The fourth theme of the current WEA class at Barton, History of not very nice things, is Technological Change. Of course many would argue that this is not a ‘not very nice thing’, but rather an opportunity, a challenge but my line of thought is that rapid technological change can undermine society.
Firstly I am going to present the history (potted) of the plough and the loom as examples of fundamental technology that changed comparatively slowly over successive generations, this plus a bit about ‘Farmer George’ (George III) as an example of someone who embraced agricultural change and about Charles I as an example of someone who embraced some aspects of agricultural change but not others. (Remainder of this blog written after the class).
Following on from the loom section spoke about Luddite ‘riots’ of 1820s and ’30s and brought the concept of resistance to technological change up to the present day. Discussed the fundamental move whereby, in the early Industrial Revolution, place of work began to move from the home to the ‘mill’ and the resultant impacts including child labour, although of course, this had been a feature of the Domestic System also.
Then onto Thomas Edison and the early phonograph and through vinyl, cassettes, cds to current wireless media (about which I was not qualified to speak). This bringing us to the current age of comparatively very rapid technological change utilising digital technology (see above image of smartphones).
Finally I indulged in a personal opinion that too rapid technological change has an unsettling effect on society, exacerbates inequality and is a source of anxiety to many individuals. Although, as with the atomic bomb, an argument can be made that you cannot de-invent something, nevertheless, government control of the take-up of new technology is certainly possible as opposed to the unregulated tsunami of invention in a free-market economy. The representation of ‘Ludditeism’ as on a par with terrorism is too easy a cop-out.