Purpose and Overview of LectureTo examine the response to the enormous changes between the late 18th and early 19th centuriesIn fact, not only to industrialism but what has bThis might be put in different words: response to modernizationTo describe and analyze the ideologies of modern Various ideological systems try to “make sense” oTo explore both the etymological origins and social foundations of key 19th century terms: liberalism, conservatism, socialism; romanticism, nationalismTo analyze how ideological commitments can be related to the actions of various countries, social classes in control of them, etc.Etymologies of the ismsI have found this approach (of examining the roots of words) usefulOften students become terribly confused about theThis approach tries to get you to understand how A key point: These terms do not have any eternallThus, a revealing question is to ask why a term catches on at a particular time, how it comes to take on certain meanings, why meanings changeThis approach encourages you as well to understanConservatismEtymology: conserve—thus a key concern with conse“What does it hate?”—instability, disorder, rapidIt shows a deep respect for custom and tradition,And it holds in disdain those who think that they can dream up a new world from scratch, using their feeble powers of reasonImplication: the existing order is God-given and should be respected as suchSub-category: reactionary—reacting against presenThus, a reactionary hopes to undo both the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, to return to the Old OrderA conservative would be more inclined to recognizConservatives and reactionaries of course reject the ideas of the Enlightenment, and they are deeply suspicious of the reforms of the revolutionThe philosophes had stressed the power of reason,This position is often summarized—inadequately—asThe conservatives stressed rather that reason wasObviously, much of this derives from or parallels Christian teachingsFor conservatives and reactionaries, the French RIn a broader way the conservatives reject the notRights, from the conservative perspective, are defined by the specific historical and social contextThis perspective meshes into the general conservaNo individual “rationalizers” could possibly achiThus, they believe in a traditionalist-authoritarian society in EuropeThe people, including the middle classes, should be kept in their placeTheir unruly and destructive passions had to be opposed by a strong authorityConservatives and industrialismThe point should be obvious: industrialism, especially when very rapid, was suspectIt was seen, moreover, as strengthening the middle class in a dangerous way, as far as the ruling classes were concernedHowever, conservatives were not blind to the power and riches that industrialism createdThey were thus increasingly ambivalent about itMore and more in the course of the century they wThe most striking example of this ambivalence is in Russia (as will be discussed in a later lecture)LiberalismEtymology: liber \(“free” in Latin\), thus, anRather than being first concerned with stability and order, the liberal sees freedom as a primary goodProgress, improvement can come only with the maximum possible freedomConservatives and reactionaries, in contrast, tend to see freedom as dangerous, especially abstract freedom, rather than traditional and limited "freedoms"What does the liberal hate? —repression, limits oBut “freedom” is a most elusive idea, and liberalThe liberal view of humanity is nearly unique in human historyNo other civilization has quite conceived of the free, human individual in this way:The individual who thinks for himself, standing “This individual has the power of independent judgImplied in all of this is once again a familiar idea: Human beings have an unlimited capacity for self-improvement in an atmosphere of freedomIn short, this is once again the vision of the “gA concrete (and limiting) trait of nineteenth-century liberalism: Attachment to propertyIt is believed that property is prerequisite of freedom, and a guarantee of its survivalConcrete trait: suspicion of the common people, tLiberalism in the nineteenth century was not democratic in the sense of believing in the direct rule of the peopleAgain, the obvious reason is that the people are believed to be a threat to freedomThey are, at least, until they are educated to be responsible (and ideally until they themselves have some property)Concrete trait: desire to limit the role of the stateIt is at best a necessary evilThis can be compared to the conservative position (or socialist position) that the state could have a beneficial, creative role, especially preserving social harmonyIt could, according to this anti-liberal reasoning, keep the various classes, interest groups, religions, etc. from tearing one another apartSocialismEtymology: emphasis on the social, or the collectIndividual freedom—or “excessive” freedom—is seenSocial and economic inequality, similarly, is a threat to social cohesion, since those who are unequal envy one another, hate one anotherThe radical democrats: in a sense, stand between the liberals and the socialistsThey are very much opposed to privilege, as is the liberal, but also committed to equality and social justice, as is the socialistThe radical democrat is finally more in the liberal than in the socialist campHowever, radical democrats often become socialists in the course of the centuryThis is a very important group, perhaps the most numerous, if also diffuse, with differing emphases from country to countryBoth the socialists and the radical democrats, itBut they insisted, especially the socialists, that liberty without social and economic equality was an empty conceptGiving the poor, uneducated, downtrodden politicaHere of course is a connection to the issues surrounding affirmative action todaySocial foundations of nineteenth-century ideologiesWe understand these ideologies better if we perceive the linkages between class and ideological commitmentSimilarly, the relations between nations in the nineteenth century are better understood if we see how ideologies and classes play a role in what nations consider to be their interestThe social foundations of early nineteenth-century conservatism:The easiest and most obvious correlation: ConservIn France, and in some other areas, they had often almost entirely lost those thingsThus, they were “reactionary”;