The characteristics of modern industrial society

The characteristics of modern industrial society

As the 19th CE developed, the scope ND dimension of the change connoted by the term ‘industrialization’ swelled to gigantic proportions. It came to be seen as a revolution transforming every aspect of human life and thought. Progress, if the concept were to sustain itself, could now only mean industrialization. An industrial society, according to Raymond Aaron, might be simply defined as a society in which large-scale industry is the characteristic form of production. From this definition a number of other features of an industrial economy might be inferred.

First the enterprise is completely separated from the family. This however is by no means universal. Secondly, the introduction of technological division of labor, which is one of the characteristics of modern industrial society. Thirdly, an industrial enterprise implies an accumulation of capital. Each workman must use a substantial amount of capital, which must constantly be renewed. The idea of a progressive economy develops from the idea of industrial society. The fourth feature follows from the accumulation of capital, where the idea of rational/economic calculation is introduced.

And the fifth being the emergence of trade unions. However, Kumar critiqued the nature of the industrial society saying that there are no pristine distinctions in the themes of continuity and discontinuity of the mass phenomena. Kumar further provides a sketch of the leading characteristics of mind Austria society along with their parallel outcomes and problems of an industrial society. The emergence of urbanism as a way of life became quite apparent as industrialization gathered speed.

The pre-industrial society had often been of great commercial, cultural, or political importance. But it had existed encapsulated within, usually parasitic upon, the body of the society as a whole. However, in the industrialization societies, the city had emerged from its encapsulated state and come to provide the economic, cultural and political framework of the whole society. Marxist saw this urban life as the expression of one of the central aspects of alienation brought about by this mode of production: the alienation of man from his fellows.

The second characteristic refers to the demographic transition. Industrialization means population growth. A population explosion seemed to e a clear concomitant of industrialization- although, whether population growth itself forced on economic development, or was a consequence of that development, was and remains a matter of dispute. The decline of the community was one of the most commonly remarked and agreed upon features of the emerging industrial society.

There was a shift from community-based interaction (gamesmanship) to association/contract- based interaction (escalating). There was also a specialization in the division of labor. According to Spencer and Druthers, the division of labor was a process of great antiquity and Eng duration which was inherent and progressive for the growth of society. Both thought that there came a point- and that point had reached in the industrial society- when the phenomenon achieved such dimension in scope and volume that it introduced a new principle of order into the society.

The high degree of division of labor and the strict and close inter-dependence that it entailed became the very basis of a new social solidarity. The values of centralization, equalization and demagnification also came into play. Societies have industrialized under a wide variety of political regimes, naming from the democratic-constitutional to the elitist-authoritarian. But owing to the manner in which the earliest societies industrialized, there arose a conviction in the course of the 19th CE that there was an intrinsic connection between democracy and industrialism.

However, Kumar corrects that what was really being referred to was basically the phenomenon of populism rather than being egalitarian initially. Centralization indicated the association of the emerging industrial order with the developing nation-state. It tended to a leveling effect in which all individuals became uniformly subject o a centralized state. However it posed in an acute form the problem of relating the individual to some new social entity with which he could feel solidarity.

It was in this sense therefore of the massing of population into a centralized nation-state under a populist ideology, that Kumar loosely associated industrialism and democracy. Equalization, for Destructive, is better conveyed with the word leveling. According to him, the drive towards equality was leading to the obliteration of all distinctions and differences between men, rendering them a uniform mass, common alike in their Houghton and attitudes as in their dependence on an ever more powerful centralized state.

Introduction to colonization, rationalization and bureaucratically meant that there was a progressive decline of institutionalized religion, and of the formal beliefs associated with religious institutions, which were being increasingly replaced by ones deriving their authority from science and reason rather than systems of revealed religion. However, both at the time and since, two main objections were made to the view that industrialization and colonization went hand in hand. The first was historical.

The fact that at the very moment when England was entering on its swiftest phase of industrialization, there should occur what was called the greatest revival of religious faith since the middle ages. The second objection refers to a psychological and sociological one. Responding to the the read of the annihilation of religion in the individual mind and in society at large. However, Kumar concludes that religion is functionally necessary to society, the central mechanism of integration of its members and the most important source of its unifying symbols and rituals.

Now we look at the different regimes of production that existed under industrialism I. E. Capitalism and socialism, but before doing that we must first understand an economic unit by examining it from several points of view: The extent and type of the division of labor The motive forces of its economic activity The type of regulation or organization of the economic system The relative importance of the state and of the individuals in the economic system Looking back to the common features of all industrial economies, both regimes of production (capitalist and socialist) are found to have all features.

However, the essential difference between both concerns two points: The ownership of the systems of production The method of regulation in the system By combining the various criteria enumerated above, Aaron spells out the following characteristics of a capitalist regime: The means of production are privately owned The regulation of the economy is decentralized Separation of employers from employees. This is the origin of the wage earning class The profit motive predominates The distribution of resources is not determined by planning. Thus supply and emend cause prices to fluctuate in each part of the market and even in the economy as a whole.

This is called capitalist anarchy. The chief arguments against the capitalist regime seem to be that it involves the exploitation of the worker, that it is immoral so far as it is based on a desire for profit, that it results in extreme inequality of incomes, and that it is anarchic, that it does not allocate resources and incomes in a calculated way and so entails a permanent danger of crises. However, most of these arguments either can be applied to every modern economic system, or has to e made more precise according to the particular way in which the ideal type of capitalist society actually worked.

The arguments against a planned economy crudely follow that first, total planning entails despotism or tyranny and secondly, it is impossible to rely upon economic calculation in a planned regime. However, Aaron debunks these arguments saying that in fact a planned economy implies a greater concentration of authority than an economic regime in which decisions are decentralized and it is not necessary that all economic planning excludes the implosion of parties. We now look at Mum Armada’s illustration of industrial setups in India.

Remarry states that it is well known that India had a flourishing urban life long before industrialization. Pilgrim cities, administrative centre and commercial towns flourished and by the third quarter of the 19th CE the country had a well-developed system of roads and railways. The advent of British marked the political integration of the country and the emergence of a rational legal system. The problem lies in the fact that many societies have to experienced the kind of consequences that the theorists envisaged even after a century of industrialization.

For e. G. : Singer critics Moore by saying that in India, the joint family has survived the onslaught of arbitration and industrialization by giving an illustration of industrialists in Madras City where even when members of the joint family have to move out in search of employment, they maintain extensive links with their wider kin group by means of joint ownership of property and visits on social and religious occasions. It pools in resources to give some of its members specialized education and technical training necessary for starting and running industries.

Industrialization theory maintains that subsistence peasant economies are ill- suited for industrial development. It has been argued that when these societies industrialized, it is necessary for those in industry to snap their links with land and other forms of traditional employment. However, it was seen that the worker himself finds no contradiction between industrial employment and his deep ties with the land. It would certainly be impossible to show that attachment to land impedes efficiency at work in any way.

Please follow and like us:
Haven’t found the essay you want?