William H. Sewell, Jr.’s Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (1980) is a qualitative analysis of the French labor movement, sweeping three radical revolutionary eras: 1790’s, 1830’s, and 1850’s. Sewell’s strategy encompasses “aggregating and analyzing” (1980: 5) events that would generally be considered the banal factional struggles and encounters of individual French workers. He amasses these facts into a macro-history of the workers’ plight to class-consciousness from the ancien regime to the repressive post-revolutionary era of 1850’s. Sewell frames his historical analysis within the context of the way the workers’ movement utilized the evolving rhetoric to advocate their pro-rights agenda. He performs a stringent investigation on the progression and determination of the use of specific terminology, focusing his lens on how concepts of culture (i.e., ideas, beliefs, and behaviors) aid in shifts of existing structures.
Sewell’s theoretical perspective is admittedly self-constructed. He “borrowed shamelessly from such sources as ‘the new history,’ intellectual history, cultural anthropology, and certain new strains of Marxism” (1980: 5). I find borrowing from cultural anthropology to be the most influential of these theoretical viewpoints, and Sewell highlights the importance of ethnographic field methods in his work. However, he is quick to acknowledge that, from a historical perspective, conventional ethnography, as we understand it, is not suffice in this context. While traditional ethnography tends to focus on non-Western, “relatively small-scale and homogeneous societies” (Sewell 1980: 12), Sewell’s initiative is to “analyze the complex society that was rent by all sorts of co...
... middle of paper ...
...mes widening his scope could strengthen his argument further. He does this in the conclusion of chapter 11 to display how and why the movement was at times, and ultimately, unsuccessful. Additionally, as he suggests the reasons why the bourgeois never really accepted and the peasantry never felt validated by the movement, he could strengthen his argument by further displaying other elements of cultural value outside of language, i.e. symbolic gestures used by the movement. In addition to symbols, I also feel that Sewell could have provided more definition surrounding the artisan “culture” (Hanagan 1981). Given the magnitude of the numerous trades, and the variety of societies, clubs, associations within each: where and what are the cultural margins between the different trade corporations? Is there one united culture, or a multitude within the varying factions?
Chants Democratic, by Sean Wilentz examined the emergence of New York’s labor class during the Jacksonian era and in essence revealed Artisan Republicanism. Wilentz offered a unique perspective in his historical analysis of the social and political labor histories during 1788 through 1850. Wilentz stressed the importance of the republicanism ideology in the creation of a working class that was instrumental in a pre-industrial New York. The author stressed the significance in both the political histories and social histories of the early nineteenth century by incorporating political ideologies and labor union descriptions. He further integrated these insights by means of articulating the social working conditions and lives of small masters, journeymen, and artisans to show their respective importance to the creation of the working class scruples. Chants Democratic iterated not only on the formation of the labor class in America, but also illuminated the changes within this new social class by exploring how antebellum New York’s population began to live and think.
Late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century were the years of achievement, the years of one huge reform, the years that shaped the present day in so many ways. The present day industrial workers owe their stable life, pleasant working conditions, and a variety of insurances to nothing else but these fifty four years. The struggling lives of industrial proletariat (thesis), their desire for improvement (antithesis), and the emergence of the welfare state, political democracy, trading unions, and social equality (synthesis) skillfully describe the picture of the events happening in those days.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels see the French revolution as a great achievement in human history. However they also discuss serious criticisms of it. Marx and Engels discussed the struggle between two distinct social groups during the French Revolution which are the city poor and the privileged classes and what happens when power fell into the hands of the revolutionary “petty bourgeoisie” and the paris workers creating a class struggle and it impact on political issues . This essay will explain how Marx and Engels view the French revolution and their analysis of the revolution’s achievements and shortcomings.This essay will also apply their analysis of the French
“Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy; those who had anything united in common terror.” The French Revolution was a painful era that molded the lives of every citizen living in France and changed their ways of life forever. Beginning in 1789 and lasting ten years until 1799, the people of France lived in a monarch society under King Louis XVI’s rule. He was a very harsh ruler and had many restrictions placed on his people. They eventually overthrow him and become a monarch society. Among his deceptive ways, the people also experienced “The Reign of Terror,” which was a period where many lives were taken by the guillotine. Other revolutionary events included rebellions, constitutions, and groups. One of the popular groups that contributed greatly to the French Revolution were the Jacobins who were led by Maximilien Robespierre.
In the chapter “The Other Civil War,” Zinn contended that while the working class attempted to reform the labor system, the government suppressed tensions and turned class anger toward other outlets. Zinn described the poor working and living conditions of industrial laborers to prove the need for labor reform. Overcrowding in cities, long work days, widespread disease, and other factors led workers to seek improvements. He presented numerous examples of strikes, rebellions, and riots to prove that class anger sometimes surfaced despite efforts to repress resistance. While he maintained that these reform attempts failed due to government intervention, many of these actions did result in some gains for the working class. The Anti-Rent Movement in the Hudson Valley began when tenant farmers refused to pay rent and fought a guerilla war with local police. They wanted to end patroonship, a feu...
The French Revolution evokes many different emotions and controversial issues in that some believe it was worth the cost and some don't. There is no doubt that the French Revolution did have major significance in history. Not only did the French gain their independence, but an industrial revolution also took place. One of the main issues of the Revolution was it's human costs. Two writers, the first, Peter Kropotkin who was a Russian prince, and the other Simon Schama, a history professor, both had very opposing views on whether the wars fought by France during the Revolution were worth it's human costs. Krapotkin believed that the French Revolution was the main turning point for not only France but for most other countries as well. On the other hand, Schama viewed the French Revolution as unproductive and excessively violent.
The French Revolution began in 1789 and ended in the late 1790’s (staff). Just like the American Revolution the French Revolution started with new ideas of enlightenment. French citizens started to uproot everything that was considered normal, things such as absolute monarchy and the feudal system, they wanted to redesign everything (staff). Although a lot of the attempts failed people continued to try to make the change.
---"Seeing and Making Culture: Representing the Poor." Outlaw Culture:Resisting Representations. New York: Routledge, 1994. 431-37. Print.
Throughout history there have been many important revolutions that have help to shape society as it is today. There are different causes, from political to religious, economic to social. Any revolution affects those in society, and creates changes for the people in the society. There are three important revolutions that took place in the late 18th century that changed the world for the better. The French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution all took place in the late 1700s. Although each had a different purpose, they all lead to a better way of life for many. The French and American Revolutions are examples of some which are brought about and enforced solely by the people. Although they had different reasons behind them, both had the same idea behind them- social change. The Industrial Revolution was different, it was a technological revolution which had positive social outcomes. While one can easily compare the French and American Revolutions because of their social causes and outcomes, the Industrial Revolution can only be compared to the other two when examining their outcomes.
longer its people would have been left in horrible living conditions. Those involved in the French Revolution obviously had a great sense of self preservation. They came together to make a change, the only other option that they had was to live day by day struggling to survive. This other option would probably cause numerous deaths amongst the French due to malnourishment, disease, and other medical complications. In 1789 the King and Queen of France believed that the power was held within their royal Family. The desperation and need to survive by the French citizens is what empowered them and showed us that unity and leadership amongst regular citizens can start a powerful movement.
Across Europe, the revolutionaries of 1848 came from a variety of different social backgrounds and they all held different political beliefs. They could be liberals, republicans, nationalists or socialists and therefore they all wanted different things out of the Revolutions. Each group was also internally divided, with a radical faction and a more moderate one. Initially they all joined forces to overthrow the existing regimes with which they were discontent. However once power was in their hands, they found that ‘Revolutionary Consensus’ was virtually impossible. Their initial victory was “followed by ensuing struggle to implement change”5. The people had taken to the streets not knowing what they would do if they did manage to take power. Now that they had, because of their different individual aims, they found it hard to compromise. This eventually led to a growing split between moderates and radicals, as well as between social classes, particularly in France. The moderates did not want a government based on universal male...
James P. Spradley (1979) described the insider approach to understanding culture as "a quiet revolution" among the social sciences (p. iii). Cultural anthropologists, however, have long emphasized the importance of the ethnographic method, an approach to understanding a different culture through participation, observation, the use of key informants, and interviews. Cultural anthropologists have employed the ethnographic method in an attempt to surmount several formidable cultural questions: How can one understand another's culture? How can culture be qualitatively and quantitatively assessed? What aspects of a culture make it unique and which connect it to other cultures? If ethnographies can provide answers to these difficult questions, then Spradley has correctly identified this method as revolutionary.
Each social class in France has its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power, while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes.had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13)
In the introduction to “The Pure Products Go Crazy,” James Clifford offers a poem by William Carlos Williams about a housekeeper of his named Elsie. This girl is of mixed blood, with a divided common ancestry, and no real collective roots to trace. Williams begins to make the observation that this is the direction that the world is moving in, as Clifford puts it—“an inevitable momentum.” Clifford believes in that, “in an interconnected world, one is always to varying degrees, ‘inauthentic.’” In making this statement, Clifford is perhaps only partially accurate. In the western hemisphere, where Williams was located, perhaps it can be said directly that the influence of modern society has attributed to the lack of general ancestry, as one culture after another has blended with the next. Perhaps it can be said as well that, as Clifford puts it, “there seem no distant places left on the planet where the presence of ‘modern’ products, media, and power cannot be felt” (Clifford, 14). The intention of this paper is to contend first that there is essentially such a thing as “pure” culture, and contrary to Clifford’s belief, that there are “pure” unblended cultures that remain (while not altogether untouched by foreign influence), natural within themselves. It will be argued as well that the influence of modern society does not necessarily lead to a loss of cultural soundness itself, but rather that a presence of certain cultural practices within the respective cultures has attributed to the lasting “purity” of certain cultures. In this case, we will be discussing the cultures that exist in Haiti and Bali.
The period of 18th and 19th century is marked by the greatest transformations, reformations, revolutions and many other critical events that ever took place in human history. The credit is given to all these revolutions for enlightenment of mankind. The two most important revolutions were the French revolution and the industrial revolution. One can feel that both of these revolutions mutually reinforced each other and later became the back bone of all other revolutions. On the other hand, both revolutions had totally different impacts and consequences at various economical, political and social realms.