Did Britain become a Classless Society after 1945?
Did Britain become a Classless Society after 1945? Matthew Woodward - The Road from 1945: Britain since the Second World War Social class in Britain played a key factor in determining a citizen's wealth, political power, education opportunities and more generally a person's lifestyle. The Cambridge International Dictionary of English defines class as "a group of people within society who have the same economical and social position" whilst Karl Marx argued that class was an 'economic category'1. Towards the end of the Second World War it was becoming increasingly suggestive that the British social classes were beginning to merge together in order to form what for former Prime Minister Harold Wilson once described as a 'classless' society. Social classes in Britain are traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution, seeing that it provided different parts of the country with various speeds of progress. The struggle of the working class and the dominance of capitalism highlighted class importance all throughout the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century. Since 1945, political events, traditions, national characteristics and consequences of the war all had an impact on the forms of class. Social analyst Michael Young argued that 'the lower classes no longer have a distinctive ideology with the ethos of society'2 suggesting that there was no reason for the British working
What were the consequences of the agricultural revolution for the rural poor? And how did they respond?
What were the consequences of the agricultural revolution for the rural poor? And how did they respond? By Kevin Dean Throughout history a so-called agricultural revolution has been detectable in every age. From the Neolithic period, from ancient Egypt, through to Rome, thirteenth century England, Britain in the 1860's, and again in the 1950's, are all given dates to when agricultural revolutions have taken place.1 In this essay, however, the term `agricultural revolution', is used to refer to the, roughly, one hundred years after 1750. In fact, the term itself is somewhat misleading, as the word `revolution' means a full circle, or a cyclical return to an original starting point, whereas in this context the term is used to indicate a series of connected events occurring in linear fashion, and according to some historians, stretching back some centuries before 1750 and being part of, and central to, the industrial revolution.2 What did the `agricultural revolution' consist of? As is often the case, the answer is multi -causal, but there are several recognisable factors that can be pointed to. Firstly, and the most contentious by dint of the difference of opinion amongst historians, the removal of common property rights to land, or `enclosure'.3 The enclosure process of denying access of cottagers and labourers to the farmlands and `commons' of the parish, and the
Why did British agriculture decline after 1870?
Why did British agriculture decline after 1870? During the twenty years preceding 1870 British agriculture experienced a period of prosperity and growth. The main system of farming used at this time was that of mixed farming which drew on the continuous methodological advances that had been made in both livestock and crop farming as far back as the seventeenth century. In this system livestock and grain crops were produced and sold whilst the silage crops, which could not be sold for cash, were consumed by the livestock. Thus producing greater supplies of manure which would, in turn, sustain greater yields of crops that could be sold as well as providing more fodder for the cattle and other livestock, such as sheep or horses, to graze on. In order to be successful a farm of this nature had to fulfil three main objectives: Firstly produce a sufficient quantity so as to be able to pay a rent to the landowner, secondly yield enough to return a profit to the farmer himself and thirdly maintain, and in some cases increase, the richness of the soil.1 A self-sufficient farm of this nature had a limited maximum output which could only be exceeded through the purchasing of fertiliser and feed from an outside source. Such an approach would only be taken if the increased productivity would justify this higher expenditure. For this to be the case the inputs required had to be
A look at the Origin, Stigma/Discrimination and Government Involvement with AIDS in the United States of America and African Countries
AIDS Anyone can have it, Internationally feared, Deadliest Sickness A look at the Origin, Stigma/Discrimination and Government Involvement with AIDS in the United States of America and African Countries Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, AIDS, is now known as being one of the most deadliest and incurable viruses in the world. AIDS snuck into America in the beginning of the 1980's, then exploded in what seemed a matter of moments. America would soon learn that this was not just a health problem in the "immoral" cul-de-sacs of American but an international epidemic affecting all types of life. Today's youth see's a constant fight in curing and eliminating AIDS around the world; however, this has not always been the case. AIDS has been most publicized in the United States and African countries. This paper will compare the origin of AIDS, the stigma and discrimination of AIDS and the government involvement with AIDS in the United States and African countries. Individuals who first appeared with AIDS in America during the early 1980's were diagnosed with Pneumocystis Pneumonia (PCP), which is usually found in people with poor immune systems. 1 However these individuals who were sick did not have poor immune system, but the individuals were homosexuals. As more and more homosexual males appeared to have the disease, it became labeled as GRID (gay related immune
One of the most controversial issues of British Economic History is the living standards during the industrial revolution. ''Pessimists'' against ''optimists'' oppose their ideas about whether the standards of living during the industrial revolution impro
British Economic History Supervision 4 Supervisor:Dr. D. M. Fowler by:Lambros Diamandopoulos ''Qualitative aspects of living standards, such as the disamenities of urban living, have become the decisive factors in evaluating whether the English working classes benefited from Industrial Revolution''. Introduction One of the most controversial issues of British Economic History is the living standards during the industrial revolution. ''Pessimists'' against ''optimists'' oppose their ideas about whether the standards of live during the industrial revolution improved,deteriorated or remained stable. On the one hand,optimists like Jeffrey G.Williamson, held the view that although some workers suffered from harsh working conditions and were working more days,the increase in real wages could offset these disamenities and as a whole,the majority of people lived from 1760 to 1850 benefited from the industrial revolution in terms of standards of life. On the other hand,pessimists like Charles H. Feinstein argued that the living standards of life deteriorated for the working class in early industrialisation. The main difference in the perception of judging the living standards between optimists and pessimists is the distinction between the importance of qualitative and quantitative factors that influenced the lives of workers during industrialisation. On the ''quantitative
'Repressive and emotionally cold'. Is this a true reflection of relations between parents and children in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England?
344885 2486 'Repressive and emotionally cold'. Is this a true reflection of relations between parents and children in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England? In sixteenth and seventeenth century England the parent-child relationship is often considered in emotional terms very different to the relationship we see today. Without doubt there are exceptions, but on the whole we tend to perceive these relationships in terms of altruistic love. Parents selflessly provide love and affection for their children, without exposing them to cruelty or any injustice. In regards to early modern Britain, some historians argue that this has not always been the case and that 'Repressive and emotionally cold' is a statement that can be applied to parenthood in sixteenth and seventeenth century. Scholars from this school of thought understand that parental altruism is somewhat a modern occurrence that began to occur with the rise of the sentimental family amid the industrial revolution. With industrialisation trade and industries began to develop and families tended to work separately. This led to the family no longer having to be relied upon for primarily economic reasoning leaving a whole new space open for love and affection. The supporters of this school of thought advocate the theme of change. 1 Lawrence Stone, for example suggests that children were simply viewed in this period as
Is History a Science
Examination number: HJ427 Is History a science? Recently uses of the term "science" have in the 21st century been applied to fields of which are not canonically sciences. One of which being history. The idea of history being considered a science is one, which has been debated since the concept of science historiography was derived by historians such as Niebuhr, F. A. Wolf and Ranke. In order to evaluate whether history is a science or not, it is important to assess how both of these studies work. The question, what is history? Seems straightforward enough an enquiry, but it is often a concept hard to define. History, in the broadest sense of the word can be easily vaguely defined as simply the study of the past. This study is concluded by dates and facts that are put together to creative a piece of narrative history. For example it is a historical fact that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066. This is a fact that we accept without question. E.H Carr defines these dates, facts and figures as the "backbone" of history. History would be nothing without them, they are essential factors in the piecing together of a historical narrative. Whether history can be considered a science or not is debatable. History can however be defined simply as accounts of what happened in the past. This is an absolute truth. It can also be more generally identified as an academic
Did English workers have a higher standard of living then their French counterparts or vice versa?
Did English workers have a higher standard of living then their French counterparts or vice versa? Did English workers have a higher standard of living then their French counterparts or vice versa? What was the impact of the French revolution and the British industrial revolution on living standards in the two countries? The measurement of standards of living is a contentious subject in the fields of both economic history and economic development. Real wages are the most common measure of standards of living, and the relative ease of their calculation makes their use valuable. However real wages do not tell the full story. Other environmental and social factors heavily influence standards of living. Factors such as access to clean air, clean water and political representation are but a selection of a plethora of other indicators. These variables are often difficult to quantify empirically and much of the evidence for these factors is qualitative in nature. Different people place different values on non-monetary factors. Williamson regards clean air as a luxury item, whereas others would regards it as a necessity or even a right. The subjective nature of such standard of life measures fits uneasily with more precise quantitative real wage measures. I hope to examine both real wage and non monetary evidence whilst answering this question, before examining the effects
To what extent did the idea of a separate sphere(TM) of life for women become eroded in the period 1870-1914?
To what extent did the idea of a 'separate sphere' of life for women become eroded in the period 1870-1914? In her review of six different historical texts on 'separate spheres', Judith Lewis astutely remarked: 'one gets a healthy sense...that historians have been far more bamboozled by Victorian propaganda than the Victorians were.'1 Indeed, 'proponents of...[the]...feminine ideal...for instance, Tennyson's "The Princess"...[and]...Coventry Patmore's 'Angel in the House'2 were certainly part of - and also inspired - the contemporary prescriptive literature. As a result, the stereotype of the domestically imprisoned woman prevails, and 'separate sphere' has become an orthodox term in the study of female history.3 It is important to examine how far these ideals were followed. As K.D. Reynolds pointed out, 'this...version of femininity...ascrib[ed] to the least desirable qualities of the gender - frivolity, lack of application, corruptibility, frailty...and sexual weakness'4 thus making it seemingly impractical, not only for the poorer middle and lower classes whom most likely could not afford such an inefficient member of the family, but in (theoretically) the introduction of women into the public sphere (another concept to be later examined). What must be remembered, however, is that 'separate spheres' is a historical rather than a contemporary term. In other words, it is
Account for the attractiveness of eugenics amongst left-wing social reformers
Account for the attractiveness of eugenics amongst left-wing social reformers Eugenics has often been dismissed as an ideology of the right. It was, at best, nothing more than an extension of social Darwinism which naturalised and sought to maintain the existing social arrangement1 of laissez-faire capitalism, and, at worst, the pseudo-scientific justification for racial prejudices which ultimately sanctioned the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. More recently, however, increasing attention has been paid to the fact that many left-wing thinkers, among them Marxists and Fabians, lent their enthusiastic support to eugenic ideas. It can seem difficult to understand how socialism - supposedly stressing the importance of environment and devoted to the idea of the inherent equality of man - could coincide with eugenics.2 This essay will argue that, while many historians stress the dichotomy between 'negative' or 'mainline', and 'positive' or 'reform' eugenics3, left-wing thinkers came to have faith in the ideology of eugenics in much the same way as right-wing or conservative thinkers; because it was consistent with their view that the needs of society were far more important than individual rights and that men were not, in fact, equal and that their differences were endowed by heredity. One can see how these views could be shared by sections of both the left and the
