If you have been following the comment thread on my recent “Girls’ World” post, you are aware that one person has suggested an alternative reading of history, namely that our lives now are better and happier and healthier than were those of people who lived before the Industrial Revolution. Gmart’s comments have given me pause and helped me to realize that I am making an assumption about those people, namely that they lived lives that were more truly human and, therefore, more fulfilling. I’d like to delve more into this assumption.
For this post, I am going to refrain from using the word “happy.” That term is very relative, as Gmart rightly points out, and mostly tied to one’s perspective and one’s feelings; emotions can be awfully subjective. Rather, I am going to talk about the necessary conditions for full human flourishing, since I think that is a much better indicator of overall health and happiness.
So, do I think that people who lived before the Industrial Revolution enjoyed more fully than we the conditions for human flourishing? Yes. I think this because of what I think the human person is, namely a social and political animal–here I’m borrowing the phrase from St. Thomas Aquinas, who borrowed it from Aristotle, who got it from Plato. So, if the conditions for my flourishing are met when I am able to exercise my social and political nature, I think my foremothers had a better shot at it than I.
For example, if my name is Margot and I live in 12th century Christendom, I am forced to have a very social day. I need water to make the morning porridge–I have to walk to the village well, where I see the other village women and where we are forced to interact socially. I need to wash my clothes for the week–I walk down to the river, where I see the other village women. I need to have my grain milled so I can make bread–I walk to the mill, where I wait in line with the other villagers and then haggle with Bruno, the miller, for my flour. You get the idea. Are all these social interactions enjoyable? Not necessarily, but they all help fulfill my social needs. I saw this sort of social living often in Honduras and India during my travels there; these women seemed to have a certain fulfillment and camaraderie that I envy.
The question about the fulfillment of Margot’s political needs is a little more sticky, because, frankly, I don’t know very much about pre-democracy and pre-women’s suffrage politics. The history I’ve learned sounds pretty negative (feudalism, oppression of women, etc), but I am inclined to doubt some of it since I learned it from the textbooks written by those post-Enlightment thinkers I mentioned previously, the ones who are so biased. What I do know is that countries that were traditionally Catholic–Italy, France, Mexico, etc–were much slower and milder in jumping on the Marxist feminist bandwagon. There are two interpretations of this. One might claim that these Catholic women responded less enthusiastically to the feminist siren call because they were repressed by the Church. I doubt that; anyone who does any serious investigation into Church authority realizes that it is terribly lenient and slow–Paraguayan president who is an ex-bishop is a good example–another is the recent counsel of the US bishops against the practice of reiki, after it has been used liberally in certain retreat centers for 40 years. The other interpretation is that those Catholic women already felt that their social and political needs were largely met and didn’t feel the need to burn bras, etc.
The final reason that I think our pre-Industrial ancestors lived lives that were more suited for their flourishing is because they lived in a world that flowed at the pace of humans and creation, not that of machines. It seems to me that the Industrial Revolution took work away from humans and gave it to machines that humans invented, thus speeding life up to the pace of machines. Did those machines make life much easier? Yes. Did they make work more efficient? Yes. Yet, how often I wish that I could enjoy the beautiful day by walking to the market and walking to church, chatting along the way with my neighbors; but, I cannot do this because my city was built with automobiles in mind, and the nearest grocery store is a mile away, across a highway and very busy overpass. A quote from Wendell Berry here would be fitting, but I can’t think of one, so suffice it to say that he agrees. I know there are tremendous benefits of cars and washing machines and computers–goodness knows I use them all the time–but I sometimes wonder if we have lessened ourselves as human by handing over these works to machines. We created them and now they manage us. I know this sentiment has been voiced by recent movies, think “WallE” and “The Matrix” and “I Robot”, as well as authors like Wendell Berry, so I think it suffices to merely raise the question.
Gmart’s comments, while they were insightful regarding my assumptions, also demonstrate an assumption of their own, namely, that life is better when it is easier. Makes sense, right? I am able to obtain food more easily (not sure of its quality), I am able to take antibiotics easily (not sure how good they actually are for me), I am able to obtain wealth more easily (not sure if its real wealth), therefore, I must be happier. I think this assumption is a modern one and I don’t think it’s very true. It seems to me that, when life is easier, virtue and character aren’t forced to grow; we are not challenged to delve more deeply into the human heart and bring forth nobility and heroic courage when life is roses.
With that said, there is one reason that I would be loathe to give up my Post-Modern freedom. All the amenities of my technological life give me time for leisure, which Josef Pieper reminds us is the basis for culture. I would not be able to read and write and think and plant flowers if I were a serf working to earn my daily bread. The luxury of time was probably never more accessible than it is now, and I would miss it dearly.
Those are my thoughts regarding assumptions about Pre-Industrial life. I still intend to follow up my original post, “Girls’ World” with a post detailing the ways that the Industrial Revolution has harmed family life. And, I know that I have made more bold assertions than is legal in this blog post, so I am aware that I don’t back up my ideas very well and that there are holes to be found in them. Happy hunting!
Similar thoughts have occurred to me recently–why is it that while construction has become so much easier, our edifices (think CHURCHES) have lost so much beauty and grandeur (think pyramids, Notre Dame)?
Thanks Katie, I look forward to reading and pondering more!
Katie, I have enjoyed this discussion and I feel it’s something that merits discussion outside of a blog comment post. The topic, while seemingly straightforward, it rather complex as it touches on many issues.
While some may argue with your definition of “human flourishing” (again one person’s flourishing is another’s…your get the point), I think you laid out your arguments quite well. So to your points, I agree with you that today’s social interaction of all humans (not just women) is much more individual. We don’t take the time to talk to the people around us and enjoy even the trivial events of the day. You’re right to point out that the pace our lives today is much “faster” than in the past. This is especially true in Western societies. We are not as close physically which leads to other issues (loneliness, stress, etc.).
But reality is reality. It is the world we live in. Your points about our having less freedom or perceived benefits of a modern life are valid, but I think a direct (or indirect) comparison between 2009 and 1309 is not possible. A rough estimate of world population in 1309 would be 500K. Today, we’re over 6 billion (a large increase happening in the last 100 or so years due lower mortality rate and medical advances). Sustaining our current population without the many modern advances we’ve had (especially farming) would make the world either dirtier, unhealthy, or cause mass famine. In fact reductions of the human population have been proposed by Paul Ehrlich as a way to “save the planet”. This line of thinking leads to the “one child” policy of China and the justification of abortion. So what are we to do? We have gotten to this point, for better or worse, where we need the fruits of industrialization.
I make this point because I feel while some of us can choose a lifestyle closer to those of the past, it is because of the advancements that have been made that we CAN do so. It is no longer a need. Industrialization has it’s ills, but it’s allowed your family to have a lifestyle where you can make the choice to be a farmer. Those ladies in India MUST live the life they lead or else they or their family member would not survive.
On political needs, I have heard someone say that the washing machine did more to liberate women than anything else. Sounds ridiculous, but think of the domino effect. Women traditionally had been in charge of the home. The work they did made up most of their day. Even if there was the ability to get involved in a political sense…where was the time? There was laundry to do! So in comes the washing machine. There are now more hours in the day to do other things. Now there is time to read about the events of the day or perhaps read a book and learn a new skill. An so on and so on. Soon, we get women participating in the innovation of the society as well as leading countries of the world (monarchies excluded). I’m not saying there weren’t tradeoff (your post is proof) just that women are now able to do things they could only dream of doing in 1309. You may ask, well did the really have a need that needed industrialization to fill? I don’t know. I can’t ask them. I guess we can study writings of the time but we’ll be reading them through our modern (Post-Enlightened) prism. Accepting that a woman who “toiled” all her life in what we may consider menial work was fulfilled would be tough. I would not though dismiss as bias that life was truly tough for women in those days.
Hmm … very thought provoking. I would disagree that there was as much human interaction for everyone in prior times. It seems to me that only those living in the city would see other people everyday. Those living on farms (as you would like to do) saw people very infrequently. Laura Ingalls, in her 1st book, recalls not seeing people for days. And when they finally did start seeing settlers, Pa moved them further out! Ma hardly went to town or the store. She stayed home with only her children as company. There were even times when Pa had to leave for extended amounts of time to bring an income. It wasn’t until they left their farm life and moved to town that they saw people on a daily basis (well, except when the girls walked to school, but even then, Ma stayed home).
So, I would think farm life was more isolating in the “old days” than it would be now. To get that “community feel” you would probably have to be a city dweller.
And you can actually still get that life today. Living in the city (and I mean real downtown cities like NY, Chicago, Boston, etc.) would allow you to walk to the grocery store, church, etc. Perhaps we actually see more people today than ever before? Even of the opposite sex. And, for the sake of not causing scandal, etc. I think women shied away from men more so than we do today.
Just my thoughts. PBS once had a 3 part reality show on pioneer living. They took 3 families and had them live without any modern conveniences. I wish I could have had that oppurtunity! LOL! I willl say it was alot of hard work with very little socialization … except for when there was a wedding.
If anything, in the old days several geneerations lived under one roof. That would provide much needed socialization. That’s one reason we chose to live close to both sets of parents. And now that we do both my mom and mother in law come over several times a week to help me fold, cook, and clean. I feel much closer to the same type of life lived before job and transportation made it easier or even necesarry to move away from grandparents. Without family nearby, I would feel very isolated, no matter how many friends I had. I pray all my children live near me!
Great discussion!! This topic is very dear to my heart, too, which is why my dh works from home. We dream of owning land BUT I don’t want to move farther away from our parents (which is less than 10 mins, right now). So, I’m choosing that close, family bond and help rather than land. We also live 5 mins. from our church and I love that, too!
Lillian, my wife actually made the same comment. I did a quick search and found out the show’s name – Colonial House (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/colonialhouse – it ran in 2004). PBS also has a show called Frontier House (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/) that’s running now it seems. Anyway, your points are what I was thinking of regarding the Laura Ingells books. My wife read them to the kids so they can get an understanding of what life in the past was like.
This discussion reminded me of the movie “The Village” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368447/). It may not be the perfect analogy, but the idea was that of a group of modern day individuals establishing a village secluded from the world in an effort to live a simpler life was the premise. Of course Hollywood had to add drama, but if you haven’t seen it, I’d recommend it.
Apparently our collective understanding of old farming life is the Little House series! Katie and I have been reading them together over the past months; we are on the Plum Creek one, though she has read them all I think.
I recommend the movie, The Tree of Wooden Clogs, for an idea of 19th century Italian peasant life that provides a different slice of farm and community life than Laura Ingalls Wilder during roughly the same time period.
About the Little House series, it is important to keep in mind that the Ingalls’ were a frontier family and actively moved from places whenever “too many’ other frontiersmen moved in. They wanted to avoid lots of people and did just that until they got older and moved into town. The frontier offered a unique opportunity and experience for Americans, which is why I think it is helpful to look to European life, where the frontier was not available.
With respect, a secluded, insular, weirdo town is about as far from how we hope to live as i can imagine. I once had a friend recommend the movie Chocolat to me because perhaps he thought it would shake up the repressive Catholic forces holding me down.
We want to be in the world but not of it, to quote an Avalon song (which quoted the Bible).
I would just reiterate that becoming farmers in the 21st century does not mean we turn back the clock on everything, nor does it mean that everyone or even most people are called to live this way, nor does it mean that we are escaping from “the world and its problems”. Rather, like consecrated religious life, it is a deep immersion into the world and its problems, trusting in the power of God to conquer all with his love.
Devman,
I did not mean to imply any negative connotation to your future in farming. With the talk of the Ingall’s books and the PBS shows, that movie came to mind. The discussion on industrialization was probably what sparked the thought. I did say it was not the perfect analogy (as an out
). I was more addressing Lillian with the statement to watch the movie.
Ooh, so many topics here that I love; yearning for a simpler, more meaningful life, Little House books, PBS house specials (you can get them on Netflix – just watched 1940′s house which was excellent. There are several others too. I love a look inside another time and what we can learn from them.) While I love my washing machine and dishwasher and other “conveniences”, I am often overwhelmed by the busyness of life. I have five children and homeschool 2 of them with one at a local high school. I can barely keep up with everything and I don’t do half the chauffering of many women I know. The washing machine does save time but it’s existence has most likely contributed greatly to the increased amount of clothing people own and therefore need washed. Ma of Little House did washing once a week. I have to do several loads a day just to keep up. If I had to wash it by hand, we’d quickly learn to live with much less – harhar. I may be idealizing here but I wonder if the harder work that woman used to have to do kept depression away and other emotional ills that plague the modern woman. Maybe they slept better and had less anxiety because they were so exhausted. There’s something to be said for doing physically demanding work. And while I love my free time to read and go online and google to my heart’s content, the constant stream of information only heightens my anxiety. I think perhaps the answer is to keep machines and technology in their proper place as a “part” of our lives and fight hard to keep the good simple things intact. If modern machines take center stage quality of life diminishes rapidly. One last thought – with all the conveniences in our lives, we have gotten so much wimpier. We can look at women in history with pity for the hard manual labor they had to do but I wonder if they pitied themselves. I’d be surprised if they complained as much (or at all) as is common to do now in our lives of relative ease. I’ve enjoyed reading this discussion – thanks for sharing your well expressed thoughts.
I can’t stay mad at you, Gmart.
Anne, thank you for sharing your experiences with us.