Hello and happy Thursday to you,
So, there’s been a *big* development in British history and I wondered if you’d heard the news?
If not, let me spill it …
Actually, let me start by asking you a question.
Let’s see how much you’ve learned …
When did the Industrial Revolution start in Britain?
If you’d said 1750(ish) to me a few weeks ago, I’d have given you a gold star. But – and wait for it – a team of historians at Cambridge University have absolutely smashed that to pieces. For the last 20 years, they’ve collected millions of records as part of their efforts to build up Britain’s biggest occupational study. Why? Because they wanted to learn more about how Britain became the first nation to industrialise.
The biggest finding is this mammoth study is that the shift from a primary sector economy (one that’s based on agriculture, forestry and fishing) to a secondary sector economy (which is industrial because it’s based on manufacturing, mining and construction) happened sometime between 1600 and 1700, NOT between 1750 and 1850.
Yes, that’s right.
Their study puts the Industrial Revolution a whole century earlier than we thought 🤯
Now, their work is very much still in progress – and here is where things get particularly interesting (for us herstorians).
For starters, this study is not just based on patterns of male employment. This is brilliant news, right, because we know that women have always contributed to the economy. And if historians do not include women’s economic contributions, then their findings are deeply flawed and, therefore, deeply inaccurate. (As an aside, they have also included patterns of child employment, for both girls and boys, which, again, promotes accuracy).
Secondly, it will be interesting to watch how this study progresses because of the difficulties associated with studying female employment, as the historians have already noted:
“Much remains to be done with respect to women and children, whose work is much harder to reconstruct from the surviving documentary evidence. How much more we can do will depend on how much research funding we can raise.”
There are two points worth noting here. Firstly, the one we already know. We know women account for about 0.5% of the historical record, so, of course, reconstructing their economic contributions is going to be tricky when we compare it with men. I love that they reference that fact and, more importantly, are actively mindful of it. I’ll be watching to see how this plays out.
Secondly, the point about funding. I sincerely hope that funding for female data is forthcoming. I also wonder if funding has (thus far) come (relatively) easy *because* of the availability of male data. I also wonder how much male/female bias comes into play at a funding level.
Lastly, this is not referenced in the study at all, but I’m also thinking about how this information will filter down. This is a completely new (and amazingly exciting) leap forward in our understanding of Britain’s industrial past. It is only right that educational materials are edited accordingly so that young people are not studying outdated scholarship. Sadly, this is something I see over and over again. But there’s a HUGE opportunity here for educational publishers and schools.
To quote one of the project’s historians, Professor Leigh Taylor-Shaw: “The story we tell ourselves about the history of Britain needs to be rewritten.”
Oooh, that gave me the tingles! This is one for us to keep an eye on, folks.
Until next time,
Kaye x
Brilliant, I love this. And it's very timely for a talk I am doing next week. One tiny typo: it's Professor Leigh Shaw-Taylor. Keep up the awesome work! Roy