Nineteenth Century Thought (5 page)

The eighteen-twenties and thirties
were marked by what is popularly known as the Industrial Revolution. The
expression 'Revolution' is both useful and misleading in this context. The way
people produced things of use, also to be sold in the market for earning
profit, till the early nineteenth century underwent a dramatic change with the
steam propelled engine becoming now a new productive tool in human hands.

Earlier, 'industry' stood for hard
work. In the nineteenth century, 'industry' acquired a new meaning, it denoted
factory-based production, an activity on a large scale and encompassing the
whole society. Agricultural produce , village markets , town life, artisans and
craftsmen, experimenters, researchers,
organisers
-
all carne within the ambit of industrial production one way or the other. One
could see national policies evolved and implemented with an eye on potential
industrial growth at the level of the society as a whole. Economics carne to be
finally established as an independent area of knowledge where new methods of
exchange, cutting costs, better
utilisation
of
labour
time, competition with fellow producers, etc.
would
 
be studied.

Imagine the upheaval in the wake of
the invention of the steam engine. Steam as the new source of energy for
application in the
productive field generated unprecedented
social energy and motivation. Within a few decades, countries in the
Eurpoean
continent such as England came to dominate the
world market on the strength of
revolutionalized
productive ways. Goods becoming cheaper to produce, the English economy
captured markets in and around Europe. Soon, England would march ahead to
decisively control a major part of the world.

The progress was, however,
double-edged.
 
Occurrences in the
mid-nineteenth century were highly problematic and complex - they combined in
them what can be called the 'dialectic' of social growth. The new development
in the wake of Industrial Revolution caused a sudden increase in the demand for
human
labour
. With huge investments made in the
setting up of factories and exclusive townships emerging out of nowhere in a
matter of years, village economies faced devastation and worse. The city, an
ever-growing and expanding entity, fascinated people as well as threatened
them. It held hope of freedom and at the same time presented the terror of
anonymity. From a sedate and peaceful place that still retained the fixity of
the medieval world, England became a centre of hectic commercial activity that
made people prisoners of hectic mechanical activity and demanding schedules.

The social churning in the wake of
Industrial Revolution was indeed powerful as age-old norms and values came
crashing in an environment marked by cheating and trickery. Mental activity
came to be increasingly governed by the considerations of the market. The
determining role of money compelled people to leave their homes and hearths and
join the vast army of
labouring
individuals in cities
that had no adequate infrastructure to meet their basic demands. For the first
time, slums were witnessed in London. Many more towns with massive factories
and large populations came up at places where serenity and quiet ruled earlier.

I say this to draw attention to the
fact that prosperity and hardship come together if the central issue of fair
and just distribution is not addressed. The
centres
of money-power and policy-making in England did not bother about the plight of
people working the hardest in factories and small manufacturing units. These
men and women who had lived till recently in the tranquil environs of the
countryside received little from their city-based employers in the name of
'wages.' Secondly, even the employers were not to blame since it was not they
but the impersonal market forces that held sway. They had to either compete or
perish. Both employers and employees were cogs in the big capitalist machine
that moved relentlessly and nonchalantly all over the place. Think again of the
world of Dickens's
Hard Times
and you understand the phenomenon I am
talking of.

Economic deprivation and poverty of
the masses called for sympathy from the privileged in England.
 
However, it seemed that only the newly
emerged middle classes in whose hearts the
whigs
of
the day struck cord of sympathy and specifically radicals among thinkers
 
and writers felt moved by these developments.
The rest of the socially strong, hardened and insensitive groups thought alone
of the wealth making way to their coffers.

Do such an unfolding of events not
suggest the emergence of what can be termed a growing moral discomfort among
members of the upper class? How could these God-fearing sections sleep with
peace when things around them happened to be in such a state of disarray? All
of them good
 
and sincere Christians by
faith, these
 
privileged citizens of the
new society found their newfound riches to be a source of embarrassment rather
than all round joy, at least in the beginning With thinkers such as Darwin
 
and Mill breathing down their neck and
stressing continuously that fundamental principles of human existence were
breached in day-to-day life, the privileged English citizen in all probability
wished that contentious issues of equality and brotherhood disappear or at
least lose their sting,
 
since
 
they were becoming
 
too hot to handle at the level of social life.

Of course, the fight between social
justice on one side and individual gain on the other continued in the realm of
politics, ideology and culture. The pronouncements of radical thinkers and
works of such sensitive writers as Dickens, Emily Bronte, Charlotte Bronte and
George Eliot bear ample testimony to these developments.
 
The important social areas of literature and
politics were being increasingly
influenced by the voices of
change and protest. In this backdrop, one saw the emergence of 'Victorianism,'
a phenomenon, a way of life and a trend of thought that tranquillized the
disturbed souls of the rich and 'progressive' in English society.

By and by, Victorianism came to stand
for wisdom, balance and tolerance in difficult surroundings. It sought to send
out a message of harmony. Victorianism stressed more and more the value of the
right conduct, politeness and forbearance. The umbrella word for these
much-needed qualities and behaviour-traits was 'culture.' It would become a
whole concept, a doctrine and a powerful reference point in the coming times.

Matthew Arnold is one thinker among
English Victorians who almost exclusively emphasized the value of 'culture' in
the contemporary period. To him, the contemporary England appeared filled with
empty exhortations, mutual accusations and acrimonious debates. Nothing made
sense to a serious-minded person. Culture became Arnold's answer to these
challenges of protest and antagonism in the Victorian society.

Arnold recognized the presence of
anarchy in the English society and offered culture as an answer to it. For him,
anarchy is violent and destructive. More than this, anarchy obstructs the
members of a society from pursuing the goal of harmonious living, it comes in
the way of rational comprehension of problems and shuts out the possibility of
reaching consensus. Arnold's belief in consensus is based on the notion that an
invisible code of sitting together to peacefully resolve value linked
questions is highly beneficial for the working of society. This comes according
to him under the overall meaning of culture. He further goes into the issue of
who in society are strongly concerned to evolve cultural norms, and feel the
need to create the atmosphere of friendship, parity and mutual tolerance.

Arnold's answer to this question of
which social group would be centrally interested in harmony is clearly the
middle classes, it is they who find themselves placed in the middle of the two
main conflicting groups - the privileged and the poor. Being neither strong
enough (as the upper strata) to wield unrestricted power nor totally helpless
and ill-equipped (as the downtrodden and destitute) to take up subtle questions
of norms and values, the middle sections have in them the capacity to look at
problems in a number of ways and examine them to assess their proportionate
worth. The middle classes also pursue education with the help of which they qualify
to perform service-related white-collar jobs. The area in society that the
middle classes occupy is of elaboration, discussion and interpretation - not of
direct suppression of the general will through state authority or conversely,
of sustained revolt against
 
iniquity.

As
 
indicated
 
above,
 
Arnold 's
 
main
 
emphasis
 
in
 
the
 
context
 
of culture is on literature where he locates
an attitude of learning and recognition of ever-emerging
 
complex
 
issues.
 
In
 
the
 
great writers of the past who together appeal to the discerning readers
through centuries, Arnold sees that secular territory of
 
quiet curiosity and genuine enquiry which
places great faith in possible unity among human
 
beings
 
to move
 
towards
 
common
 
goals.

A protestant was one who, according
to Arnold, took upon himself alone the job of interpreting such big questions
as faith, morality and social attitudes. That is how Matthew Arnold defined
this category of behaviour. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the
phenomenon of protest appeared rather intolerant of dissent and, therefore,
threatening to the onlooker, particularly one who wished to grasp the nature of
things in a balanced circumspect way. Arnold comes down heavily on
nonconformists on the ground that in the course of discussion their minds are
already made up. In fact, to Arnold this is more of preaching than a useful
give and take. Thus, in Arnold's opinion common understanding or consent is
prevented from taking shape. Also, Arnold looks at the phenomenon sociologically.
He divides the English society of his time into upper classes (privileged and
rich), the middle class and the poor to take note that neither the upper
stratum nor the poor have the time, inclination or capability to evolve
appropriate standards of
judgement
.

This takes us to the position where
the society needs commonly acceptable values and norms but does not know where
to look for them in the immediate environment. The old institution of religion
having failed to provide help in this regard, the individual comes
to face, according to Arnold, a state of anarchy in the realm of morality and
humanism which is surrounded by mutual distrust, conflict and what can be
termed individualist cacophony.

Arnold is clear on religion and
individualism.
 
He finds both of them
harmful to social interests. While the former disallows questioning and has
become aggressive because of its reformist zeal, the latter shuns the territory
of common social goals. Arnold is critical of individualism for the reason that
it tends to operate over and above the rest of the community and is
judgemental
about the others. Rather than being a part of
the community in its pursuit of excellence, individualism is
self-congratulatory, unthinking and insensitive. Here, individualism comes to
clearly merge with religion which is, as Arnold has noted,
unselfquestioning
and dogmatic.

Would it be appropriate or workable
in the new context to redefine religion in terms of wisdom that is capable of
guiding the community in its functioning? Arnold's answer is in the negative.
Religious notions of morality, wisdom, tolerance or forgiveness do not
incorporate the progress humankind has made over the centuries. As a discourse,
religion steers clear of human-centric reality - its parameters are fixed, not
tentative, self-reflexive or open. Thus, as civilization has progressed,
religion has ceased to be the true guiding principle. Even though Arnold does
not go into the question of human development in any systematic manner, he
clearly perceives in the great works of literature of the past seeds of wisdom
and excellence. These works embody the working of human mind at its best as
they explore difficult areas of morality, ethics and inner suffering. Ancient
Greek works or Shakespeare's plays tell us of the challenging nature of human
existence - baffling, fascinating and peculiarly exciting. Religious preaching
or moral discourse does not come anywhere near the depth of these literary
compositions since preaching is merely explanatory, not capable itself of
learning from new developments and confronting thorny questions. This point of
Arnold with respect to religion and faith carries a good deal of sense in that
it exposes the shallow nature of the contemporary
protestantism
and also that it links up
protestantism
directly with the inherent nature of religion
as religion.

For Arnold, while the privileged few
remain unconcerned about the question of human excellence, their interest
remaining confined to acquisition of power and influence in society, the poor
are ill equipped to handle subtle areas of high values and quality in life. Being
unthinking and crude, the downtrodden
  
remain
  
busy primarily, according
to Arnold, with the issue of livelihood. Arnold finds little potentiality in
the poor to rise above the surface of life, think on their own and have a
vision. In fact, the ignorance of the poor can make them easy prey to cries of
revolt or voices of anarchism and can lead to large-scale wastage of energy and
meaningless destruction. Arnold
 
sees the
answer
 
to the prevailing
 
instability neither
 
in
 
rough
 
wielding of power
 
by the upper
 
strata nor
 
the senseless
 
protest
 
led
 
by
 
reformers
  
and
 
dissenters.
 
The hope, according to Arnold, lies in the
pursuit of the middle path and through an activity that is educational, mildly
persuasive and self- reflexive.