Integrating the Industrial Revolution
In this first post in a new series, we're road-testing Integrated Histories.
If you’ve followed this newsletter for a while now (and hello 👋 I see you and thank you), you’ll know that Integrated Histories is the future of the past. It just makes sense, doesn’t it?!
So now it’s time for the fun bit …
LET’S TAKE THIS BABY FOR A RIDE!
And we’re taking her way back to the Industrial Revolution.
Let’s start with what we already have. This concise overview comes from BBC Bitesize and it is, IMO, representative of the content found in most schools:
This builds on the suggested guidance from the Department for Education, which is so brief that I’ve not even bothered to screenshot it:
“Britain as the first industrial nation – the impact on society.”
Integrating this topic means that we start by taking a big step back and thinking critically about what we already have. Essentially, this breaks down as follows:
The Department for Education wants to present the Industrial Revolution in overly positive and rose-tinted terms: “WE DID IT FIRST SO IT WAS OBVIOUSLY GREAT. ISN’T BRITAIN AMAZING?!”
By the time this ‘guidance’ is translated into a classroom resource, this “rule-Britannia-isn’t-Britain-amazing” nonsense doesn’t hold any weight and wouldn’t actually fill a term’s worth of lessons.
If we go back to the BBC Bitesize definition, you can see that efforts are made to create a more rounded view of the Industrial Revolution. And, on the surface, it looks okay because …
OF COURSE IT WAS AWFUL WORKING DOWN THE MINE.
But let’s unpack it:
The Industrial Revolution was a period of great change.
FOR WHO?
There were technological advances that impacted every aspect of life.
WHO MADE THEM?
This happened while the British Empire was growing.
Not gonna lie, most students will study this topic without any reference to the empire at all, so props to the BBC for even going there. Having said that, I want to know WHICH BIT we’re talking about and how far they’ll push it.
Conditions in factories and mines were difficult and dangerous.
There’s always a danger here that the content will depict rich people as saviours. Because, you know, poor people are poor and helpless.
Step 1: Start at the Beginning
It sounds obvious, doesn’t it?
“Start at the beginning.”
But the foundation is the first place that needs a poke.
How many children (and adults) even know why we use the term “Industrial Revolution?”
I’d bet it isn’t that many.
So let me introduce you to Arnold Toynbee.
Toynbee was an economic historian, born in 1852. He is the person who popularised the term “Industrial Revolution.” Essentially, that was his interpretation of the economic changes that Britain was experiencing.
Let me say it again: it was his opinion, not a fact.
And when you get down to it, his opinion isn’t supported by facts.
When you think about a “revolution,” what springs to mind?
For me, it’s dramatic and it’s FAST. It’s something that makes your head spin. It has a lot of energy and momentum. It knocks down the old and makes space for the new. Think the French Revolution, for instance.
And maybe Toynbee felt like that about the society he observed.
The problem, though, is that Toynbee’s interpretation isn’t supported by facts. Economic historians have crunched those numbers and in terms of manufacturing output, nothing dramatic actually happened. Yes, there is growth but not revolutionary growth.
So it’s not an Industrial Revolution at all; it’s an industrialising society.
It’s a process, not a dramatic, overnight shift.
True, “industrialising” isn’t quite as catchy but it’s so important to present the situation for what it was, not for what *some* people think it was.
Question for you: does this knowledge impact your perception of the “Industrial Revolution?” I’d love to know.
Step 2: Those Dates
I have asked many many times why the date for the beginning of industrialisation is largely fixed at 1760.
I never got a straight answer.
I don't even know who picked that date.
But people didn’t go to bed on 31st December 1759 in their cosy farmhouse cottages, then wake up the next morning, pack up their lives and move to a smoggy city to work in a brand new factory or down a mine.
If we don’t make that abundantly clear to young people - that dates are contested and not set in stone - we are making it impossible for them to think critically. That doesn’t just influence their academic performance in history. It affects EVERY PART OF THEIR LIVES.
And we need to do better.
What I think has happened here is linked to point 2 in the BBC Bitesize summary: the technological changes.
And, yes, there are many innovations in the 1760s:
The spinning jenny.
The steam engine.
Dynamite.
I’m not saying we should gloss over these inventions or the men who made them. The problem is that we never give young people a chance to step back and think about:
Why some wealthy white men are inventing.
Why we don’t remember the scientific contributions of other groups at that time. (Hello, Matilda Effect 👋)
(Just as an FYI on that point: in 1762, Nicole-Reine Lapaute worked out when Halley’s Comet would return. So it ain’t that women weren’t capable).
There were around 15,000 Black people in England in the late 18th century. What were they up to? Again, this isn’t about not being capable.
Who has access to formal education at this time (and who doesn’t)?
Who has access to finance (and who doesn’t)?
The point is, society was set up in a way that made it easier for certain people to succeed in the public sphere. IT IS STILL SET UP LIKE THAT.
Hello, historical consciousness 👋
Does Integrated Histories Improve Historical Analysis?
If we’ve learned anything today, (I hope) it’s that integration makes space for us to stand back and critically evaluate the foundations on which this topic sits. I *think* we can say Integrated Histories has passed its first test 🔥🔥🔥 but do tell me what you think.
Operation Poke-Those-Foundations continues next week.
See you then,
Kaye x