Science and the Industrial Revolution

by Professor Ronald C. Tobey

Overview

In his essay, Science and the Industrial Revolution, Arnold Thackray writes that the historian Arnold Toynbee ( uncle of the twentieth century historian also named Arnold Toynbee ) popularized the term industrial revolution in a series of now-classic lectures delivered in the 1880s.

Thackray implied that Toynbee's influence has at times been detrimental, for among other matters, he convinced many historians of science most notably, Musson and Robinson in their influential work, Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution to reject the notion that industrialization was solely the product of "practical" ( i.e., nonscientific ) men.

Toynbee lectured on the period 1760-1832, which is often called the "first industrial revolution," a British-led "passage from an agrarian, handicraft economy to one dominated by industry and machine manufacture" ( Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 18 ). With regards to the role of science, it is this early period that provokes disagreement, for most scholars concede that late nineteenth century industrialism owed much to scientific thought.

Generally, economic historians and historians of technology playdown the role of science in the first industrial revolution, while historians of science often emphasize technology's debt to scientists and scientific theories. For example, Technology and Culture contributor, Peter Drucker, insists that late eighteenth century technology was a "spur to science," instead of the other way around, and that "science could have had no impact on the Technological Revolution until the transformation from craft to technological discipline had first been completed." ( The Technological Revolution ..., p. 342. )

Margaret Jacob, however, echoes many of the ideas of Musson and Robinson when she rejects "the distinction between 'pure' and 'applied' science ... in the 18th century," and contends that "the science of the English Philosophes is the link between the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution." ( The Cultural Origins of the First Industrial Revolution. )

The role of science is not the only area of disagreement among historians of the Industrial Revolution; indeed, many cannot even agree on the basic terminology. Robert Multhauf seems to question the very existence of an "industrial revolution," which he puts in quotation marks and explains as "Toynbee's theory ... of Britain's industrial preeminence." ( The Historiography of Technology ).

In his The Industrial Revolution (1985), I. Bernard Cohen refers to the "new style of thinking about the social sciences" in which the "Industrial Revolution is no long a primary category." Cohen also points out that the "revolution" was not wholly industrial, it was demographic, economic, and social, which may explain some historians' discontent with the phrase.

Because the Industrial Revolution involves so many different phenomena, historians often find themselves emphasizing some aspects ( e.g., economics or urban growth ) over others ( the role of science or mechanical inventions ). Attempts to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts are often greeted with skepticism, as was David Landes' The Unbound Prometheus (1969). Landes' work not only defines and describes the Industrial Revolution in great detail, it also places it in a larger context of Western "rationality" and "the urge to mastery over nature."

For his ambitious efforts, Landes has received both praise and scorn, often in the same review. Thus, Nathan Rosenberg ( in a review in volume 31 of the Journal of Economic History ) claims that Landes' "interpretive framework leaves much to be desired," although the book is still "the best single descriptive account of industrial change in Western Europe since 1750."

Landes seems to "approve" of the Industrial Revolution, that is, he stresses its positive consequences, such as improvement in the material conditions of life and increased political equality. Although many non-Marxian historians depict the Industrial Revolution as a visible manifestation of "progress," both Lewis Mumford and John Nef have criticized the values of "industrial" civilizations.

Borrowing from the terminology of Patrick Geddes, Mumford ( in Technics and Civilization, 1934 ) refers to the Industrial Revolution as the "paleotechnic age." Characterized by coal and iron, this age shifted interest "from life values to pecuniary values," and brought "pollution to the air," "degradation to the worker," and "starvation of the senses and mind."

In The Industrial Revolution Reconsidered ( 1952 ), John Nef is equally critical of industrial civilization. After disputing Toynbee's dating of the Industrial Revolution from 1760 ( a more accurate date would be 1785, he claims ), Nef shows how the dominant value system of 18th century Europe, which made possible 19th century industrialization, was destroyed by the triumph of industrial values.

According to Nef, industrialism brought the collapse of civilized "restraints," causing

"Western peoples to abandon the religious, intellectual, and moral values without which there could have been no industrial revolution"

Nef p. 300

As did Mumford, Nef criticizes the idea of progress, which has

"contributed to the conceit that the industrialized peoples have emancipated themselves from the irrational (factors of life) ".

Nef p.l.


Historiography

Cohen, I. Bernard. The Industrial Revolution, Revolution in Science #17, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.

Explores the historian's problems with the term, "industrial revolution."

Multhauf, Robert. The Historiography of Technology: Some Observations on the State of the History of Technology, Technology and Culture #15 (1974): 1-12.

Mumford, Lewis. History: Neglected Clue to Technology, Technology and Culture #2 (1961): 230-236.

Pacey, Arnold. The History of Technology, Information Sources in the History of Science and Medicine. Ed. Pietro Corsi and Paul Weindling. London: Butterworth and Co., 1983.

Staudenmeyer, John. What SHOT Hath Wrought and What SHOT Hath Not: On 25 Years of the History of Technology, Technology and Culture #25 (1984): 707-730.

Assesses progress of the Society for the History of Technology and its journal, Technology and Culture. Staudenmeyer discusses problems of writing histories of technology, such as the tendency to produce "intern[al]ist" works ( such as the five volumes by Singer, et. al. ). He also laments that the idea of progress has caused most historians to ignore history's technological "failures." Thackray, Arnold. "Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution," History of Science 9 (1970): 76-89.

Williamson, Jeffrey. Debating the Industrial Revolution, Explorations in Economic History #24 (1987): 269-319.

Reviews recent historiography on the industrial revolution from the perspective of economic historians.


Reference Works

Hinsley, F. H., ed. The New Cambridge Modern History, Vol. XI, Chapters 2 and 3. Second Edition, 1962. Reprint Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Landes, D. The Industrial Revolution, Under heading, "Europe." Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, Vol. 18, 1987 Edition, pp. 777-785.

Landes, D. Technology, Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, Vol. 28, 1987 Edition.


Technology in History

Boyle, Charles, et. al. People, Science, and Technology. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1984.

Burlingame, Roger. Technology as Cause in History, Technology and Culture #2 (1961): .

Drucker, Peter. The Technological Revolution: Notes on the Relationship of Technology, Science, and Culture, Technology and Culture #2 (1961).

Klemm, Frederick. A History of Western Technology. Trans. Dorothea Singer. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959.

Kranzberg, Melvin, and Carroll Pursell, Jr., Eds. Technology in Western Civilization, Vol. I. London: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Landes, David.Landes, D. The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, London: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Mumford, Lewis, Technics and Civilization, New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1934.

Nef, John. War and Human Progress: An Essay on the Rise of Industrial Civilization. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952.

Singer, Charles, et. al., Eds. History of Technology. 5 Vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1954-1958.

Melvin Kranzberg, long-time editor of Technology and Culture, wrote that Singer's History of Technology
"is so fundamental to the scholar in this new and burgeoning field,"

it is not surprising that it was deemed worthy of a full-scale review occupying an entire issue of Technology and Culture ( the fall, 1960 issue, Vol. I ). Divided into five volumes, the work details the history of technological innovation from ancient times to 1900. The major criticism of this work is that it is too internalist, or as Lewis Mumford writes...

"it fails to rise above specific facts of technology" to "reveal interrelationships."


Science in the First Industrial Revolution

Inkster, Ian.Science and Technology in History: An Approach to Industrial Development. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1991.

Treatment from point of view of economics of industrial development, covering Russia, Japan, China, and India, as well as Europe and the United States. Science is seen as crucial to the European industrial revolution, as well as industrial development elsewhere.

Jacob, Margaret. The Cultural Origins of the First Industrial Revolution, Chapter 5 in The Cultural Meaning of the Scientific Revolution. Philadelphia University Press, 1988.

Musson, A.E., and Eric Robinson. Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution, Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1969.

Russell, Colin. Science in the Early Industrial Revolution, Chapter 6 in Science and Social Change, 1700-1900. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983.

Schofield, Robert. The Lunar Society of Birmingham: A Social History of Provincial Science and Industry in Eighteenth-Century England. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.


Source: Professor Ronald C. Tobey, http://www.kaiwan.com/~lucknow/horus/guide/si101.html

Back to the Top or return to the Essays Index