Reference no: EM133321129

Question: Comment on any part of the readings that you found interesting. What did you find compelling? What did you agree or disagree with? What made the reading selection effective, or why did it fail?

Case Study: Particularly that progress associated with industrialization. Matthew Arnold agonized about a loss of certainty replaced by confused struggle and fear. Are Arnold s anxieties truly a product of the shift towards industrialization? Peter Laslett seems to suggest otherwise, arguing that many of these anxieties were just as present in the pre-industrial era as later. Nevertheless, Laslett does note some significant changes, particularly in terms of the loss of stability (being able to count on having a job and not being laid-off at a whim) and a shift from more personal relationships between employers and employees to one not influenced by social reciprocity. That is to say, your boss has no obligation to feel concerned for your own well-being or that of your family. Does Laslett make a good case? What evidence does he use to support his claims?Carlyle is anxious about the rigid social divisions which in his eyes has created a permanent underclass straining under the yoke of overwork in the employ of wealthy layabouts for whom work is entirely alien. For Carlyle, work not only produces societies requisite needs, but it also purifies and redeems the worker. If idle hand are the devil s workshop then busy hands do the work of God. Yet industrial capital does not necessarily reward work as much as it does ownership. While workers certainly earn a salary, the majority of the benefit of their work goes to reward those who own property-in this case, the owners of a given company. With Carlyle s explicitly religious language, how does his critique of work in industrial capitalism resonate with the protestant work ethic about which we read last week?Thomas Cochran and William Miller examine the American economy in the late 19th century, finding an increase in the accumulation of wealth by a lucky few. Adam Smith s capitalism envisioned a system in which individual greed would fuel the collective good. As individuals struggled and competed for their own desires, the benefit of their struggle would be shared collectively. Yet Cochran and Miller show that this was not the case in the industrial America of the late 1800 s. Does capitalism truly encourage competition? What are Cochran and Miller s views on the matter?Andrew Carnegie s view of work and reward was a fairly harsh one. Inspired by a misreading of Charles Darwin s theory of natural selection, he believed that free enterprise rewarded the strong, and the intelligent. Those who suffered under capitalism for whatever reason, should use their sufferings as motivations to go out and work harder. He believed only in helping those people who could be improved through charity. This theory leaves us little room to care for the aged and the disabled. For Carnegie, these people were merely a drain on society and helping them was a waste of resources. In other words, unrestrained capitalism helped to produce the fittest people and make society better while grinding down those who fell short of the mark. What is the responsibility of society, if any, to help those who, for whatever reason, can do little to help themselves? Does capitalism really reward the best people or the hardest-working people?We begin this week on our third book, Steven Greenhouse's Beaten Down, Worked Up. Do take the time to read the introduction very carefully. Greenwood outlines the arguments he will be making in the larger book. Begin by thinking about what workers have gained and lost since the 1970 s? What kinds of challenges do workers today experience? According to the Greenhouse, what is the relationship between organized labor and the growth of the American middle class?