Eric Hobsbawm continues his narrative in chapter five by elaborating on the workers of the world. The amount of jobs available for peasants in the country was limited so many flooded into the cities. Industrial labor was available to anyone because it required no specific skills, so the number of workers at construction and coal-mining grew exponentially. By the end of the nineteenth century, countries recognized the laboring masses as a soon to be majority. Socialist parties were on the rise since 1880. Organization was key to the transference of socialist and anarchist ideas to the masses. They appealed to those previously neglected and discontented. One thing I was curious about was how were the working classes unifying? And why did Hobsbawm list organization as the powerful key?
Chapter six deals with the issue of rising nationalism in politics. The adverse effects of nationalism were seen in the twentieth century, for example extreme nationalism. People started viewing their nation as a political body. But there are always two sides, those who belong to the state and those who do not belong and therefore are outsiders. Among the colonies of dominate countries, certain natives were schooled however they never achieved the same level of equality. How were Germany, France and England able to mobilize their population? What tactics were used?
The bourgeoisie were able to dress, eat and live very confidently and without financial problems. However their type of lifestyle did not become popular until early twentieth century, in a period referred to as the belle epoque. Chapter seven, refers to the bourgeoisie house as a suburban house, villa, country home, or cottage with a garden or greenery. The middle class wished to establish criteria for their class, to figure who was who. First, middle class and working class had to be clearly distinguishable. Second, the middle class participated in leisure activities like sports. Thirdly, members had to have formal education. What sports were played? Why did they become fashionable?
The new woman arises from the middle and upper class during the late 19th century. At that time, the west was seeing a drop in birth rates. The result of either a form of birth control, or later marriage in women. Middle class families could not afford having huge families if they wanted to uphold their standard of living. I thought the quote, "In the nineteenth century nobody, other than the indigent old, was poorer than a couple with a low income and a household of small children" was quite interesting. How has the attitudes of family changed? Is it more desirous to have a high standard of living or a family?
Kayla O
This is quite interesting. Perhaps the idea of children altered. The advancement of technology, medicine, hygiene, life expectancies, etc. diminished the need for multiple children. And perhaps location is key. A rural middle class family might be able to afford more children vs an urban family.
ReplyDelete