for individuals such as Ferry feared an economic collapse. Clearly an Imperialist, Ferry believed that exporting best served the economy of France, especially with the shrinking of markets in Europe.

Ferry’s contradictory and racist beliefs puzzled me. When I first read this, I was surprised with the “hierarchy of races” that he believed in. Nonetheless, Ferry’s beliefs set the basis of the beginning of the French colonial empire. As I searched more, I found out that Ferry became interested in acquiring the Congo. I immediately thought of the novel Heart of Darkness, a novel that accurately represents the evil ideologies of imperialism and takes place in the Congo. One of the novel’s main characters, Kurtz, conducts raids for ivory, and other immoral acts because of his greed. His lack of compassion and respect for the natives is evident. To not extend into too much further detail, Kurtz’s last words are “The horror! The horror!” These last words resemble his realization of his brutality, and how “the horror” ultimately killed him. I thought the connection between Ferry and this novel worked rather well. Heart of Darkness included such brutal, sickening images, and when reading it I found it difficult to truly believe the fact that European imperialism mirrored the brutalities in Heart of Darkness. This world has such a long history.

Do countries act with immorality in order to achieve their realist goals, or are we shifting away from this in today’s society? How can you compare French and other countries’ Imperialism with Christopher Columbus? Why must states be so competitive; is “world peace” without any imperialism ever possible?