Ideologies in Unknown Accents

The latest topic of discussion in class has been the political ideologies of the 19th century, or liberalism, conservatism and nationalism. More specifically, we have discussed how these ideologies had an impact on the political and social actions at the time. To do this, the class was split into six groups, and each group was given an ideology with which they had to make a one minute project. Each ideology was given to two different groups, as a sort of competition to see who could make the best project. This project could be in any format, as long as it specifically explained how the ideology impacted the political and social actions. After the projects were completed, the class as a whole viewed them and voted on which project they thought was best for each ideology.

The ideology my group covered was liberalism, and the program we chose to use for our project was Chatterpix. In our Chatterpix video, we chose to depict a “conversation” between John Locke and Adam Smith, two British philosophers who are thought to be two of the fathers of liberalism, and a group of young people. In the presentation it is explained that liberals believed in equality for all humans, and believed in change. Because of this, they favored meritocracy over aristocracy, and didn’t believe in many traditions, as they weren’t entirely based on reason and were followed blindly. In addition to this, it was explained that Adam Smith came up with the invisible hand, with the hope that quality would rise and prices would drop. Also, John Locke believed in god-given natural rights and promoted independence and liberty. Liberalism influenced social and political action by favoring meritocracy instead of aristocracy, giving the middle class man a greater chance of success.

The other ideologies covered by other groups were conservatism and nationalism. Conservatives opposed change and thought that change brought bloodshed, as revolutions often did in those times. They thought that what worked in the past would continue to work in the future. As many conservatives were aristocrats, they believed in maintaining an aristocracy in order to keep their social positions. Nationalists believed in the unification of a country, without numerous city-states. In nationalism, people were bound together by culture, language and history. Foreign rulers were expelled from nationalist systems, and the hope was to keep dictators from other countries, such as Napoleon, from taking control. Politically, nationalists were opposed to being under a foreign ruler, while socially, they opposed being part of the same system as people of different cultures, languages and histories.

Age of Napoleon

Recently in class, we began a new unit on Napoleon and the ways in which he impacted Europe. In order to gain background knowledge on Napoleon, we viewed a short clip that recapped important occurrences in his life, and all the places he had conquered during his rule. Things may not have ended on a high note for Napoleon, but he had a major impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe.

Napoleon had a major impact on the political system of France by ridding the country of monarchy, the previous system. Instead, Napoleon ruled with a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, members of society are given power based on their abilities, and power is not based on birth circumstances. Some, such as J.T. Headley, are impressed with the way Napoleon ruled over his people. In his book, Napoleon and His Marshals, Headley states that, “by opening the field to talent and genius, however low their birth, he was infinitely superior to all the sovereigns who endeavored to crush him”. However, others, such as Madame de Stael, believed that his system was to “encroach daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence”. In addition to impacting just France, Napoleon was able to conquer many countries throughout Europe, with Britain being the only country outside of his grasp.

Napoleon had a positive impact on the French economy. When he came into power, there were many people living in poverty, and outside of royalty, there were not many who were financially successful. Under Napoleon, birth circumstances were no longer important, improving the chances of the common civilians to succeed. Some, such as Marshal Michel Ney (one of Napoleon’s soldiers), greatly benefitted from the meritocracy. In addition to this, Napoleon also encouraged new industry, kept prices under control and saw to the construction of new roads and canals. In the rest of Europe, Napoleon was not as economically positive. He often looted the countries that he conquered. Specifically, precious pieces of art, in addition to lots of money, were stolen from Italy.

Napleon Bonaparte, Gemälde Von David, 1812,
Lithografie Von Louis Kramp Ca.1825. Digital image. 
Wikimedia Commons. N.p., 17 Feb. 2008. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

Whether or not Napoleon had a positive impact on the social circumstances of France would change from person to person. People like Madame de Stael were angered by Napoleon, because they lost the power that they had received under King Louis XVI. Her impression of Napoleon was that he “persuade(s) men by force and by cunning, and he considers all else to be stupidity or folly”. Others, like Marshal Michel Ney, described Napoleon as “our sovereign”, and said, “Liberty triumphs in the end, and Napoleon our august emperor, comes to confirm it”. By establishing meritocracy, Napoleon gave power to some that had not had it before, but by doing this, he took power away from others. Power was not the only thing that commoners gained. Napoleon also gave citizens more rights to property and greater access to education. Across Europe, Napoleon changed social dynamics by conquering other countries and putting them under France’s rule.

In my opinion, most of what Napoleon did was justifiable, as he did not rule as a dictator, and after he conquered a country, he gave it some independence. However, I am not sure that Napoleon had to stretch his reign as far as he did. By conquering so much of Europe, there may have been too much power in one person’s hands. If there had someone other than Napoleon in charge, things could have gone horribly wrong, possibly resulting in the fall of many European nations that still exist today. Some of Napoleon’s actions were undeniably wrong, such as his looting and artwork theft. Anyhow, Napoleon was an able ruler who did a commendable job with all that he was responsible for.

Capitalism v. Communism

Class on October 3rd was interesting to say the least. When each kid walked in, he/she received a number of Hershey chocolates. The majority of kids got 3, while a smaller number received 10 chocolates. After receiving the candy, we were instructed to play rock, paper, scissors with our classmates, betting a certain amount of chocolates. The winner would receive the fixed number of chocolates from the loser. There was no option to sit down and not play, unless you lost all of your chocolates. After this first part of class, a new option was introduced. Our teacher collected all of the chocolates and redistributed so that everyone had 3 chocolates. However, this time you did not have to play rock, paper, scissors. If you wanted to, you could just stay with what you had and not risk losing it all. After all of this, our teacher informed us that this activity was not simply for fun. It was to show what it was like for commoners under Marx’s ideas of capitalism, socialism, and communism. The activity was a good way to show how frustrating it can be to earn so much and have it taken away from you by the government, to be given to someone else. In addition to just Marx’s ideas, we also learned of Adam Smith’s philosophy, primarily the “invisible hand”. The “invisible hand” involves an economy with no government intervention, with prices rising and falling with supply and demand. Both had ways of helping the poor, and because of this, both are considered good systems. However, they are also not without their flaws.

Karl Marx believed that his system of capitalism, socialism, and communism would help the poor. In starting with a capitalist system, he believed that two unequal social classes would be created: the bourgeoisie, or the wealthy, and the proletariat, the poor. This would result in class struggle, and eventually, protests. Due to these protests, the government would collect all property, and redistribute so that everyone had the same amount of wealth, with the hope of economic equality for all. Once this society without social class was reached, communism would be reached, and all members of society would agree to share to make everyone equal. This system would help the poor because no one group would be “poor” anymore. As everyone was of equal wealth, there were no longer “rich” or “poor” people. Adam Smith also believed that his system would help the poor, though in a different way. With the invisible hand, the government would not be involved in the economy, and people could buy and sell whatever they wanted to. In this system, prices would rise and fall with supply and demand, also with competitors having to match each other’s prices. In this system, the prices would gradually decrease with each seller wanting to have to best price, in order to attract customers. Eventually, after a while, the prices would be cheap enough for the poor to afford what they needed.

Though both systems are effective in the long run, they are not the best solutions to the problem. Marx’s system, which leads to communism, is not the best if you want to keep the common people happy. Those who worked hard for their money would have lost everything that they had worked for, while those who inherited their money would feel cheated out of what was rightfully theirs. Smith’s system would require the lower class to suffer for a long time while the prices were dropping and they still couldn’t afford the things they needed. A third alternative system could be more jobs being created for the lower classes, so that they would make at least some money and be able to afford some of what they need. This way, they do not have to suffer the way they would’ve under the invisible hand, while the rich kept what they had earned or gained.

The Dawn of Women's Rights

In class, we have been discussing mill life in both the U.S. and England during the 1800’s. One particular aspect we have focused on is why women thought that working in the mill was an appealing occupation, while they had other opportunities in their life. In England, it was not all that difficult for the mills to gain workers. During the Industrial Revolution, there were many women living in poverty, who could be used as cheap labor. There wasn’t a lot of extra land available for families to farm. However, in the U.S., there were not as many in the same predicament, and families could simply move west if they needed more land for farming. Due to this, the mill owners in the U.S. had to make working in the mill look more appealing than life on the farm, and change the negative perceptions that England’s mills were looked upon with.

Girls were so appealing to mill owners because they were cheap, obedient, and not as needed on family farms. The way that mill owners attempted to bring female workers in was to make working at the mill look like a family dynamic. The father figure that the girls would have was the corporation, which would protect the women, and set rules such as church on Sunday, curfew and behavior code. There would also be a boardinghouse keeper, who would act as a mother figure. She would regulate behavior outside of the mill and maintain the home environment. Girls themselves were motivated to work in the mills because of the independence, and the chance to earn money and buy things for themselves. For example, in the video, “Daughters of Free Men”, Lucy, the narrator, was excited by the opportunity to buy herself a “city dress”. Families still needed money, so a girl working at the mill could send money home, and by not being home, she would not have to be fed and have money be spent on her.

Before women were working in the mills, their sole purpose was to marry, have children, and start a family on the farm. However, by having women work in manufacturing, general perceptions of women changed. By working outside of their home, being away from their parents and being educated, women had more power than ever before. In “Daughters of Free Men”, the mill girls went on strike to protest against the poor working conditions they had. This symbolizes the general power that women were gaining, and women were starting to realize they could make a difference. After working in the mills, many women went on to become activists for women’s rights, and women began working different jobs that wouldn’t have been socially acceptable before.