Economical revolutions have always made a great impact on society and culture. Social organization changes as well, having people live in different places, eat in different ways, and enjoy leisure time (if at all possible) of different kinds. But, what moves a society toward economical change? Is it greed from those in an elite position as to maintain themselves over “the others”? Is it a genuine desire to make things better (for whom)? Or is it just a natural human desire to make things more effective?
The dam-breaking case
In Steinberg’s article about dam-breaking and water control in Lowell, MA (upper half of the 18th hundred) it seemed the owners of the factory only cared about making more money. They did not worried about flooding the surrounding areas, and having the farmers lose their crops. They even manage to control the judiciary system in their favor, one way or the other. For example, in page 53 of the article the author recounts,
“Representing himself before the court, Worster [a farmer] submitted a motion to have the company’s bill dismissed. He argued, much as the Lake Company had done in a number of its cases… that the court should not have jurisdiction over the case. The court disagreed and found for the company.”
So in this case, it seemed that change was mainly geared by greed and power. This generated an increase of conflict between the owners of the factories and the community surrounding it.
The fisheries case
Sverrison presents the case of Ireland’s technological changes of small-scale fisheries and large-scale alternatives. In this case, they co-existed and the traditional ways seemed to win over the new technologies. But here there was a social component that made the “old-ways” of open-boats (later motorboats) survive: the sense of a community working together. The author states on page 238:
“An extensive division of labor and an internal hierarchy characterized the work on the trawlers. On the motorboats, in contrast, everyone participated in the fishing work, including the captain, the cook, and the engineer. Hierarchies remained vague, as they were among artisans, and social mobility was the rule: captains started out as deck hands.”
Conflict stir-up when workers in the trawlers, were unsatisfied by their wages and working conditions, something that would not happen with the open-boat economy, since they continued the tradition of sharing the catch.
In this case, society was not changed by a few, whom imposed their new-ways, instead the community was able to control the accelerated changes and move toward the future with the self assurance of being a significant part of the whole. Even the government imposed fishery policies “to help the small-boat fleet and processing units in small towns and villages” (p. 247).
My comments
As we look at how technology impact communities around the world, we can see how changes happen suddenly and for the benefit of a few or slowly and for the benefit of a community. I believe that communities with strong ties have better chances to control technological impact and change. It is not the same when one person voices his/her opinion as when a whole community does.
References:
Steinberg, T. L. (1990). Dam-breaking in the 19th century Merrimack Valley: Water, social conflict, and the Waltham-Lowell Mills. Journal of Social History, 24, pp. 25-45.
Sverrisson, Á. (2002). Small boats and Large Ships: Social Continuity and Technical Change in the Icelandic Fisheries, 1800-1860. Technology and Culture, 43 (2), pp. 227-253.
