Working Class Standards In Britain

819 Words4 Pages
With reference to these two extracts and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two extracts provides the more convincing interpretation of working class standards of living in Britain in the years 1780 to 1830? Firstly, Extract A presents working class standards in Britain to be good – it is a positive extract. Hartwell makes it sound as if national income is definitely increasing, “at a rapid rate” between 1780 and 1830. This is somewhat true, as the introduction of factory employment meant that working class families had a stable income, and although the hours of work were long, it meant that their income was increasing from previous work in the countryside. As this income increased, there was more demand for foods,…show more content…
However, many other factors that contribute to standard of living are not accounted for; factors such as housing, individual space, safety, type of work, health, hygiene, comfort and more. These factors were definitely lacking at the time, with the typical factory worker living in extremely confined spaces alongside other workers, where disease would spread quickly – many children were born with deformities in these conditions. Working conditions were unsafe, with many factory workers being injured or even dying, and the average shift being 14 hours. These conditions do not make a good quality of life. Although income was increasing, arguably people could not enjoy it, so this part of the extract is not convincing. In addition, the extract states that there were growing “opportunities for women” and “greater literacy”. These could be questioned – so-called “opportunities for women” were often harsh factory work, where men were usually hired instead for being stronger. The extent of literacy was still limited, as it was unnecessary for most factory work. Finally, Hartwell writes that “the working classes were able, during the industrial revolution, to take control of their own lives”. This could…show more content…
It is convincing, because he writes that “it destroyed their old ways of living”. This is true, as before industrialisation, the majority of people lived and worked in the countryside. Their lives had been transformed, as people now lived in the crowded, bustling cities, and worked intensively by the clock. Their old lives had truly been “destroyed” – their work was “a regularity, routine and monotony quite unlike pre-industrial rhythms of work”. As mentioned before, the average working shift was 14 hours of doing the same job. Often, people would fall asleep at the workbench from exhaustion; it was truly monotonous. In addition, Hobsbawm describes the filthiness of the city: “filth impregnated them”. This shows how disgusting the conditions were that people were living in, due to the crowding of the cities, and their cramped living conditions. It was so dirty that diseases would spread, and the life expectancy was at only 38. Also, he suggests “the poor grew poorer… and its rich middle class… grew wealthier”. This is convincing, as this is an example of a wealth pattern at the time, and one that tends to be true. The bosses of the factories would become even wealthier, whereas those living in poverty would receive no government support, just becoming poorer. However, Hobsbawm does not mention rising wages at the time, it is only based on a ‘way of life’
Open Document