Disadvantages of Industrialization on the Lower Classes
TITLE
‘Industrialisation did not benefit the lower classes.
ESSAY
Industrialisation did indeed bring about significant challenges and difficulties for the lower classes, as highlighted by the deplorable working conditions, cramped housing, and lack of proper sanitation. The focus on textile factories and mines in improving working conditions neglected other industries and left much to be desired. The impact on wages due to restrictions on women and children working also placed added burden on male workers.
The lack of coordinated urban planning exacerbated the living conditions of the lower classes, leading to overcrowding and the spread of diseases. Furthermore, the permissive nature of public health reform legislation limited its effectiveness, while political reforms were consistently blocked, denying the lower classes a voice in addressing their grievances.
However, it is important to consider the counterarguments that challenge the view that industrialisation did not benefit the lower classes. The stability and regular income provided by factory work offered a significant improvement from the uncertainties of agriculture. Real wages did show signs of improvement during this period, indicating an increase in the standard of living. The establishment of government intervention in regulating working conditions and promoting access to education for lower-class children are positive developments that stemmed from industrialisation.
In conclusion, while industrialisation did present numerous challenges for the lower classes, it also brought about some advantages and opportunities for improvement. The nuanced perspective acknowledges both the drawbacks and benefits of industrialisation for the lower classes.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
AS LEVEL
NOTES
**Industrialisation did not benefit the lower classes.**
How valid is this view?
Indicative content:
The working conditions of the lower classes were often unhealthy and dangerous. Whilst there had been several attempts to improve working conditions, these had been limited to textile factories and the mines and had focused on women and children. The restriction on working hours and places of work of these groups meant that wages were impacted. This, in turn, put greater pressure on adult male workers to work longer shifts.
There had been no coordinated planning of urban settlements, which grew around the factories and mines produced by industrialisation. This meant that housing, often, was poorly designed and constructed, leading to over-crowded living conditions. This facilitated the spread of infectious diseases. The poor sanitary conditions, which were a feature of these industrial centers, were a breeding ground for such diseases. Attempts at public health reform, such as in 1848, were limited in effectiveness as the legislation was permissive rather than mandatory - authorities were given powers which they ‘may’ adopt, but which they did not ‘need’ to. Attempts at reforming the political system by the lower classes to address these issues were rejected and opposed by all governments.
However, the view can be challenged. The weekly wage provided by industrialisation was a definite improvement on the erratic income in agriculture. Factory work was regular. There is a case to be made for seeing a rise in real wages in this period. The substantial population increase would indicate that the standard of living was improving. Whilst legislation to improve working conditions had been limited, it had established the principle that government did have a role in regulating industrial working conditions. Also, it was established that some form of education should be accessed by children of the lower classes. Accept any other valid responses.