Melvyn Bragg and the great Industrial Revolution dust-up. And how crying racist doesn’t mean you’re right.

What seemed a perfectly sedate discussion about the Industrial Revolution in Britain suddenly blew up into an ideological skirmish on Melvyn Bragg’s In Our Time radio broadcast this morning. Bragg (sounding a little lubricated, I have to say) took exception to Professor Pat Hudson’s unprovoked rant about the importance of individuals in history: ‘we must get away from the idea that this [ie the Industrial Revolution] was caused by a wave of gadgets or by the peculiar inventive ability of British scientists or inventors’, she said, before turning up the ideological volume by lambasting ‘nationalistic accounts’ which put ‘particular emphasis on British genius’ and ‘characterise some really almost racist accounts of the Industrial Revolution’.

Talk about straw men and Aunt Sallies. That type of Empire-lauding approach had gone out even before I was at school four decades ago. But it’s playing the racist card that blows open the political ideology underpinning Hudson’s overview – finding something or someone ‘racist’ is a shibboleth of today’s left. What I found startling was the speed and vehemence of Hudson’s vituperation – which came initially without prompting and was then exacerbated by Bragg’s disagreement.

Bragg wasn’t arguing against the fact that contextual factors are essential to historical events but he was just trying to make the point that the actions of individuals are also important. At no stage could Hudson bring herself to admit this. Maybe she thinks things work according to a variation of the Thousand Monkeys process whereby as long as all the right conditions come together at the right time inventions will invent themselves, battles will be won without generals, science and technology will develop spontaneously, etc.

Professor Black, who in general supported Bragg’s view, also pointed out that the success of the canal system in Britain over those in other European countries such as Germany was down to the fact that the individuals planning and constructing the canals did so with private capital. And therein lies the source of Hudson’s animus: the denial that capitalism can have any good or positive effects.

And the one word, the one concept, which surprisingly did not get mentioned during the whole discussion, but which was crucial to the Industrial Revolution, was individualism. Crucial, of course, not just to that but also to the Enlightenment and to the history of western civilisation.

Things kick off at about 14:38 in the podcast.

 

 

 

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Melvyn Bragg and the great Industrial Revolution dust-up. And how crying racist doesn’t mean you’re right.

  1. As the historical economist Gregory Clark has shown, the market economy began to develop once a certain behavioral profile had become the norm—above all, a commitment to honesty and a rejection of violence and theft as means of self-enrichment. This has a biological component."In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors – patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work – which consequently spread widely.And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system – who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy – increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology."http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07/social-darwinism-21st-century-edition.html

  2. Pingback: Three Things: Brexit Battle over Britain - Thus, History!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s