Download 1 - Flinders University

THE UNIVERSITY IN TIMES
OF REVOLUTION
Lessons From The Industrial Revolution.
By Matt Tilling
School of Commerce
Flinders University
South Australia
School of Commerce
Research Paper Series: 01-8
ISSN: 1441-3906
This paper is very much a work in progress, please be kind. All comments will be
gratefully accepted. I would like to thank Dr. Carol Tilt for her patience and many helpful
comments. Any mistakes are purely the responsibility of the author. As this paper is still
being developed you are kindly requested not to quote without permission.
Abstract
“Men* make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please;
they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under
circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past”
(Marx cited in Feuer, 1969, p. 360).
This paper provides a background against which to consider the future role of the
University in these times of the Global Revolution. It examinations the role played by the
University during the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom. The methodology
and approach are essentially Marxist, focusing on the interface of conflict between
technological change, society and industry, and where the University fitted into this class
conflict. Marx’s own observations, along with others, of the time are drawn on to frame
the social change wrought by the Industrial Revolution. English Universities are then
examined to see how they responded and legitimated their position within society. “The
object of education within the colleges was to produce intellectuals and gentlemen who
could be relied upon in a world constantly threatened, it was thought, by revolution”
(Kearney, 1970, p. 22). From this base comment is made on the argument that society is
in a new phase of revolution, both a technological (the information) revolution and a
social (globalisation) revolution. Based on past record, and a comparative social
examination, discussion of the possible future directions of the University can be better
framed. The Industrial Revolution brought about massive change to the institution of the
University, there is no reason why it should not be expected to happen again. What
directions this change will take are intrinsically unknowable. But the past often provides
a window, if glassed somewhat darkly, on the future. “Hindsight greatly assists in the
identification of the chain of cause and effect and the belated and ineffective nature of the
remedial action taken at the time” (Bartlett, 2000, p. 17).
“Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'”
Bob Dylan.
*Important Note: This paper draws heavily on citations of original documents produced during the last two
centuries. As was the nature of the times the language employed in places in this article is not what could
necessarily be termed ‘gender neutral’. The use of ‘male-centric’ language does not reflect the authors own
belief about gender roles or importance. In this present debate on the future of the University it is vital that
views from all sections of the community are equally considered and acknowledged.
2
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please;
they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under
circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past”
(Marx cited in Feuer, 1969, p. 360).
Introduction
The future of the University, and the academics’ own role within it, is an
extremely important area for every member of the institution to consider. The problem
with such prediction however is that it is so easy to go down the path of baseless opinion
and summation, and arrive at no sustainable, consistent or justifiable conclusion. What is
required then is to accept and extrapolate a deeper epistemology, consider the past in
light of this choice and use that to guide speculation about the future.
Using a Marxist perspective of social change and adaptation the paper examines
the role of the University during a time of great social change, the Industrial Revolution.
At this point the paper will make only very general predictions as to what this means for
the future of the University. But it is hoped that this aspect of the paper can eventually be
more strongly developed.
“The value derived from the re-examination of the past is determined by
the integrity and objectivity of the examiner. Hindsight greatly assists in
the identification of the chain of cause and effect and the belated and
ineffective nature of the remedial action taken at the time. If viewed
clearly, political expediency can be seen for what it was unless the post-
3
event analysis is coloured by current politics which dilute any real benefit
to be gained from the research into the past.” (Bartlett, 2000, p. 17)
Methodological Approach
There seems to be much currency in a the Marxist methodology for examining
institutions in times of change and for that reason some time will be taken to examine the
underlying philosophy of the historical methodology being employed. Also again
considering the nature of the work, historic-predictive as it could be termed, it is
important that a consistent underpinning be demonstrated or else it is too easy to fall to
‘historical mining’ for the sake of supporting opinions about the future. The Marxist
paradigm has been much used and misused within academic circles. This paper will not
address or review the history of this debate with in academia.
A Marxian Model of Society.
The Marxian model is ideally suited to examining society in times of change. By
focussing on social structures and classes a picture of the underlying forces and
motivations of change can be brought into sharper focus. A rich tapestry of human
relations and social institutions can be wrought from this warp of social interactions,
bound together by the weft of economics. “The origin of all social processes should be
sought in the constitution of social classes and in the relationships among them, in their
relative strength, and the state of class consciousness. More importantly, it is the class
struggle that decides the transition of society from one evolutionary stage to another”
(Jordan, in Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 21).
4
It is important to remember that ‘class struggle’ is more than just a simple story of
economic forces as it has often been cast in some of the Marxist literature. Class struggle
consists of a number of systems, or layers, that are integrally linked (Tosh, 1991, p. 164).
At the heart of society are the forces of production, these are the apparatus, skills and raw
materials that are utilised by labour for production. The forces of production are linked
with the Relations of Production, which is indicative of the underlying economic
structure of society (whether Capitalist, Socialist, Feudal, etc.). Upon this foundation
rests a much more visible Superstructure which consists of the institutions of society
(legal, political, educational, religious).
“Through the base/superstructure model Marxism offers a particularly
useful way of conceiving the totality of social relations in any given
society. It is not just that the political, social, and economic and
technological all have their place; in a full-scale Marxist analysis these
familiar distinctions lose their force. Social and economic history become
inseparable” (Tosh, 1991, p. 168)
It is also important to remember that this model is not a simple one-way
relationship from (economic) base to (institutional) superstructure. There is constant
pressure from the superstructure back to the foundation. This is perhaps one of the
strengths of the Marxian philosophy. This positive feedback model represents a much
more fundamental belief that social equilibrium is not the norm. There are both
reinforcing and destabilising elements inherent in the model. Revolutions occur, society
changes, when these disruptive forces overcome the existing superstructure, and replace
5
it with a new order. “Historians have found the notion of the dialectic to be an invaluable
tool in analysing social change of varying intensity, from the barely perceptible
movement within a stable social formation to periods of revolutionary ferment.” (Tosh,
1991, p. 172)
It is this basic view that provides us with an opportunity to place the core question
of this paper in perspective. As a social institution, how was the University affected by
changes in the economic and social ‘foundations’ during the Industrial Revolution, and
what lessons can we begin to draw from this in relation to its future. But before
considering these questions in a little more detail it is worth considering the place that
history plays in the Marxist philosophy.
Marx’s View of History
“History does nothing, it ‘possesses no immense wealth’, it ‘wages no
battles’. It is man, real living man, that does all that, that possesses and
fights; ‘history’ is not a person apart, using man as a means for its own
particular aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his
aims.” (Marx in Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 192, italics in original)
This powerful statement from Marx needs to be remembered in its context. It was
made in a time when Hegel’s Philosophy of History was the seminal work. And although
Hegel was instrumental in redefining the concept of the Dialectic1 he had shackled the
1
Dialectics considers all phenomena as being in movement, in a process of continual change. It views the
developement of nature itself as a result of the struggle between contradictions within nature.
6
development of human society to some ‘idealist’ concept of guided (perhaps even by
‘God’) evolution in all forms of history. Marx strongly objected.
In Marx’s view, history was the story of Man’s struggle to make his life ‘better’.
The fundamental needs of Man are food; clothing; and shelter. Psychological needs come
only after these needs are satisfied. “We must begin by stating the first premise of all
human existence and, therefore, of all history, the premise, namely, that men must be in a
position to live in order to be able to ‘make history’” (Marx in Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 94).
Over time mankind has developed better and more efficient means to satisfy
immediate needs through the exploitation of nature. History itself is about the growth of
human productive power enabling the satisfaction of our basic (physiological) needs
more easily, and leaving more time to pursue the more fulfilling (psychological) needs.
“In maintaining that the only true, objective view of the historical process was rooted in
the material conditions of life, Marx sharply distinguished himself from the main currents
of nineteenth-century historiography with their choice of nationalism, freedom or religion
as the defining themes of history” (Tosh, 1991, p. 164). The Marxist view of history was
later to become known, quite appropriately, as ‘historical materialism’, a phrase coined
by Fredrich Engels.
“The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these
needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical
act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of
years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain
human life... Therefore in any interpretation of history one has first of all
to observe this fundamental fact in all its significance and all its
7
implications and to accord it its due importance” (Marx in Jordan (ed.),
1972, p. 94)
But just as Marx denies some supernatural or external determinant of history, he
is also careful to point out that the individual human, no matter how great, powerful or
important, is not capable of individually influencing history, only participating to some
greater or lesser part. “Marxism rejects as obscurantist all notions that would reduce
history to a succession of unique, unpredictable events, occasioned by the conflicting
wills of men. It holds that this is a shallow approach, confining itself to surface
appearances” (Selsam & Martel, 1963, p. 183). Instead of viewing individuals as driving
the social structure and change, social structure and change drive the individual. It is a
subtle but fundamental difference. An alternative way of viewing it is to say that we are
all a product of our environment, “the will and passions of men could be explained only
by an investigation of the underlying driving forces of social development” (Selsam &
Martel, 1963, p. 183). This must influence how history is examined. Instead of focusing
on the people of history, the institutions and underlying conditions become much more
important. It is these underlying factors that write the immediate lines that the ‘actors’
play, though humanity as a whole is the director.
“Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each
person follows his own consciously desired end, and it is precisely the
resultant of these many wills operating in different directions and of their
manifold effects upon the outer world that constitutes history ... But, on
the one hand, we have seen that the many individual wills active in history
8
for the most part produce results quite other than those they intended often quite the opposite; their motives therefore in relation to the total
result are likewise of only secondary significance. On the other hand, the
further question arises: What driving forces in turn stand behind these
motives? What are the historical causes which transform themselves into
these motives in the brains of the actors?” (extract from Engles’ Ludwig
Feuerbach (1888) cited in Selsam & Martel, 1963, p. 193).
Marx believed that dominant or hegemonic themes could be picked up in society
in given times. “Each principle has had its own century in which to manifest itself. The
principle of authority, for example, had the eleventh century, just as the principle of
individualism had the eighteenth century. In logical sequence, it was the century that
belonged to the principle, and not the principle that belonged to the century” (Marx in
Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 192). It was these dominant themes that determined history. In
order to uncover the themes it may be useful to examine specific people in history. But
(again in veiled rebuke of Hegelian reasoning) Marx has commented, “what is this but to
draw up the real, profane history of men in every century and to present these men as
both the authors and the actors of their own drama? But the moment you present men as
the actors and authors of their own history, you arrive - by detour - at the real starting
point, because you have abandoned those eternal principles of which you spoke at the
outset” (cited in Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 192).
Based on the belief that production is the major driving force of history, Marx
concluded that to understand history and ultimately the future, one should focus on the
9
“stage in the development of [the] means of production and of exchange” (Marx in
Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 199). It is changes in productive forces that rend apart old society
and build new. Just as the Industrial Revolution completely destroyed the feudal
agricultural system, as the old system had ‘fettered’ society’s development in line with
new productive techniques. These fetters “had to be burst asunder; they were burst
asunder” (Marx in Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 199).
History as a Science
The History of Mankind can be seen as a very confusing and tumultuous story.
Wars, and alliances, revolution and conservatism, stagnation and rapid growth. Marx’s
analysis of history allows us to “discover the laws governing this seeming labyrinth and
chaos, namely, the theory of class struggle” (Lenin’s Teachings of Karl Marx, pp. 16 f.
cited in Selsam & Martel, 1963, p. 183). The apparent contradictions within history are
not symptomatic of an underlying inadequacy of our historical understanding
(necessarily) but are instead indicative of the fact that society is inherently full of
conflict. It is this conflict that provides the energy for change. The study of this conflict
can be far more illuminating in providing an underlying sense of the path of history,
rather than the lives of the ‘historic greats’ which ignores the important and defining role
played by the plebeians. It is in times of revolution, such as the Industrial Revolution, that
the contradictions and conflicts, so long hidden below the surface, are exposed and can be
properly examined. As Marx wrote (cited in Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 290) when considering
the massive changes in society during the later part of the nineteenth century:
10
“The so-called Revolutions of 1848 were but poor incidents - small
fractures and fissures in the dry crust of European society. However, they
denounced the abyss. Beneath the apparently solid surface, they betrayed
oceans of liquid matter, only needing expansion to rend into fragments
continents of hard rock. Noisily and confusedly they proclaimed the
emancipation of the Proletarian, i.e., the secret of the nineteenth century,
and of the revolution of that century.”
Summative Comments
Marx’s focus, not on the actors of history, but the underlying and fundamental
driving forces is ideal not only for examining the past but also for considering the future.
The script may be impossible to guess, but the plot is conceivable. This is why the
methodology and philosophy are considered appropriate for considering the question at
hand. This paper will focus on the changes in the role and function of the University
during the Industrial Revolution, not focusing on the people, but the conflicts that became
so apparent in that time, and the role played by the institution.
It is to be expected that there is not be a consistent institutional response, but that
the pressures brought to bear by various elements in society will result in “the
implementation of varied and contradictory policies within the life-span of a single social
formation” (Tosh, 1991, p. 175). Far from being seen as failure of the theory it in fact
reinforces the utility of Marx and provides opportunities to re-examine and, perhaps,
understand more fully the undercurrents of institutional response to times of change.
11
“So with all the other accidents, and apparent accidents, of history. The
further the particular sphere which we are investigating is removed from
the economic sphere and approaches that of pure abstract ideology, the
more shall we find it exhibiting accidents in its development, the more
will its curve run in a zigzag. So also you will find that the axis of this
curve will approach more and more nearly parallel to the axis of the curve
of economic development the longer the period considered and the wider
the field dealt with” (Engels in a Letter to Heinz Strakenburg (1894) cited
in Selsam & Martel, 1963, p. 203).
The Industrial Revolution
Marx noted that “the division of labour which has characterized every mode of
production since ancient society results in the creation of classes whose interests are
mutually antagonistic” (cited in Tosh, 1991, p. 167). The combination and interaction of
these working relationships give rise to the economic structure of a society. “The mode of
production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and
intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but
their social existence that determines their consciousness” (Marx, cited in Tosh, 1991, p.
164). As has been discussed an underlying driver of social change then is technology. A
technical revolution will give rise to fundamental changes of the material productive
forces of society. These changes must, according to Marx, eventually come into conflict
with the existing relations of production, which have become a straightjacket (‘fetters’) to
development. “Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic
12
foundation [brought about by changes in technology] lead sooner or later to the
transformation of the whole immense superstructure.” (Marx, cited in Tosh, 1991, p.
167).
One of the more recent and most profound times of massive technological,
economic and social upheaval was the Industrial Revolution. When discussing the
Industrial Revolution it is necessary to pick a time frame. This essay is choosing 1850 as
the start of the ‘main’ Revolution, this is supported by Barraclough (1982, p. 98) who
states that “the speed of change should not be exaggerated... its impact was limited before
1850 to a few industrial enclaves, and it was not until the last quarter of the nineteenth
century... that the great surge forward occurred”. Also the focus is on Britain for the
Industrial Revolution “was more extensive in Britain than else where in Europe or the
world, and industrialisation was to make Britain’s economy the most powerful in the
world” (Black, 2000, p. 34).
The Industrial Revolution provides us with a chance to examine the role the
University plays in these times of change. Before considering specifically the University
it is worth examining in some detail the technological, economic and social changes that
occurred during this time.
England: Pre-Industrial Revolution
England in the time leading up to the Industrial Revolution had become relatively
stagnant both in economic and social terms. There were in effect two (arguably three, if
the church is accounted for separately) classes, aristocrats and peasants. Not wanting to
romanticise the period but it has been argued that, although there was great inequity in
13
the system, stagnation had brought with it an amount of stability. “The system had its
evils but it offered the peasants certain rights in return: he could look to his landlord for
help and support in time of trouble, and his place was secure in the scheme of things”
(Burchell, 1973, p. 73).
Then there was a technological revolution. “Steam, electricity, and the self-acting
mule were revolutionists of a rather more dangerous character than even citizens Barbes,
Raspail and Blanqui [notorious French revolutionaries]” (Marx in Jordan (ed.), 1972, p.
290). These technologies upset the previous balance by introducing surplus wealth into
the economy.
“At first, the large majority of households continue to live on the
brink of subsistence, without the means that would enable or incline them
to claim their place in the political arena, and the ruling classes continue to
exploit their hold on government to garner a disproportionate share of the
gains from growth. Both the surge of new resources cannot be fully
controlled and some of the gains seep out. Increasing numbers are able to
rise from the depths of poverty, securing resources substantially beyond
the basic needs of bare subsistence, which allows them to gain a
respectable place in society.” (Moshe and Gradstein, 1999, p. 111)
But this revolution also shifted the focus of work from the land to the cities. New
and more efficient farming techniques, coupled with mechanisation, reduced the labour
requirements for agricultural production, and at the same increased the required technical
skills for those who were to stay. Rural serfdom was effectively abolished. Though this
14
act in itself was arguably a positive thing, the reason behind it can be cynically addressed
as not a sudden realisation of the humanity of man, but instead, much more likely, a way
to abrogate the responsibility of the feudal lord from the requirement of providing for the
welfare of his surfs. “Unable to make a living on the land, and deprived of his traditional
income from craft-work, the peasant sought work in industry. Factories and mines offered
a living, however precarious, plus the attraction of being paid in wages rather than in
kind” (Burchell, 1973, p. 74).
Technology had not only changed the nature of farming but had also had its effect
on industry. As Marx had identified, change in technology had led to change in the forces
of production, which led ultimately and unassailably to a change in society.
Revolutionary England in the Late 19th Century
“There is one great fact, characteristic of this our nineteenth century, a fact
which no party dares deny. On the one hand, there have started into life
industrial and scientific forces, which no epoch of the former human
history had ever suspected. On the other hand, there exists symptoms of
decay, far surpassing the horrors recorded of the latter times of the Roman
Empire. In our days everything seems pregnant with its contrary...
Machinery, is gifted with the wonderful power of shortening and
fructifying human labour... [yet] we behold starving and overworking it.”
(Marx in Jordan (ed.), 1972, p. 290 - 2)
15
Societal structure was fundamentally changed during the industrial revolution, not
just the make up of the constituent classes. There remained an ‘aristocracy’, but instead
of blood, it was money that counted. Wealth was accumulated to the capitalist, who had
invested in the technology and labour of others. Buoyed by Darwin’s assertions of the
unassailable right of the fittest to survive, along with the recently gained rights to operate
outside of strict government controls, capitalistic aristocracy asserted their right to treat
labour as a commodity. To be used as required and then left to find its own way in the
world as best it could. The owner had to offer his employees no kind of security, hiring
and firing at will. His only aim was to make a profit and this meant keeping costs as low
as possible. Labour was still the most expensive part of any venture, hence bargaining
down wages was a constant aim (for some interesting notes on the cost of labour and
accounting practices during the Industrial Revolution see Fleischman and Parker, 1997).
With so many poor and unemployed it was relatively easy to drive down wages in many
unskilled occupations.
“Thus there was a Natural Law of Supply and Demand, a Natural Law of
Diminishing Returns, an Iron Law of Wages, which made labour a
commodity, subject to the fluctuations of supply and demand. The owners
of capital believed that these laws were immutable and that if they were
permitted to function without restrictions they would eventually lead to the
greatest good for the greatest number. In practice, they led to great profits
for a very few and to great misery for countless others.” (Burchell, 1973,
p. 77).
16
There also came into existence an intrinsically new class, the so-called middleclass, “men engaged in the professions, in manufacture, in commerce, in civil service or
in shopkeeping; they worked for their living but earned sufficient surplus to participate in
the capitalistic adventure” (Burchell, 1973, p. 56). Marx’s bourgeoisie.
Finally there were those at the bottom of the social pyramid. Though there had
always been the poor, the class was reconstituted from the serf (land based) to the
proletariat (city based). “... artisans, miners, skilled mechanics and unskilled labourers,
most of them uprooted peasants and craftsmen, who struggled to survive on precarious
wages, and who had neither share in ownership nor surplus earnings to spend for
investment or amusement” (Burchell, 1973, p. 56). The situation of the poor had hardly
changed, only the location. In some ways it can be argued the situation had worsened,
freed from the bondage of serfdom, they also lost any of the former security offered by
the village arrangement.
The capitalist exploited the labour of the workers to gain more wealth. The
proletariat, without any means of production of their own, was dependent on the capitalist
to continue to pay and employ them. Marx’s predictions about the inevitability of class
conflict seemed likely to be realised.
“Of all the social problems faced by the Victorians, this perception, that
society was becoming rapidly divided into classes of people separated
from and hostile to each other, was felt to be the most fundamental...
England seemed an 'enchanted' land, cursed by the gods, flowing with
wealth from improved agricultural and industrial invention yet unable to
17
solve, even perhaps incapable of comprehending, the terrible problem of
poverty that such wealth had brought with it” (Keating, 1976, p. 11).
The irony of this disparity in times of such huge technological progress was not
lost on the writers of the time.
“It is to increased wealth and to increased civilization that we owe the
wide gulf which today separates well-to-do citizens from the masses. ... It
is the increased civilization of this marvelous age which has made life a
victory only for the strong, the gifted, and the specially blest, and left the
weak, the poor, and the ignorant to work out in their proper persons the
theory of the survival of the fittest to the bitter end” (George R. Sims
(1889) in How the Poor Live, cited in Keating, 1976, p. 67).
As the industrial revolution swept out of the United Kingdom and through
Europe, and similar conditions came into existence throughout the continent, the obvious
differences between rich and poor did lead to violent clashes, amongst these are the Paris
Commune rising of 1871, and of course first the 1905 and later the 1917 Russian
Revolutions. With all of these changes in society, it seems inevitable that the institutions
would have to be affected. Against this background it is time to consider the University.
The Commercialisation of the University during the Industrial Revolution
Changes in technology brought on by the Industrial Revolution caused a shift in
the foundation of relations of production. Marx had hypothesized this would have
18
significant effects on social institutions. Although on the surface it can be argued that the
institution of the University remained relatively stable, this hides the fact that there was
significant internal structural realignment, which can be related to power shifts in society.
The University that emerged from this time bears little resemblance to that which had
been for the previous three hundred years. It is this mould struck during the Industrial
Revolution that remains with us to this day, still significantly influencing the thinking of
our time. It is relevant to also consider that it has been argued that during the height of
the Industrial Revolution the University was in fact ‘rescued’ by the forces of
commercialisation from descending into obscurity and insignificance. It is also of no
small matter that this change was driven by the newly enfranchised middle-classes.
Going into the Industrial Revolution the University in Britain as a social
institution reflected the society at large. Class divisions were maintained, with almost
impenetrable barriers, between ‘commoner’ and ‘lord’. As the revolution progressed the
University system initially resisted the changes that were happening in society even as
other institutions were changed through class struggle and shifts in power distributions.
“The object of education within the [English] colleges was to produce intellectuals and
gentlemen who could be relied upon in a world constantly threatened, it was thought, by
revolution” (Kearney, 1970, p. 22). This can be contrasted with situation in Europe where
far more bloody uprisings were occurring, many led and fueled by University graduates.
“The expense of getting to Oxford and Cambridge and the fact that they
were not necessary avenues to the secular professions in the first half of
the nineteenth century helped save Britain from the over production of an
19
underpaid and underemployed University graduate class which helped fuel
Continental revolutionary movements” (Sanderson (ed.), 1975, p. 4).
This aversion to revolution was also implicit in the teaching at the Universities of
the time “Historians reared [during this time]... took for granted the truth of Tennyson's
judgement, that freedom slowly broadened down from precedent to precedent. This gave
a comforting re-assurance that rebellions had been justly, if bloodily, repressed in earlier
centuries, because they were out of due time” (Kearney, 1970, p. 178). Rothblatt (1968,
p. 266) also picks up on this point
“International trade, but especially imperial and colonial government,
fortunately rescued the University graduate, mitigating the effects of a
limited homemarket by carrying off potentially unhappy and distraught
graduates to overseas positions. Britain's imperial possessions, it appeared,
may have helped prevent the formation of an intellectual proletariat, a
functionless and therefore alienated group with forced leisure in which to
scheme against the social order”.
So although it can be said that the Industrial Revolution was approaching its
height, and had indeed been underway for some time in the 1850’s, the institution of the
University itself was, quite understandably, slow to change. It is not possible to draw a
line and to say that before this time all things were pre-industrial and all after were postindustrial. “There are societies within societies. Pre-industrial values survive amid
industrialization. And universities may play their part as the educational organs of sub-
20
societies” (Kearney, 1970, p. 191).
The changes in society led to changes in the
University, but the course of this change is not clear or easy to chart. But it is worth
considering, not only as it throws light on the role of the University during times of
revolution, but also provides a touchstone for considering the future of the University in
these new revolutionary times. The role of the University changes, the change is driven,
slowly perhaps, by the underlying state of society in which it is situated.
“In social institutions as in living organisms, form and function are
inextricably bound together. If function changes, then form must adapt
itself or the organism - and the institution - will perish.” (Ashby, 1959, p.
67)
The Beginnings of Discontent
Much has been written on the extended history of the University and it is not the
intention of this essay to review it all again. What is clear is that by the 18th Century the
University was the domain of the gentry and the church. Exclusions had been slowly
introduced, when the University was first opened in the 12th Century it had been a public
institution open to all (see for example Gloucester, 1980), but over time various
restrictions had come into force severely limiting those who could gain entry. Two of the
most alienating of these being strict religious requirements and the requirement for
students to board in institutions charging high fees (the University itself kept very modest
fees) (see Statement by the Council of London Explanatory of the Nature and Objectives
of the Institution (1827) cited in Sanderson (ed.), 1975, p. 60). This system came under
increasing scrutiny as the nineteenth century moved on.
21
“To monopolise those institutions for the rich, as is done now, is to violate
both the spirit and the letter of the foundations; ... The letter is kept - the
spirit is thrown away. You refuse to admit any who are not members of
the Church of England, say, rather, any who will not sign the dogmas of
the Church of England, whether they believe a word of them or not.
Useless formalism! which lets through the reckless, the profligate, the
ignorant, the hypocritical; and only excludes the honest and the
conscientious, and the mass of the intellectual working men... the real
reason for our exclusion, churchmen or not, is, because we are poor.”
(Charles Kingsley's Aton Locke (1850) cited in Sanderson (ed.), 1975, p.
54-5)
In addition to these ‘physical’ barriers there were deeper, underlying, social
attitudes precluding those of lower socio-economic status for the University. Writers
from the upper-classes attacked those of the middle-classes who tried to enter the
education system. Arguments of an economic nature were employed to hold the gates of
the University shut. There was a strong feeling that allowing those of the middle-classes
entry would devalue education.
“Just as capitalists would at once capture education in craftmanship, seek
out what little advantage there is in it, and then throw it away, so they do
with all other education... as soon as it has ceased to be a rarity,
competition takes care that education shall not raise wages; that general
education shall be worth nothing, and that special education shall be worth
22
just no more than a tolerable return on the money and time spent acquiring
it” (William Morris (1888) in Commonweal cited in Golby (1986), p. 233).
As for the working class the arguments employed were psychological in nature
“And then supposing the worker to be really educated, to have acquired
both the information and the taste for reading... how will this treasure of
knowledge and sympathy accord with his daily life? Will it not make his
dull task seem duller? Will it not increase the suffering of the workshop or
the factory to him? And so, may he not strive to forget then strive to
remember...?” (William Morris (1888) in Commonweal cited in Golby
(1986), p. 233)
The Death of a Liberal Education, the Seeds of Commercialisation
The Universities, which at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution meant
Oxford or Cambridge, were for the wealthy, that is the gentry, the landed noble. “... in
England in the first half of the nineteenth century existing universities had merely taken a
narrow élite as students and confirmed their status” (Sanderson (ed.), 1975, p. 20). But
the technological change of the Industrial Revolution was a catalyst for change in social
structures. Wealth accumulated in the hands of those who were best able to take
advantage of the new Capitalist system. “Under pressure, the aristocracy agreed to share
political power with economically more important middle classes who subsequently
nationalised the University... in their own interest” (Rothblatt, 1968, p. 20).
23
Initially the effect this had on the institution of the University was minimal, if not
regressive. “Their most important effect was to render the University inaccessible to the
poorer classes. Far from being national, Oxford and Cambridge became more socially
exclusive than ever before, a step on the climb of the parvenu bourgeoisie to status and
influence” (Rothblatt, 1968, p. 20). The University continued to play the same role it had
previously, a social acknowledgement that even just attendance conveyed confirmation of
a certain position in society. “Increasingly, the criterion of a gentleman became
membership of certain professions, the established church, law, medicine, the army, the
higher civil service and the Indian civil service, banking as 'the City', and not least,
politics. Entrance to these professions was largely governed by a public school education
and the possession of an Oxbridge degree” (Kearney, 1970, p. 174). The role of the
Institution of the University was in fact a throw back to a previous time of stability and
dependability in a society, confirming echoes of an old hierarchy, in a state of revolution.
“In a sea of rising democracy, the colleges were 'citadels of privilege'” (Kearney, 1970, p.
188). The state of the University was indicative of the slowness of some institutions to
make change and “the failure of the nineteenth century to promote the moral and material
welfare of the working classes commensurate with some of the more democratic claims
of laissez-faire theory” (Rothblatt, 1968, p. 29).
The traditional nature of a University education had been ‘liberal’. That is that it
prepared a ‘gentleman’ to think, and act morally, without encumbering him with specific
skills, which could be acquired when he entered whichever service, if any, he choose
upon leaving the University. The very nature of the education presupposed a level of
independence from the requirements of seeking skilled employment in order to survive.
24
“Indeed, such an education fitting for no special livelihood was particularly apt for those
who had no need to earn a living or whose position was assured.” (Sanderson (ed.), 1975,
p. 1/2).
“The weight of most articulate opinion concerning University education
up to and in the mid-nineteenth century was firmly against the use of
universities for vocational training as distinct from liberal education. ...
while admitting the utility of 'those arts and studies which relate to the
improvement of manufactures' ... a University education should not relate
to specific employments but should improve the individual by imbuing
him with sound principles of policy and religion.” ( Sanderson, 1972, p. 4)
Yet as has already been identified the University is an institution and therefore it
is reflective of the struggle between classes brought about by the fundamental changes to
the nature of production brought about by the Industrial Revolution. These changes did
occur, if somewhat slowly, as expected. In fact some would argue that the Industrial
Revolution was almost over before the University realised all the changes it would have
to undertake to remain relevant. “... scientific thought, which by 1800 was already
consolidated in the foundations of modern physics and chemistry... had scarcely
influenced the universities of England. The scientific revolution had occurred not
through, but in spite of, the English universities” (Ashby, 1959, p. 13). Those who had
launched and propelled the Industrial Revolution had not been men from the Universities.
This trend continued throughout most of the nineteenth-century, “innovation came most
commonly by the modification of existing technologies by experienced and observant
25
men on the job unattached to any formal organization for the diffusion of science and still
less involved with the universities.” (Sanderson, 1972, p. 2)
During this time, and particularly by the middle of the nineteenth century, it was
increasingly recognised that a strong scientific grounding was important for national
success and prosperity (see for example the Speech by Prince Albert at the opening of the
Great Exhibition, cited in Golby, 1986, p. 1 - 2). Yet the universities refused “to meet the
social and educational challenge of industrialism... they showed themselves incapable of
necessary self-reform” (Rothblatt, 1968, p. 18). Science, which was so important to
Britain was being ignored by the educated. Instead scientific education was originally
restricted to a “small minority of the working classes who could read and write : the
craftsman, the foreman, the mechanic” (Ashby, 1959, p. 51). Admittedly there was some
interest in the ‘pure sciences’ but the manner of education was very esoteric and
theoretical.
“There was practically no exchange of ideas between the scientists and the
designers of industrial processes. The very stratification of English society
helped to keep science isolated from its applications : it was admitted that
the study of science for its useful applications might be appropriate for the
labouring classes, but managers were not attracted to the study of science
except as an agreeable occupation for their leisure.” (Ashby, 1959, p. 51)
Education became a social issue of concern to the state and the universities were
forced to begin their transformation “into national institutions providing for national
needs and in the service of the entire nation; no longer were they to be useful merely to
26
clergy, gentry and aristocracy” (Rothblatt, 1968, p. 18). The University moved away
from a liberal education towards a more practically orientated curriculum. Yet the
introduction of science did not immediately change the institution. “By the 1870's Oxford
and Cambridge were ready to accept experimental science as an ingredient in education;
but they were not prepared to jettison their cherished ideals of a liberal education in
favour of the ideal of the University as a research institution” (Ashby, 1959, p. 49). It is
interesting to note that the change of the style of education was seen as extremely
threatening in some parts of the University system
“Were research to become accepted alongside teaching as a major
function of the universities then much of the clear-cut traditional authority
of the old subjects would be eroded as students no less than teachers
would be expected to question and inquire as they saw old truths replaced
by new uncertainties” (Sanderson (ed.), 1975, p. 7).
Over time the introduction of science did begin to affect the functioning of the
University for two reasons. First research, or the adjunction of knowledge, became
important. No longer was the main function of the University “transmitting a received
body of knowledge, in teaching rather than in the creation of new subjects or areas of
inquiry through research” (Sanderson (ed.), 1975, p. 6). In addition political pressure was
brought to bear, preferencing knowledge that was of practical value to the realm.
Once the change started it happened quickly. Although “the universities were
slowly and clumsily aligning themselves to the massive currents of thought which flowed
from the scientific revolution”(Ashby, 1959, p. 77), by the end of the nineteenth century
27
the University had fundamentally changed reflecting in many ways the changes in
society. “[T]he British universities learned not to drag their feet at the back of the
procession of scientific thought” (Ashby, 1959, p. 16). Ashby (1959) goes on to argue
that in many ways the University managed to move itself out of a rut it had got into over
the preceding three hundred years, and moved back much closer to its ‘truer prototype’.
The pressure of the Industrial Revolution was renewing for the University. Forcing a
realignment of the institution with the society it was in. It had to demonstrate “the social
flexibility of function requisite for survival” (Sanderson (ed.), 1975, p. 23) in times of
revolution. “In accomplishing this adaptation the universities have recovered their
prestige and influence without losing their identity” (Ashby, 1959, p. 16).
The industrial revolution and the social changes it brought had, by the end of the
nineteenth century greatly affected the institution of the University. At the beginning of
the century a liberal education was the preserve of the societal elite. But the increasing
importance of new methods of production based on scientific principles and
advancements, brought pressure to change both the nature and the purpose of the
University towards research and practical education and also those who were to be
educated. “Traditional ideas of the liberal education were eroded and professional and
vocational teaching, scientific studies and original research became accepted within the
orbit of University activities... The universities as a whole began to become social
engines of social mobility rather than confirmers of existing social structure” (Sanderson
(ed.), 1975, p. 22).
During these changes there was also a move towards the comercialisation of the
University. Again initially resisted, “it was never considered that the industrialist, as
28
such, should stand beside the canon lawyer, the gentleman, or the cleric as the proper
recipient and creations of a University education” (Sanderson, 1972, p. 1). Those
involved in commercial activities were regarded with some suspicion and also as the
majority of students were there from the church and
“the established Church was
traditionally associated with the landed classes, and not with commerce” (Kearney, 1970,
p. 177). However “Shifts in social class of intake were also matched by those in final
career choice. At Cambridge there was a radical change in the occupations of students
with the Church's share falling from 62 per cent to 38 per cent in the second half of the
century, and with administration, business and the professions taking up what the church
had lost”
(Sanderson (ed.), 1975, p. 18). The industrialist with a commercial and
practical background was becoming increasingly important.
It should also be noted that it was during this time the monopoly on University
education that had been held by Oxford and Cambridge was broken. New universities
were established around England to educate the new middle class that was driving the
industrial revolution. “The students of the civic universities did tend to come from
industrial and commercial backgrounds and more from the middle- and upper- classes
than from the working-class” (Sanderson, 1972, p. 119). Manchester University was
established in 1851, and based on the philosophy of Arthur Barnes, that has become a
foundation of teaching in many University courses.
“I shall imagine to myself a system of education for a commercial
man which shall contain all the parts of science proper for him to
know, as much as possible in practical form and which amidst all
29
the other objects of study shall keep this point continually in view”
(cited in Kearney, 1970, p. 179).
The Institution As It Was - As It Is.
The University emerged for the Industrial Revolution fundamentally changed
from the institution that entered. Forces that had sprung from technological change had
affected labour relations and consequently recast social structure. In the broadest context
it could be argued that two of these forces, which directly acted on the University were
the pressures of utility and democracy. Utility was “the conviction that, in an industrial
civilisation, higher education should contribute toward economic stability in peace and
security in war” (Ashby, 1959, p. 41). Democracy brought with it increased political
power to the middle classes, and a weakening of dichotomous social stratification that
had previously existed. The joint effect of these pressures was to open up the University,
in many ways, to a wider cross section of disciplines and students.
And yet the institution still seems insecure about its position in society. Debates
about the nature of education bubble to the surface, with many academics wistfully
harking back to the ideas of Cardinal Newman, a University education for its own sake.
Ashby (1959, p. 69 - 70) identifies this as early as the middle of the last century in terms
of a split personality:
“The symptoms are caused simply by the fact that adaptation is
incomplete. The consequences of incomplete adaptation is tension... And
so universities find themselves searching for a compromise. On one hand
they cannot bring themselves to refuse the responsibilities laid upon them
30
by modern society, nor the large financial grants which accompany these
responsibilities. On the other hand, they cling to their traditional
organisation and curricula in the hope that the values for which
universities stood in the Middle Ages may be preserved among the
automatic factories and social planning and satellite-ridden stratosphere of
the third millennium”
Yet it may not just be that the adaptation is incomplete. The world moves on.
Revolutions continue to develop. The end of the last world war saw the beginnings of a
new revolution. Then called the Information Revolution. Now recognized as being much
broader than that, and talked of in terms of Globalisation. However it is named, the
consequences are the same. Technology changes the structure of society and the relations
within it, this leads inevitably to new forces pushing change onto institutions. And this
can be perceived clearly again in this new century.
The Global Revolution
Few would deny that we appear to be entering a new phase of human
development. Driven by technological changes, where once technology multiplied the
physical ability of man, it now affects our very ability to think, to create and to innovate.
The ramifications of these changes can only be described as global in their nature and
effect. This new revolution will bring about fundamental change to all of human society.
This must also have an effect on human institutions.
31
“We are constantly advised that the internet will have the same impact on
the human race as the Industrial Revolution or, in more distant days, the
invention of the plough. It will involve the creation of new technology
which will be applied to many human activities.
It will not replace unique human capacities such as imagination
and the ability to communicate. It will remain a means to an end, but the
end has to be determined by man. It may turn the world upside down and
force changes far beyond those that are presently foreseen.
Those who wish to control commercial activities must emulate
their predecessors who profited from the Industrial Revolution in
identifying the essential features of the new order and consequently of
their own individual entities and, regardless of the costs, support and
control that which creates the wealth they seek” (Bartlett, 2000, p. 18).
Conclusion Brief Comments on the future of the University
The point of this paper was to consider the future of the University in light of the
past. The past history of the University clearly indicates that it is an institution
inextricably bound up in the social framework, subject to forces of change. Required to
change if it is to remain viable and relevant. Yet the level and direction of change must be
carefully considered. As Rothblatt (1968, p. 15) noted “The modern University is like
Proteus, many things at once, and the colour or form it assumes depends on how it is
viewed or grasped. The functions it must perform for industrial society are almost beyond
imagination”.
32
As the future direction of the University is considered the words of Lord Ashby
from nearly 50 years ago seemed to identify the heart of the issue:
“The social institution we call a University has endured now for seven
centuries. It could have been destroyed, either by resisting pressure to
change and so losing its viability, or by yielding too readily to change and
so losing its integrity. But it has survived by adapting itself to ...
revolution without abdicating its traditional function in society.” (Ashby,
1959, p. 97)
From here it is difficult to identify the future direction of the University. But it
seems clear that technological change, that so dramatically affects the way individuals
interact with each other, the way society itself is constructed, will drastically influence
the institution we call the University. These effects are already being evidenced today.
Academics, the soul of the University, must measure their response. To refuse to
accept the requirements for change, or worse still try and hark back to a previous time,
would surely condemn the University to a loss of relevance, obscurity and possibly
eventual death. Change too quickly, or just for the sake of change, and the University will
be in danger of losing its vitality and position within the social structure as it moves too
far from the those values which make it so necessary and unique.
What is required is measured change. The future cannot be known. But the past
provides valuable insight and must be used to throw light on any debate if it is to be
adequately informed and useful.
33
“Nevertheless, when projecting into the future, objectivity and integrity
remain idealistic attributes. The arena in which the play takes place is
itself highly competitive and as ruthless as any gladitorial circus. Those
who succeed are those who satisfy their superiors. As a consequence their
contribution to the task of decision-making is often governed more by
political than by economic considerations. Human nature being what it is,
it is highly unlikely that objectivity and integrity will be welcomed where
its application might cast a shadow over the perceived competence of the
senior management. If there is to be a messenger of bad tidings from the
past which may adversely affect the future, then it would be better for the
company that he should not be dependent upon that company for his
living.” (Bartlett, 2000, p. 17)
Ominis Caro Foenum
All Flesh is Hay
34
References
Ashby, E. (1959), Technology and the Academics, New York, MacMillan and Co. Ltd.
Barraclough, G. (1982), The Times Atlas of World History, London, Times Books.
Bartlett, A. (2000), “Philosophy and Experience”, Management Accounting, April 2000,
pp. 16 – 18.
Black, J. (2000), “Britain 1800”, History Today, November 2000, pp. 29 – 35.
Burchell, S. (1973), Age of Progress, Nederland, Time.
Feuer, L. (ed.) (1969), Marx and Engles: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, UK,
Fontana.
Fleischman, R. and L. Parker (1997), What is Past is Prologue: Cost Accounting in the
British Industrial Revolution, 1760 – 1850, New York, Garland Publishing.
Golby, J, (1986), Culture and Society in Britain: 1850 – 1890, UK, Oxford University
Press.
Gloucester, R. (1980), Oxford and Cambridge, New York, Thames and Hudson.
Jordan, Z. (ed.) (1972), Karl Marx: economy, class and social revolution, London,
Nelson.
Keating, P. (1976), Into Unknown England 1866 – 1913, UK, Manchester University
Press.
35
Kearney, H, (1970), Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-Industrial
Britain - 1500 – 1700, UK, Faber and Faber.
Moshe, J. And M. Gradstein (1999), “The Industrial Revolution, Political Transition, and
the Subsequent Decline in Inequality in 19th-Century Britain”, Explorations in
Economic History, 36(2), pages 109-27.
Rothblatt, S. (1968), The Revolution of the Dons - Cambridge and Society in Victorian
England, UK, Faber and Faber Ltd.
Sanderson, M. (1972), The Universities and British Industry 1850 – 1970, London,
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sanderson, M. (ed.) (1975), The Universities in the Nineteenth Century, London,
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Selsam, H. and H. Martel (1963), Reader in Marxist Philosophy, United States of
America, International Publishers.
Tosh, J. (1991), The Pursuit of History, London, Longman.
36