Wednesday, August 18, 2010

proletarianization or industrialization? we need a new melody

A common challenge I face when explaining my work to anyone is this: how do I discuss the significance of my findings to social and economic historians alike, when each uses a different set of tools and questions? I blame this on a glaring divide in the research on economic and social history of the first half of the nineteenth century U.S. -- a divide that is not easily bridged. The problem boils down to a fundamental disagreement on the relevant terms to use when describing key events such as the rise of the factory system and industry in the northeast.

On the one hand, you have the economic history approach, which is to label this period as industrialization. Under this framework, technological growth and factor endowments (such as the relative unavailability of land coupled with a surplus of laborers) are the primary variables of interest. For example, Alex Field asks a very simple question: "why did the North begin to industrialize at all?" in "Sectoral Shift in Antebellum Massachusetts: A Reconsideration" (Explorations in Economic History Vol. 15, 1978, pp. 146-71) Field explains industrialization as primarily the result of: 1. technology and available capital (technology initially imported from England, financed by wealthy northeast merchants); and 2. labor surplus (he explains that while agriculture was a more fruitful pursuit outside of the rocky soil of New England, labor mobility in this period suffered important barriers which kept the poor country bumpkins stuck in their villages).

On the other hand, the social history approach uses terms like proletarianization and "industrial order" to describe the exact same period and, at times, the exact same events! First, proletarianization is a concept borrowed from influences on social theory by Marxist thought. Proletarianization describes the processes by which individuals become part of the capitalist social system. In the orthodox approach, for example, proletarianization is a consequence of the increased mechanization of production. This forces workers out of their homes and farms, and "middle class" masters, apprentices, and journeymen out of their shops, into centralized facilities of production (factories). More recent approaches have modified this framework to take into account the variations on this idea, but maintaining the central point that this is a coercive process of integration into a new system -- for example, the fact that workers, while still proletarians, largely did not come from a shrinking middle class. Rather, they were either women and children coming from a household which was still significantly influenced by traditional norms and institutions, or immigrants escaping religious persecution or other types of political or economic oppression in their home countries.

The divide is very significant for understanding the rise of capitalism. It needs to be bridged.

How can we get each side to talk about industrialization or proletarianization using the same terms? The lazy answer would be, "integrate the higher-quality aspects of both!" -- something like a quantitative study of social relations or social transformation, synthesizing the great strides made by the economic historians in establishing the data sets with the more holistic and contextual approach of the social historians.

I, however, have a different proposal. The gap is driven by economists and social historians too focused on the standard models of their respective disciplines. If you read my above clarifications carefully, you'll note that both sides are essentially discussing the history of the early nineteenth century U.S. in terms of slight "variations on a theme".

We need a new melody. While the rhetoric of the rising capitalist class was centered on economic variables like capital accumulation and productivity, laborers sung to a different tune based on control over the pace of work and the rules under which new markets would be governed. In the meantime, the state thundered a baseline centered on a large amount of bureaucratic control influenced by, but also tempering, both traditional aristocratic models of governance (residue from the colonial period) and new liberal models of state intervention appropriate for a republican democracy.

This is not a chaotic model. Each institution has specific goals, and the relevant conflicts and complementarities between them may be sorted out, with reference to the data. The point is then to tell a story which incorporates these goals with the primary evidence in question. The result is an explanation of change which eschews particular definitional requirements in favor of a general model of change.

While I'd like to think something like this -- essentially, the ideas on which my dissertation are based -- will catch on, I'm not holding my breath. For now, I will continue to use either "industrialization" or "proletarianization", depending on the specific questions I am asking and the the specific audience I am targeting. But when it comes to debate, I will open up the field to consider the musical score as a whole. Only then can I work through the language to establish a more appropriate understanding of this period.

21 comments:

  1. Hey Dan
    I suppose I wasn't familiar enough with the literature to say that "economic historians" focus on technology and factor endowments, while "social historians" focuses on proletarianization. Certainly Marxist economic historians analyze the rise of capitalism in the latter terms. So perhaps it's just a question of semantics -- that is, Marxist economic historians are so outside the field of what is generally considered "economics" that they are put in the "social historian" camp? (I'm just not familiar enough with the literature)
    I also suppose I have a certain bias here, in that the "surplus labor" that "economic historians" refer to would not have been available without the process of proletarianization. Thus,I guess I would have no particular beef with "proletarianization" taking precedence over "industrialization" in describing that process, since the former appears a necessary condition of the latter. But perhaps that is too simplistic?
    Your project of "telling a story" which "eschews definitional requirements" seems an entirely admirable one. But would you not perhaps still want to assign causal primacy to some phenomena over others? Or is that simply too simplistic?
    Put otherwise, while each institution may have been singing to a different melody, as it were, some may simply be captivated by a "false consciousness," and the task (if you took that view) would be to tell the objective story, irrespective of the "rhetoric" of the different classes and different institutions. The "rhetoric" of one class or institution may be one thing, but the reality something entirely different. (Again, this may sound overly simplistic -- and also far too "orthodox" a Marxist position. So much so that I'm surprised that I'm even articulating it. But I'm just throwing it out there.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your comments, Mark.

    "perhaps it's just a question of semantics -- that is, Marxist economic historians are so outside the field of what is generally considered "economics" that they are put in the "social historian" camp?"

    It is not a question of semantics. Marxist economic historians can be technological determinists as much as neoclassical economic historians can -- I've read some labor histories that place little to no emphasis on the particulars of the class struggle, describing the evolution of capitalism through a class lens very ahistorically. I really think there is a significant difference in approaches -- but I didn't talk about that particular issue in detail here because I just wanted to outline what I see as the general themes.

    "I also suppose I have a certain bias here, in that the "surplus labor" that "economic historians" refer to would not have been available without the process of proletarianization. Thus,I guess I would have no particular beef with "proletarianization" taking precedence over "industrialization" in describing that process, since the former appears a necessary condition of the latter. But perhaps that is too simplistic? "

    The issue I have with your argument here is that surplus value normally does not fuel the beginnings of industrialization. I don't know whether your view is simplistic or not, but that's not the issue for me. For example, there is a lot of debate on whether slavery contributed to financing the industrial revolution. It has been termed the "Williams thesis" after Eric Williams, who wrote a book on capitalism and slavery in the 40s (I think). It's hard to draw such parallels.

    So I guess I partially see your view as simplistic, but more importatly, I think that the story you're telling is less historically accurate in the case of the U.S. at the very least.

    Further, I do think that industrialization and proletarianization are distinct theoretical categories (this seems to be the point you're questioning me on in the first two paragraphs of your comment).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Your project of "telling a story" which "eschews definitional requirements" seems an entirely admirable one. But would you not perhaps still want to assign causal primacy to some phenomena over others? Or is that simply too simplistic?"

    Good point! I guess what you're getting at is twofold. First, a general point that arguments are always going to include definitional controversies (by the way, I think that's a better word than "requirements"... actually I don't even know what that means now in rereading it!). Second, a more important point about what kind of explanatory framework to use. Inevitably, it comes down for me to class (economic, based on property ownership) interests and how they are entwined in politics. It is not strictly proletarianization -- the model is more like a Gramscian or Milibandian *evolutionary* model of the state in /developing capitalist/ society.

    "Put otherwise, while each institution may have been singing to a different melody, as it were, some may simply be captivated by a "false consciousness," and the task (if you took that view) would be to tell the objective story, irrespective of the "rhetoric" of the different classes and different institutions. The "rhetoric" of one class or institution may be one thing, but the reality something entirely different. (Again, this may sound overly simplistic -- and also far too "orthodox" a Marxist position. So much so that I'm surprised that I'm even articulating it. But I'm just throwing it out there.)"

    Yes! A very interesting idea, I'm not sure if the false consciousness model can be applied to this period, and it is certainly quite orthodox, but I can't think of anyone who has done that for this period. But I think my clarification above addresses what /I/ am arguing in this post.

    Thanks again for your clear and excellent comments.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I actually have a more basic problem with the use of the word industrialization as a synonym for proletarianization in general.
    The way I understand industrialization it does not preclude a capitalist framework. It is possible to industrialize with out proletarianizing depending on your discourse. I know I am outside of my own comfort zone here but I would guess that most Soviet Marxists during the Stalin area would have been horrified by seeing proletarianization and industrialization in the same sentence in reference to their country, let alone used as synonyms for each other.

    Don't get me wrong, your arguments in the post are valid, I just think that as per usual economic historians (in general...not all thank you) are lazy in their language and work compared with other social theorists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Speaking of lazy work...how about my comment about historians? Evidence be damned!

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not sure this is theoretically or historically accurate: "In the orthodox approach, for example, proletarianization is a consequence of the increased mechanization of production. This forces workers out of their homes and farms, and "middle class" masters, apprentices, and journeymen out of their shops, into centralized facilities of production (factories)."

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was pretty sure I have, at the very least, the general features of the Marxian model down pretty well. I picked this up from various readings and Jerry's U.S. econ history course. What's wrong with the theory?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You are saying that mechanization of production leads to proletarianization and it is mechanization that drives workers out of their homes, farms, etc.

    I don't think there is a necessary link between Primitive Accumulation and Mechanization (actually this is a perfect example as to why one has to keep theoretically distinct proletarianization and industrialization, as James I think mentioned).

    So, for example, currently millions of people are driven of the lands and expropriated in both India and China and I doubt it has to do with mechanization. In India, for example, one of the reasons is to build the infrastructure necessary (roads, highways, briges etc) to complement/facilitate the desires of the expansion of the mining industry.

    In China the 7-8% annual growth has been interpreted by some Marxists (i.e. David Mcnally) as precisely necessary to absorb the 25+ million peasants who have forcibly been thrown off the lands and whose only chance of survival is to sell their labor power, even though China is operating at something like 60% capacity.

    Or let's put it in another way, with this logic of mechanization causing the proletarianization, how does the substitution of labor for capital fit in the story? I both drive people of the lands, and drive them out of the production floor.

    Still, there is one plausible interpretation of what you are saying, pointed out by Amit, but I don't think that is what you are trying to say:)
    Mechanization leads to a cheapening of commodities and a flooding of them into markets, which drives the small producers out of business.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You are saying that mechanization of production leads to proletarianization and it is mechanization that drives workers out of their homes, farms, etc.

    I don't think there is a necessary link between Primitive Accumulation and Mechanization (actually this is a perfect example as to why one has to keep theoretically distinct proletarianization and industrialization, as James I think mentioned). "

    I don't think there is a necessary link either. But the classical Marxist economic histories of Britain and the U.S. that I am familiar with do discuss the history according to this orthodox model of capitalist expansion. Please don't overlook the fact that I agree with you and James, that there is no connection between mechanization and proletarianization. I was just defining the baseline model used by those discussing proletarianization.

    ReplyDelete
  11. By the way, Ian, I think you too are being lazy with your history or social context :) Mechanization of AGRICULTURE drives people off their land. Mechanization of INDUSTRY is different because it becomes the dominant employer of labor (of course, India or China may be different). Since mechanization then searches out for new markets to keep the circuit going, there is labor's dependency on industry to keep the system going.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Again, this statement of "mechanization of agriculture drives people of their land" seems too deterministic. Just include a "can" or "might" after "agriculture". This conclusion seems too mechanical in terms of not taking into account social relations. That's basically my point from the beginning. These are really broad comments and mechanization as a starting point seems problematic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I forgot to ask, when you use the word "orthodox", what do you mean. And what writers are you refering to?

    ReplyDelete
  14. What is this orthodoxy of which you speak? Names, cites?

    It's easy to present a grossly oversimplified version of a school and then criticize it for being simplistic. More productive to argue with what people actually say, tho.

    If your point is that Marxist economic historians have only ever talked about the coercive aspects of industrialization, and have ignored factor endowments, technological change and the growth of the liberal state, then you are completely wrong. And if that's not your point ... then I'm not sure what your point is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. (It is true that Marxists don't generally use vulgar economisms like "factor endowments". But the idea that they haven't thought about the importance of surplus labor in the countryside is just silly.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. OK, everyone just needs to step back for a moment and think about the original point of my post. It was not to go into a detailed critique of orthodox Marxism or its later branches. The point was also not to go into a detailed critique of neoclassicism. But it's funny, no one has criticized me of the latter.

    Gordon, Edwards and Reich is an example of classical Marxist labor history of the U.S. Later on, historians such as Sean Wilentz and Michael Merrill used a Marxist-inspired approach to analyze early class consciousness. Herbert Gutman than integrated culture into a study of proletarianization. These later writers are what I would call "variations on a theme" -- using the Marxist model of proletarianization but discussing how culture, social context, and even religion disturbs the general trend of proletarianization's conclusions.

    Again, both Josh and Ian are basically attacking me for something that I purposely didn't give full treatment to in my original post. Neither of you have actually commented on how any of what you're saying would affect the "melody" I'm proposing at the end, which is an integration of class issues with A) the rise of a very curious blend of bureaucracy which draws on both older and newer political ideas; and B) the ideology of the capitalist class.

    It is essentially a Milibandian-inspired evolutionary model of the state in developing capitalist society.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And what's interesting to me is that some of the early social historians did not follow this same path of labor history -- the classic histories of the Lowell mills, such as Dawley and Blewett, and then later Prude, have a much more detailed and nuanced picture than the labor historians. It just goes to show you, once again, that Marxist economic historians, simply by "focusing" on social relations, cannot always be classified as social historians.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gordon, Edwards and Reich is an example of classical Marxist labor history of the U.S. Later on, historians such as Sean Wilentz and Michael Merrill used a Marxist-inspired approach to analyze early class consciousness. Herbert Gutman than integrated culture into a study of proletarianization

    Yes.

    Now,what is the specific argument that you want to make, that you think is missing from Gordon, Edwrads and Reich, from Wilentz, and from Gutman? Cause it seems to me there's nothing in your new melody that they weren't singing too.

    ReplyDelete
  19. (And you are right, I'm not criticizing the approach you're proposing. Your approach sounds good. What I'm criticizing is your need to exaggerate its originality by falsely simplifying historiography, and Marxist historiography in particular.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ok, let's go back one step beyond the one you mention. My issue right now is not the argument of the post itself, it's that your description of the relationship between mechanization and proletarianization is simply wrong in terms of it being described as Marxist, orthodox or whatever. Why? Because you don't specify the social relations. How is this evident? In that one can have mechanization without people being thrown out of the lands. That is why I take issue with mechanization as a starting point in your description of Marxism. That mechanization becomes a characteristic of the dynamics of capitalism doesn't imply its the starting point in explaining "the historical movement which changes the producers into wage-workers" (karlitos). That is why those authors that you mention can of course talk about mechanization at all. And I of course do not accept the opposite either, that these things are not related.

    But at the end, lets go to Marx himself: "The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer. The advance consisted in a change of form of this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation." Maybe you can be more explicit and tell me how mechanization explains the change in the social relationships from feudal to capitalist.

    Are you using mechanization understood as a product of the industrial revolution? Maybe that can clear things up. I guess we are having some sort of misunderstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ian,

    I think the main point of contention I have is that some of the Marxist-inspired historians I've looked at in my study of U.S. history have used technological determinism as the main framework for understanding the evolution of class struggle in this period. For example, even though Sean Wilentz' /Chants Democratic/ is a very interesting study of the development of the working class in NYC (late 18th, early 19th c.) at times his argument for the development of class relations boils down to this: technology was developed by the capitalist, slowly marginalizing the artisan class and creating a large proletariat in the process.

    The book therefore flirts with a basic proletarianization model, even if it also discusses politics and nascent forms of class consciousness.

    So, to answer: "Are you using mechanization understood as a product of the industrial revolution? Maybe that can clear things up. I guess we are having some sort of misunderstanding."

    Yes, I am using mechanization in the sense of the industrial revolution -- according to, say, Wilentz' model in /Chants Democratic/, or some of the early labor historians' views on capital-labor relations.

    In the end, it is really a small point. I am focusing on social relations. I am interested in how various events and institutions affected relations and how relations, in turn, affected them. In this way, I am closer to the "proletarianization" than "industrialization". My contribution is that the evolution of the state is not epiphenomenal to the developing class relations, at least not in a crude instrumentalist stance (i.e., employers using the state to fight against employees), and how workers' political views on work contributed to the evolution of the state as well.

    But we can talk about some of these other details in person, as I refuse to go into detail of my dissertation here.

    ReplyDelete