Age of Empire (9-13)

In chapter nine, "The Arts Transformed," Hobsbawm frames the identity crisis of the bourgeois society through the history of the arts from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. During this era the dwindling relevant creative arts countered with innovation and experiment, while the reign of classic "high culture" diminished by mass market art. Chapter ten, "Certainties Undermined: The Sciences," discusses the immensity and significance of the transformation (the revolution and innovations of hard and social sciences) in the way in which society apprehended the universe. However, "Reason and Society," illustrates that, coupled with immense scientific strides, there was a substantial amount of distrust and an anti-science/anti-intellectual fraction.
"Towards Revolution" focuses on the constant and churning states of possible, looming or definite revolution; all of which culminated into the first world war. "From Peace to War," goes further in illustrating the inevitability of war; though sheltered with normal expectations of peace, Europeans armed themselves while creating alliances.

What I found interesting was a question Hobsbawm posed in chapter nine. At one point, Hobsbawm discusses the notion that modern/contemporary art rapidly dominated modern society to the extent that it can be considered a cultural revolution. Further, modern/contemporary art did not belong in the helm of bourgeois world. But, it is "profoundly capitalistic." To possess such values drapes it in bourgeois sensibilities, which causes Hobsbawm to ask the question: was modern/contemporary art actually bourgeois? I initially thought no, but the way in which Hobsbawm sets up this question makes me uncertain.

I wish Hobsbawm went into more detail as to why Christian Churches became notably feminized. It seems to play into the idea that science:male:power while religion:female:powerless. It does not seem to gel with the burgeoning "New Woman."
-Lolia