The Birth Of Modern Europe

This document aims to introduce the main features of European History in the period 1815 to 1848 and to understand and assess key events and to evaluate and analyse how Historians explain these events. The document is a step by step account of the History of ‘Modern’ Europe from the final defeat of Napoleon in 1815 to the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914.

Rapid Change: The first part of the document deals thematically with the attempts to reconstitute European politics along Conservative lines after the fall of Napoleon’s Empire and also assesses the impact of rapid social, Political and economical developments in the first half of the 19th Century which led to the Revolutions of 1848.

Assessing Reform: The second part of the document takes a national or regional approach, assessing reform (or the lack of it) among the great European powers (Britain, France, Austria and Russia) and the emergence of two powerful new states (Germany and Italy).

Rising Conflicts: Finally, the document explores the very profound changes that occurred in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, including the emergence of international tensions and conflicts that led to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.

Understanding Europe: By completion, we should have a sound understanding of the main events and developments in European History including Political, social and economic history. We should also be able to contextualise explain and assess the main events in European History. Furthermore, we should also be able to analyse and evaluate evidence, including primary sources and historiographical trends in relation to the main events and developments in European history.

Restoration Or Not: After the defeat of Napoleon the question of what happens next in Europe arises. For Many French people the concept of full restoration seemed a logical choice. However, there were too many socio and economic problems in pre-Revolution France so full restoration was not really an option. There had to be changes but this time around, it had to be changes that resulted in a better Society for all.

Concert of Europe: The European restoration is an umbrella term for the French restoration, the Bourbon restoration, the Swiss restoration and Christian restoration. The process finds it’s foundations  with the ‘Concert of Europe’ (after the Congress of Vienna) or Congress System which established the Balance of power that existed in Europe from the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) to the outbreak of World War 1 (1914), albeit with major alterations after the Revolutions of 1848. Its founding powers were Austria, Prussia, the Russian Empire, and the United Kingdom, which were collectively known as the ‘Quadruple Alliance’. The Alliance was responsible for the downfall of the first French Empire. In time, France was established as a fifth member of the Concert. At first, the leading personalities of the system were Lord Castlereigh (UK), Austrian Chancellor Klemens Von Metternich, and Russian Tsar Alexander I.

Age of Metternich: The age of the Concert is sometimes known as the age of Metternich due to the influence of the Austrian Chancellors Conservatism and the dominance of Austria within the German confederation. The rise of nationalism, the unification of Germany, the ‘Risorgimento’ in Italy and the Eastern Question were among the factors, which eventually brought an end to the Concerts effectiveness.

The Napoleonic Code: The idea of a European federation was not new. The Concert of Europe drew upon ideas and notions of a balance of power in international relations; that the ambitions of each great power were curbed by the others. Europe had been constantly at war and Liberalism was spreading across the continent, which resulted in many states adopting the Napoleonic Code, which had been enacted in France in 1804 and forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of Religion, and specified that Government jobs go to the most qualified. It was the first modern legal code to be adopted with a pan-European scope and it strongly influenced the law of many countries formed during and after the Napoleonic wars. The code was a major step in replacing Feudal laws and one of the few documents that have influenced the world.

Restoration Initiation: Largely as a reaction to the radicalism of the French Revolution, the victorious powers of the Napoleonic wars decided to suppress Liberalism and Nationalism, which were perceived as war and Revolution mongering philosophies. A reversion to the status-quo of Europe prior to 1789 seemed to be the best way forward. Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed the ‘Holy alliance’ with the expressed intent of preserving Christian social values and traditional Monarchism. Every member of the Coalition promptly joined the alliance, except for the United Kingdom.

Demise of The Concert of Europe: After an early period of success, the Concert began to weaken as the common goals of the great powers were gradually replaced by growing Political and economic rivalries. Further erosion by European Revolutionary upheaval in 1848 with demands for revision of the Congress of Vienna’s frontiers along national lines the Concert unravelled and was gone by the latter half of the 19th Century amid successive wars between its participants. The Congress had a significant achievement in the form of Congress of Berlin (1878) which redrew the Political map of the Balkans, by the early 20^th century, the powers were split in two, and World War 1 began.

European Unification: The Concert of Europe was the system where the great powers of Europe maintained peace and prosperity for over a century. These were maintained by careful Management of the balance of power so that when one country ‘bullied’ another then the remaining countries would come together in diplomatic and military alliance. This was a forerunner to the modern United Nations.

Sharing Europe: The primary objective of the Congress was to settle the many issues arising from the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars and the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. This objective resulted in the redrawing of Europe and establishing the boundaries of countries primarily France, Poland, The Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. The Congress was somewhat informal in that all of its meetings occurred face-to-face between the members with little or no representation by smaller states.

Napoleons Legacy: Napoleon considered his greatest achievement that of establishing and consecrating the rule of reason. His Napoleonic code proclaimed the equality of all people before the law (but favouring men over women), personal freedom, and the inviolability of property. Napoleon furthered the myth of the ‘career open to talent’, which aided both middle classes and peasants. Property ownership was essential to the Political life of the nation; the accumulation of property was the accumulation of wealth, power, Political influence, and status. Napoleon helped to turn nationalism into an aggressive secular Religion by manipulating this patriotic energy and transforming it into a popular ideology.

Napoleons reforms extended into states conquered by France. The French imposed constitutions and state control over clergy and judicial systems. He created new forms of tax, standardised weight and measures, ended internal customs barriers, abolished guilds and proclaimed equality, freedom of worship and advocated personal freedom. Napoleon claimed that he was trying to liberate Europe but had only replaced old sovereigns with new ones, himself, or his brothers. He conquered countries for France and not for the good of the country but only for the glory of France. He pilfered valuable art and treasures by the wagon load and kept them himself or for the state. French conquests awakened nationalism in the German states and in Spain. Over 90,000 of his men died in battles and triple that number perished from wounds and disease.

Of the changes in the post Napoleonic period that profoundly transformed Europe, none had more important social, Political, economical and cultural consequences as the Industrial Revolution. Having begun in England in the middle decades of the 18^th century, it accelerated in that country during the first decades of the 19th Century. It spread to Western Europe in particular, but affected other regions as well. The Industrial Revolution and its critics would help shape the modern world.

Metternich, Conservatism & Restoration: The feeling of anti French Revolution was strong in Political circles across Europe. The idea of a reoccurrence of these events anywhere else in Europe was to be avoided at all costs and the upper echelons’ of European politics needed to develop a plan to ensure that such events would never happen again. There needed to be a restoration of Monarchy, church and aristocracy in Europe but, this time around it had to be different from pre-Revolutionary times in order that disharmony was not inadvertently encouraged. Restoration had to be moulded to fit the demands of the Revolutionaries, reconstruct Monarchical power, control the church, and keep the aristocracy satisfied. Some thinkers felt that such changes would occur organically and very slowly without human interference. The post-Revolutionary Society would develop, in time, to become a Society acceptable to all citizens. Such changes would be natural and normal. However, the question of Religion remained an important one. What role should it play in the new Society if indeed it should play any role at all? Some theorists had their own ideas on ‘what happens now in Europe?’ and the most important of these were Edmund Burke, Joseph De Maistre, and Klemens Von Metternich.

Edmund Burke (1729-1727): Burke was an Irish political leader who served in Great Britain as a member of the Whig party. He was opposed to the French Revolution and is generally viewed as the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism as well as a representative of classical Liberalism. His publication ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ (1790) is one of the best-known intellectual attacks against the French Revolution in the 20^th century. It much influenced Conservatism and classical Liberal intellectuals who saw it as a critique of communism and socialist Revolutionary programmes. He vigorously defended Constitutional limitation of the Monarchy, denounced religious persecution, complained about British colonial control in America (supported American independence) and was widely respected by Liberals. He felt the French Revolution would fail in time because it ignored the complexities of human nature and Society. His contention was; “a Man’s right to food does not provide it.” He wanted Constitutional reform (not Revolution) and he further contended that the pursuit of liberty and rights of Man could be abused to justify tyranny.

Joseph De Maistre: De Maistre was a philosopher and one of the most influential representatives for a hierarchical Monarchical state after the French Revolution. He regarded Monarchy as both a divinely sanctioned institution and as the only form of stable Government. He called for the restoration of the House of Bourbon to the throne of France and also for the ultimate authority of the Pope. He argued that only a Christian Constitution could avoid the disorder and bloodshed of a Revolution. His theories influenced Conservative thinking and left wing intellectuals like utopian socialists. Along with Edmund Burke, he has been described as one of the founding fathers of European Conservatism.

Klemens Von Metternich: Metternich was a German born philosopher and important diplomat. He led the Austrian delegation at the Congress of Vienna, which divided post-Napoleonic Europe between the major powers. A committed Conservative he was keen to maintain the balance of power and he intensely disliked Liberalism. He was happy to apply underhanded means to achieve his ends. He was instrumental in the enforcement of ‘The Karlsbad Decrees’ (1819) which used censorship and a wide ranging spy network to suppress Liberalism and planted student spies in university lecture theatres to monitor and report radical opinion sharing. However, historians defend his policies as reasonable attempts to defend the balance of power in Europe and the preservation of the status quo in the face of Revolutionary challenge.

The Karlsbad Decrees (1819): The Karlsbad Decrees were a set of reactionary restrictions introduced in the states of the German confederation in 1819 after a conference held at Karlsbad, Bohemia. They banned nationalist fraternities, removed Liberal university professors, and expanded the censorship of the press. The meeting of the states representatives was called by Metternich after a series of events related to student unrest in Europe. Metternich feared Liberal and national tendencies at German universities, which might conduct Revolutionary activities threatening the Monarchy. The three main outcomes of the Karlsbad Decrees were press censorship, state supervision of universities and a central investigation commission. State officials had to ‘proof read’ anything that went to press prior to publication. The ‘diet’ (Parliament) could stop any publication that it felt was Revolutionary. The placement of spies at universities to ensure suppression of radicalism meant that no student or academic could encourage Revolutionary thinking under fear of severe punishment of expulsion and no further placement. An extraordinary commission of investigation to root out Revolutionary plots and preserve international peace within the German confederation had many powers to control Revolutionary movements, clubs, societies, or organisations.

The Congress System: There were a number of significant conferences in the process of establishing the Congress System. They began in 1818 at Aix La Chappelle and continued to St. Petersburg in 1825.

Aix La Chappelle (1818): The conference at Aix La Chappelle was held in the autumn of 1818 and was primarily a meeting of the Allied powers of Europe, which included Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. The purpose of the meeting was to decide the question of the withdrawal of the army of occupation from France and the nature of the modifications to be introduced in consequence into the relations of these four powers toward each other, and collectively toward France. The quintuple alliance was endorsed at this conference.

Troppau (1820): This was a conference of the quintuple Alliance to discuss means of suppressing a Revolution in Naples (July 1820) and at which the Troppau Protocol was signed. This protocol stated that any European country, which underwent a Revolution, forced Government change would be expelled from the alliance. If the Revolution threatened the peace of Europe then war would be declared. The purpose of such wars would be state restoration.

Laibach (1821): The Congress of Laibach was a conference of the allied sovereigns held as part of the Concert of Europe. As a result of Troppau (1820) the three autocratic powers (Russia, Austria and Prussia) had issued a circular letter in which they reiterated the principles of the Troppau Protocol namely, the right and duty of the powers responsible for the peace of Europe to intervene to suppress any Revolutionary movement by which they might conceive peace as being endangered. Britain protested at Troppau and differentiated between the objectionable general principles advanced by the three powers and the unrest in Italy, which threatened only Austria and not Europe. The conflict did not prevent Austria from intervening in Italy but with Britain’s neutrality intact. The revolt in Italy was suppressed as a result of negotiations at Laibach by Austrian troops.

Verona (1822): While Britain and other European powers acted largely in Concert to date it was not until Verona that the unravelling of the Congress began to show. This was apparent in the way in which the main questions before this Congress were handled by participants. The Italian question, the Turkish question, and the Spanish question. The matter of Austrian rule in Italy was handled in the absence of Britain’s representatives, the Greek war of independence was justified in the view of Britain who recognised the Greek right of independence (British representatives were instructed not to commit beyond a supporting role) and a proposed intervention by France in Spain with uncompromising opposition by Britain to the intervention. Clearly from this Britain was starting to reconsider its role within the alliance and this was further aggravated by the fact that by withdrawing from the decision making process it remained without influence in the workings of the Congress Britain’s ‘neutrality’ did not stop the alliance from proceeding as it wished and this begged the question as to why Britain needed to be involved at all.

St. Petersburg (1825): This conference resulted in the final breaking down of the Concert of Europe. The five major powers met at this Congress but Britain had become very disillusioned and branded the Congress a ‘witch hunting organisation’ and departed. The other four continued their meetings and broke up in very bad terms. The main point of contention was how the Congress could enforce its powers. Member’s differences widened on different interpretations of peace and how it should be sustained. The outbreak of revolts also led to the final disintegration of the Concert of Europe. Two significant revolts were taking place in Spain and Naples in 1820 and it was these revolts that finally brought the Concert of Europe to its end.

The 1820 Revolution in Spain: The ‘Liberal’ Revolution in Spain was a Revolution that erupted and ran for five years. It started as a military insurrection in Porto that quickly spread nationwide. French forces invaded Spain three times to suppress the Revolution and the royal family went to Brazil to reign over the Kingdom from a Trans-Atlantic throne for thirteen years. After the defeat of the French, the Revolutionaries recalled the Monarchy and they returned to Portugal. The Liberal Revolution initiated the ratification of the Constitution that gave Spain its independence from France. The movements Liberal ideas had an important influence on the Portuguese Society and Political organisation. It caused a constitutional Monarchy to be set up in Portugal. The Revolutionaries also organised the election of a constitutional assembly, which debated the nature of a new Government. Professionals were elected and not merchants who had organised the Revolution.

Revolution in Naples 1820: This Revolution is important because the Kingdom of the two Sicilies was ruled by a restored Bourbon Monarch Ferdinand 1^st. Revolutionaries (including the Carbonari) forced Ferdinand to accept the Spanish Constitution. The Kingdom of Naples was within Austria’s ‘sphere of influence’ as assigned by the concert of Europe. The suppression of Liberal opinion caused an alarming spread of the influence and activity of a secret society known as the Carbonari, which, in time, took its toll on the Army. In a short time, a military Revolution broke out and Ferdinand was terrorised into signing a new Constitution. At the same time in Sicily, recovering its independence, a revolt had been suppressed by Neapolitan troops. These events alarmed the ‘Holy Alliance’ (a Coalition of Russia, Austria, and Prussia) who feared it might spread to other parts of Italy. The Revolution was eventually suppressed and an era of ‘savage persecution’ began.

The Demise Of The Congress System (1820-1822):  In 1820 Austria, Prussia and Russia form the Holy Alliance and unite in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of another Revolution in Europe as had taken place in France. The Troppau Protocol of 1820 gave the Holy Alliance the right to intervene to protect a legitimate Monarch and the Vienna settlement. In 1821 at Laibach, Ferdinand 1^st requests intervention to restore his power in Naples but Britain objects on the basis that it was not a threat to security in Europe and the alliance was acting outside its remit by intervening. At Verona in 1822, the holy alliance opts to proceed with intervention and Britain splits with the other European powers over further intervention in Spain. The system of international cooperation instituted at Vienna had broken down in the early 1820s and the split between Britain and the alliance was the start of the demise. New economic, social, and political forces would further challenge the alliance.

Revolutions of another Kind: Three Revolutions had already begun in Europe since 1800. These were the Demographic Revolution, the agricultural Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution and all of these had social and political consequences.

1. Demographic Revolution: The post French Revolutionary peace that took place across Europe meant that less people were dying in warfare. Families were spending more time at home together and were more united. Along with these factors, there were serious advances in medication, which resulted in less people dying from plague or disease or illness. A significant fall in death rates meant that people were living longer and proliferating across Europe. As the Industrial Revolution progressed it meant that the food supply as more efficient and a dramatic reduction in subsistence problems. The combinations of peace, medicine, and food availability were the main contributing factors to the Demographic Revolution.

2. Agricultural Revolution: The agricultural Revolution was a period of agricultural development between the 18^th century and the end of the 19th Century, which saw a massive and rapid increase in agricultural productivity and vast improvements in farm technology. Some of the most significant inventions that were either created or greatly improved were new ploughing machines, tools, harvesters and seed sowing equipment. Along with these tools and machinery there were also new attitudes to farming, specialisation and communal farming (land sharing). Governments also became more generous with common land and the benefits of self-sufficiency were appreciated by Europeans. As subsistence increased so did the accumulation of capital and suddenly small farmers were moving into earning extra income by starting small cottage businesses. The agricultural Revolution was well underway and heralding in the Industrial Revolution.

3. The Industrial Revolution: This is thought to have begun in the mid 1700s and continued for a century to the mid 1800s. It began, not in the cities but in the rural communities already reaping the rewards of the agricultural Revolution. More rural people benefiting from rural development had extra time and income to create new sources of wealth and started small home based businesses to bring in extra cash. These businesses were to be the inspiration for larger scale urban based Manufacturing that was both mechanised and bigger. The causes of the Industrial Revolution were a combination of factors but primarily the availability of new capital to invest in Manufacturing and technology.

At various locations throughout Britain, which led the way for the rest of Europe, the natural resources were ideal. With the ever-expanding population created by the Demographic Revolution there was no shortage of available workers. These workers were, for the most part, overworked and underpaid. They had moved from the rural communities to the urban areas where work was more available as their cottage industries were victim to large scale Manufacturing. New technologies meant production and the economy expanded rapidly. New machinery such as Hargreaves Spinning Jenny (1765) advanced the Revolution.

The ‘Jenny’ meant a faster process of creation and output at an industrial level that had deprived the farm workers of their source of additional income. The skilled weavers moved to work on the production line and left their own spinning wheels at home to gather dust. Arkwright’s ‘water frame’ (1769) meant that the spinning wheel became automated and consequently human input was diminished even more but, to the joy of the Manufacturers, so were costs. Communications and transport were also improving with the arrival of the steam engine, which brought new goods and public transport systems. Steamboats, steam engines, and railway track were all signs of the new, progressive industrial age. Finally, urbanisation had its consequences with social stratification problems, poor living conditions, and crime and health issues on the increase. The Industrial Revolution had arrived and brought with it a very high price.

The First Mass Medium

Introduction: The radio is a clear example of a machine in existence ‘invented’ but not recognised as such. It developed over time, step by step, in laboratories that began between 1886 and 1888 with a ‘spark’ transferred from a crude form of transmitter to an aerial and despite the crudeness of the apparatus it was demonstrated that these ‘radiations’ did have wave like properties and could, for instance, be reflected or refracted. Prior to this the microphone had already been in place and combined with the ‘spark’ device the age of radio dawned.

Nobody really thought about using ‘radiation’ phenomena for signalling or any other purpose. Radio was without social necessity and thus inconceivable. Thus the technology was invented but useful only in a laboratory environment. Over the next decade more complex devices based on the prototypes’ started to emerge and it was soon discovered that effective transmission of the radio wave depended on ‘tuning’. If both were on the same frequency (syntonised) they could communicate. Still, radio remained without an identified need and nobody had, at least in public, suggested their usefulness as signalling machines. It was not until 1892 that the idea of radio was articulated. It was envisaged as telegraphy without wires, posts, cables or any other costly appliances. It was seen as a person-to-person system and no more than that. Still nothing happened for another two years; the ideas were in place but the necessity had not yet come into focus.

It was not until the scientist Marconi garnished the benefits of previous research and development when he experimentally demonstrated that ‘radio transmission’ was possible. His crucial contribution was not the ‘invention’ of radio as is conventionally understood but rather the discovery that the taller the transmission mast, the further the signal would travel. His greatest accomplishment is that he discovered a supervening necessity for broadcasting.

Necessity, Diffusion And Suppression: Ironclads And Telegrams: Marconi saw the value of the device for the Shipping industry and decided to patent his advances in 1896. Just as the telegraph became the solution to railway’s communication problems, so the wireless telegraph began as a solution to shipping communication problems. Without the wireless a ships usefulness in battle would be very curtailed. As Marconi continued his work in Britain his contemporary A.V. Popov was doing the same in Russia. Wireless communication became an integral part of shipping on many levels. The transmission of distress signals, communication with shore, communication with other ships and by 1912 when the Titanic issued its SOS it was received by nearby ships and in New York and passed on to the White House. Radio proved to be without competition because no other long distance signalling system was possible at sea. However, in view of the fact that radio was prone to atmospheric conditions and this added to the fact that broadcasts were open and not private was deemed risky at best. Sending distress signals or private communications to all hearers was perceived as a dangerous act. Interestingly, In Ireland in 1916 from the roof of the GPO in Dublin those who proclaimed the state as independent were heard and declared revolutionaries.

Invention: From Wireless Telegraphy To Invention: Edison’s light bulb experimentation yielded results passing electric currents through filaments and this development moved radio wave detection and manipulation research rapidly forward. This development led to the use of tubes to amplify weak radio signals and enable longer distances. In 1906, using these tubes (valves) the first radio broadcast of music was made from Massachusetts. However in 1907 speech was transmitted over long distances and radio was ‘invented’ but, with the exception of those sailors out at sea, nobody was listening.

Ideation And Necessity: The Idea Of Broadcasting: Nobody really knew the potential of ‘non point to point’ communication and the main issue was that nobody knew where signals would be received and heard. The fault was ‘anybody could listen’ but for some this was not a fault but an advantage. David Sarnoff was very interested in radio and its possibilities. He saw it as a ‘music box’ for every home and was aware that music was listened to collectively and radio would have to allow for that if it were to become a mass medium. He set about achieving this and it was not long before Corporate America saw the possibilities and financed the development of the medium. Soon after, 1922, radio arrived into the living rooms and became the centrepiece of home entertainment.

Suppression And Diffusion: Valves, Tubes, and FM and Cartels: The radio system that swept the world in the early 1920s was not flawless. A radio system with less interference and noise needed to be created. By 1933 a new system of absolute (by standards back then) clarity was launched. The idea was to amplify frequency rather than modulation (AM and FM) and thus the FM band was created. FM was not just an invention but a revolution.

Living With Radio: Radio had used recorded sound from the very beginning. The relationship between records and radio is complex but radio quickly became a major patron of music and musicians and even financed Orchestras to produce it. The film industry, not really bothered with radio other than to see seats in cinemas, still achieved a mutually beneficial accommodation with the radio industry in that they held valuable assets on the programming side of the radio game. Newspapers continuously fought to suppress the journalistic aspects of radio. News was ‘immediate’ and deadlines were twenty-four-seven. Newspapers gave up the fight very quickly and just bought up the stations. However, newspaper owners failed to realise that radio and newspapers could continue to co-exist; people who heard radio news still bought newspapers and secondly newspaper owners and radio owners (often one and the same) were divided amongst themselves. However, these problems aside, radio progressed and by the 1930s it had successfully become a mass home medium over the entire developed world. The first mass medium.

The Dominant Paradigm.

Introduction: This is a reanalysis of ‘Personal Influence’ by Lazarsfeld et. al. a study on the effects of media content and its conclusion that media are not important.

Basic Overview: ‘Personal Influence’ is also known as the Multistep Flow Model is a theory based on a 1940’s study on social influence that states that media effects are indirectly established through the personal influence of opinion leaders. The majority of people receive much of their information and are influenced by the media second hand, through the personal influence of opinion leaders.

Concept: The ‘Multistep Flow Model says that most people form their opinions based on opinion leaders that influence the media. Opinion leaders are those initially exposed to specific media content, interpret based on their own opinion and then begin to infiltrate the opinions through the general public who then become “opinion followers.” These “opinion leaders” gain their influence through more elite media as opposed to mainstream mass media. In this process, social influence is created and adjusted by the ideals and opinions of each specific “elite media” group and by these media group’s opposing ideals and opinions and in combination with popular mass media sources. Therefore, the leading influence in these opinions is primarily a social persuasion.

About: The two-step flow of communication model hypothesizes that ideas flow from mass media to opinion leaders and from them to a wider population. It was first introduced by sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld et al. in 1944 and elaborated by Elihu Katz and Lazarsfeld in 1955 and subsequent publications. Lowery and DeFleur argue the book was much more than a simple research report: it was an effort to interpret the authors’ research within a framework of conceptual schemes, theoretical issues, and research findings drawn broadly from the scientific study of small groups. Unlike the hypodermic needle model, which considers mass media effects to be direct, the two-step flow model stresses human agency. According to Lazarsfeld and Katz, mass media information is channelled to the “masses” through opinion leadership. The people with most access to media, and having a more literate understanding of media content, explain and diffuse the content to others. Based on the two-step flow hypothesis, the term “personal influence” came to illustrate the process intervening between the media’s direct message and the audience’s reaction to that message. Opinion leaders tend to be similar to those they influence—based on personality, interests, demographics, or socio-economic factors. These leaders tend to influence others to change their attitudes and behaviours. The two-step theory refined the ability to predict how media messages influence audience behaviour and explains why certain media campaigns do not alter audiences’ attitudes. This hypothesis provided a basis for the multi-step flow theory of mass communication.

Lazarsfeld and Katz: Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz are considered to be the founders of functional theory and their book Personal Influence (1955) is considered to be the handbook to the theory.

Paul Felix Lazarsfeld: One of the first to embark on Communications research was the first to introduce the difference between ‘administrative research’ and ‘critical research’ in regards to the media. Critical research he believed, criticizes the media institutions themselves for the perspective ways they serve dominant social groups. Critical research favours interperspective and inductive methods of inquiry. Lazarsfeld’s study of the 1940 presidential election was published as The People’s Choice (1944). During the research revealed information about the psychological and social processes that influence voting decisions. The study also uncovered an influence process that Lazarsfeld called “opinion leadership.” He concluded that there is a multistep flow of information from the mass media to persons who serve as opinion leaders, which then is passed on to the general public. He called this communication process the “two-step flow of communication.”

Elihu Katz: A professor in the School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania collaborated in 1955 with Lazarsfeld, in research to observe the flow of influence at the intersections of mass and interpersonal communication and wrote their book Personal Influence. Katz pursued Lazarfeld’s research in a study of the flow of information. This is the basis of Personal Influence. Katz and Lazarsfeld concluded that: … the traditional image of the mass persuasion process must make room for ‘people’ as intervening factors between the stimuli of the media and resultant opinions, decisions, and actions.”

Published Works on the Theory: The People’s Choice: The presidential election 1940 questioned as to whether President Franklin Roosevelt would seek his third term in office. Funded by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, Life magazine, and the pollster Elmo Roper, Columbia’s Office of Radio Research conducted a new kind of study of voting. It was based on a panel study of 2,400 voters in Erie County, Ohio. Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet supervised 15 interviewers, who from May-October interviewed the strategically selected 2,400 members of the community several different times in order to document their decision making process during the campaign. They focused on what factors would influence their decisions as the campaign progressed. The People’s Choice, a book based on this study presented the theory of “the two-step flow of communications,” which later came to be associated with the so-called “limited effects model” of mass media: the idea that ideas often flow from radio and print to local “opinion leaders” who in turn pass them on to those with more limited political knowledge “opinion followers.” The conclusion of the research explained that sometimes person-to-person communication can be more effective than traditional media mediums such as newspaper, TV, radio etc. This idea developed further in the book Personal Influence.

Personal Influence: In 1944, Paul Lazarsfeld contacted McFadden Publications in regards to his first book, The People’s Choice. The two collaborated forming a mutually beneficial partnership in which McFadden saw a way to financially profit from advertising to the female population and Lazarsfeld saw a way to gain more information on social influence . Out of this came the study conducted by the Bureau of Applied Social Research in which 800 female residents of Decatur, Illinois, where interviewed through panel interviews to discover what and who primarily influenced their decision making. Lazarsfeld worked with Robert Merton and thus hired C. Wright Mills to head the study. Another part of the research team, Thelma Ehrlich Anderson, trained local Decatur women to administer surveys to targeted women in town. By 1955. the Decatur study was published as part of Elihu Katz and Lazarsfeld’s book Personal Influence. The book concluded that ultimately, face-to-face interaction is more influential than traditional media influence and thus confirmed the two-step flow model of communication.

Wiki: The two-step flow of communication hypothesis was first introduced by Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet in The People’s Choice, a 1944 study focused on the process of decision-making during a Presidential election campaign. These researchers expected to find empirical support for the direct influence of media messages on voting intentions. They were surprised to discover, however, that informal, personal contacts were mentioned far more frequently than exposure to radio or newspaper as sources of influence on voting behaviour. Armed with this data, Katz and Lazarsfeld developed the two-step flow theory of mass communication. This theory asserts that information from the media moves in two distinct stages. First, individuals (opinion leaders) who pay close attention to the mass media and its messages receive the information. Opinion leaders pass on their own interpretations in addition to the actual media content. The term ‘personal influence’ was coined to refer to the process intervening between the media’s direct message and the audience’s ultimate reaction to that message. Opinion leaders are quite influential in getting people to change their attitudes and behaviours and are quite similar to those they influence. The two-step flow theory has improved our understanding of how the mass media influence decision-making. The theory refined the ability to predict the influence of media messages on audience behaviour, and it helped explain why certain media campaigns may have failed to alter audience attitudes and behaviour. The two-step flow theory gave way to the multi-step flow theory of mass communication or diffusion of innovation theory.

Criticisms: The original two-step flow hypothesis—that ideas flow from the media to opinion leaders and then to less active sections of the population—has been criticized and negated by myriad consequent studies. Findings from Deutschmann and Danielson assert, “we would urge that the Katz-Lazarsfeld two-stage flow hypothesis, as a description of the initial information process, be applied to mass communication with caution”.(14) They find substantial evidence that initial mass media information flows directly to people on the whole and is not relayed by opinion leaders. Furthermore, the two-step hypothesis does not adequately describe the flow of learning. Everett Rogers’ “Diffusion of Innovations” cites one study in which two-thirds of respondents accredited their awareness to the mass media rather than face-to-face communication. Similarly, critics argue that most of Lazarsfeld’s findings pertain to learning factors involved with general media habits rather than the learning of particular information. Both findings suggest a greater prevalence of a one-step flow of communication.

However, Lazarsfeld’s two-step hypothesis is an adequate description to understand the media’s influence on belief and behaviour. Troldahl finds that media exposure is a first step to introduce discussion, at which point opinion leaders initiate the second-step flow. These findings also realize opinion leader’s decisive role in the balance theory, which suggests that people are motivated to keep consistency among their current beliefs and opinions. If a person is exposed to new observations that are inconsistent with present beliefs, he or she is thrown into imbalance. This person will then seek advice from their opinion leader, to provide them with additional cognitions to bring them back into balance.

In recent times sociological study of the media has been dominated by the theme of the relative powerlessness of the broadcasters. This strange conjunction of events is logical. Sociologists have failed to ask the critical questions that behind the idea of unimportance of mass media there is a faulty concept of ‘importance’ similar to the faulty concept of ‘power’. The dominant sociology of mass communication has been unable to grasp certain fundamental features of its subject and by doing so it has had the effect of justifying mass media ownership, control, and purpose.

The Dominant Paradigm: This has been called the ‘received knowledge’ of ‘personal influence’ and has taken attention from the power of the media to perform its role as mediator between two conflicting sources. Media sociology has highlighted the recalcitrant audience and their resistance to media messages and not their dependency. It has studied media effects so narrowly that the results are flimsy. It defines short-term effects as important only because these effects are measurable and thus deflected more significant meanings of mass media production. Hard data is sought to satisfy anyone and no one when it would be better to seek hard questions. By studying only measurable effects experimentally or in surveys it has put the methodological cart before the theoretical horse. Thus, many years of research on ‘effects’ of mass media has produced little theory and few findings.

The field of ‘mass media research’ has been certifying as ‘normal’ what it should have been investigating as ‘problematic’, namely the vast reach and scope of the instruments of mass broadcasting, especially television. By emphasising effects on ‘attitudes’ and loosely defined ‘behaviour’ it has ignored the reality that mass broadcasting exists in corporate housing under state supervision. The important questions are ‘who wants media?’ and ‘for what purpose’? Has ‘mass broadcasting’ created institutional configurations and has existing institutions such as schools, politics, family or sport been altered in structure, goals or social meaning and how have these institutions used the media to shape its products? Further questions should be; has the prevalence of broadcasting changed the conduct of politics, how does it effect social structure? How does the wide reach of TV into millions of living rooms affect social structure? These questions have been skirted, by accepting the existing institutional order; the field has inadvertently avoided the question of valuation: does TV fulfil or frustrate social interest? By ignoring such questions the field has made itself useful to the obvious beneficiaries of mass media broadcasting.

The Dominant Paradigm and Its Defects: Lazarsfeld contention that the effects of media are not important in the formation of public opinion which he demonstrates by the ‘two step flow of communications’ (the idea that messages reach people not directly but indirectly as ‘media messages’ are interpreted by leaders for audiences.) This paradigm pays close attention to the variables (especially ‘relations’) between signifier and signified. The audience are defined as interrelated individuals rather than isolated targets in a mass society. Effects are measured as changes over time. Lazarsfeld developed a methodology or paradigm but in what sense does is this methodology or paradigm dominant? A dominant paradigm should have three major tendencies of thought a) identifies important areas of investigation in a field; b) exploits certain methodology; c) produces results. The two-step-flow of communication, the idea that opinion leaders mediate between mass media and audience. The paradigm is worthy of closer re-examination. The paradigm implies that structural (institutional) impact is lost in the process and subsequently the media impact is reinterpreted by ‘leaders’ who then distribute their impressions.

The course of mass media theory has to be understood as a historical process. All theories have three metatheoretical conditions; a) the nature of the theory; b) the normal worldview; c) actual social, political, and technological conditions. The dominant paradigm has to be understood as an intersection of all these factors.

The Hypodermic Theory: This is a theory of society and the mass media within it. In the hypodermic model mass communicators ‘inject’ ideas into vulnerable individuals.

Hypodermic Needle Theory Explained: (Direct influence via mass media) Or: Magic Bullet Theory. History and Orientation: The “hypodermic needle theory” implied mass media had a direct, immediate, and powerful effect on its audiences. The mass media in the 1940s and 1950s were perceived as a powerful influence on behaviour change. Several factors contributed to this “strong effects” theory of communication, including: the fast rise and popularization of radio and television, the emergence of the persuasion industries, such as advertising and propaganda, the Payne Fund studies of the 1930s, which focused on the impact of motion pictures on children, and Hitler’s monopolization of the mass media during WWII to unify the German public behind the Nazi party

Core Assumptions and Statements: The theory suggests that the mass media could influence a very large group of people directly and uniformly by ‘shooting’ or ‘injecting’ them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response. Both images used to express this theory (a bullet and a needle) suggest a powerful and direct flow of information from the sender to the receiver. The bullet theory graphically suggests that the message is a bullet, fired from the “media gun” into the viewer’s “head.” With similarly emotive imagery the hypodermic needle model suggests that media messages are injected straight into a passive audience, which is immediately influenced by the message. They express the view that the media is a dangerous means of communicating an idea because the receiver or audience is powerless to resist the impact of the message. There is no escape from the effect of the message in these models. The population is seen as a sitting duck. People are seen as passive and are seen as having a lot media material “shot” at them. People end up thinking what they are told because there is no other source of information.

New assessments that the Magic Bullet Theory was not accurate came out of election studies in “The People’s Choice,” (Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet, 1944/1968). The project was conducted during the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 to determine voting patterns and the relationship between the media and political behaviour. The majority of people remained untouched by the propaganda; interpersonal outlets brought more influence than the media. The effects of the campaign were not all-powerful to where they persuaded helpless audiences uniformly and directly, which is the very definition of what the magic bullet theory does. As focus group testing, questionnaires, and other methods of marketing effectiveness testing came into widespread use; and as more interactive forms of media (e.g.: internet, radio call-in shows, etc.) became available, the magic bullet theory was replaced by a variety of other, more instrumental models, like the two step of flow theory and diffusion of innovations theory.

Conceptual Model: Magic bullet theory model (Source: Katz & Lazarsfeld (1955)) Scope and Application: Mass media: The classic example of the application of the Magic Bullet Theory was illustrated on October 30, 1938 when Orson Welles and the newly formed Mercury Theatre group broadcasted their radio edition of H.G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds.” On the eve of Halloween, radio programming was interrupted with a “news bulletin” for the first time. What the audience heard was that Martians had begun an invasion of Earth in a place called Grover’s Mill, New Jersey. It became known as the “Panic Broadcast” and changed broadcast history, social psychology, civil defence and set a standard for provocative entertainment. Approximately 12 million people in the United States heard the broadcast and about one million of those actually believed that a serious alien invasion was underway. A wave of mass hysteria disrupted households, interrupted religious services, caused traffic jams, and clogged communication systems. People fled their city homes to seek shelter in more rural areas, raided grocery stores and began to ration food. The nation was in a state of chaos, and this broadcast was the cause of it. Media theorists have classified the “War of the Worlds” broadcast as the archetypal example of the Magic Bullet Theory. This is exactly how the theory worked, by injecting the message directly into the “bloodstream” of the public, attempting to create a uniform thinking. The effects of the broadcast suggested that the media could manipulate a passive and gullible public, leading theorists to believe this was one of the primary ways media authors shaped audience perception.

Behaviourist Assumptions And Damaged Findings: It is important to remember that ‘effects’ of mass media, according to media theorists, are arguably short lived and so any findings in their research have little long term consequences. These effects are fourfold; immediate, short term, long term and institutional. The method of ‘personal influence’ study (two step flow and hypodermic) demands their own critique beginning with their ‘taken for granted assumptions’:

(1) the exercise of power through mass media is presumed to be comparable to the exercise of power in face-to-face situations. The assumption can be challenged in that audiences may be influenced by mass media but it is reciprocal. Media too can be influenced by audience. Media are part of the ‘great chain of being’ in which everyone, indeed everything, is in its duly and divinely appointed place.

(2) Power is to be assessed in case studies of discrete incidents. The occasion of influence was the face-to-face encounter in which individual A commended attitude A to individual B thus A is an opinion leader. Power may be a free flowing marketplace commodity.

(3) The unit of influence is short term, which can be attributed to media intervention.

(4) Attitude change: If the respondent had ‘changed mind’ as a result of influence then it is necessary to ascertain was it a fresh change or a return to an old attitude? Reinforcement of opinion is as crucial as change or introduction to a specific ideology but these can only occur where there is an opinion to reinforce or oppose. It cannot occur in the absence of opinion. The media appear to be extremely effective in creating opinions.

(5) Followers as opinion leaders. (Opinion leading is, in itself) an act of following (one follows an opinion).

Empirical Failings and Discrepancies: We now need to confront the specific theory of ‘personal influence’ and how it fails its intended purpose. The general theoretical conclusion that ‘ideas often flow from radio and print to opinion leaders and from them to the less active sections of the population’ is seen to be more wrong than right. Not every opinion will change and many of the changes (not the changers) were made without any personal contact and thus dependent on mass media.

The Theory Limits In Time: The findings of ‘personal influence’ are distorted in that they were applicable prior to the arrival of television. It says nothing about the force of television in the domain of political consciousness and political conduct. A larger question arises here too; the confusion of synchronic and diachronic dimensions. The snapshot taken in 1945 was assumed to be general and valid across boundaries of time. This transposition is not justifiable. The theory of mass media can only be studied in terms of ‘full exposure’ and not ‘more’ or ‘less’ exposure between individuals. The long-term purpose of such research is fruitless when considered outside of the historical context. Today’s mass media is different to the past and thus, in terms of relevance, the past no longer applies.

Wiki: In linguistics, a synchronic analysis is one that views linguistic phenomena only at one point in time, usually the present, though a synchronic analysis of a historical language form is also possible. This may be distinguished from diachronic, which regards a phenomenon in terms of developments through time. Diachronic analysis is the main concern of historical linguistics; most other branches of linguistics are concerned with some form of synchronic analysis.

Synchronic and diachronic approaches can reach quite different conclusions. For example, a Germanic strong verb like English sing-sang-sung is irregular when viewed synchronically: the native speaker’s brain processes these as learned forms, whereas the derived forms of regular verbs are processed quite differently, by the application of productive rules (for example, walk-walked). This is an insight of psycholinguistics, relevant also for language didactics, both of which are synchronic disciplines. However a diachronic analysis will show that the strong verb is the remnant of a fully regular system of internal vowel changes; historical linguistics seldom uses the category “irregular verb.”

Roots of the Paradigm: Personal Influence started by assuming that mass media influence is comparable to face-to-face influence and that power exists as discrete occasions of short-term attitude changes or behavioural choice? To answer such questions as this one we need to investigate and understand a number of ideological predispositions and orientations; administrative point of view, marketing orientation and social democratic ideology.

The Administrative Point of View: Questions are posed from high administrative positions within institutions. The sociologists will explore the problems associated with such powers and their control over audiences. The search is always on for predictive research and from the administrators viewpoint this is the most favourable premise of any inquiry. Lazarsfeld, himself with a long-term background in Administration, recognised the problem of relationship between media and academics when he once stated; “At what point will the commercial partners find some necessary conclusion too hard to take and at what point will they shut us off from the indispensable sources of funds and data?” Lazarsfeld clearly acknowledges his indebtedness to the media and sacrifices his independence. The administrative point of view is clearly considered.

The Marketing Orientation: Mass communications research developed very largely in response to market requirements. In the 1930s when Lazarsfeld arrived in America most national brands were multiplying and resorting to national advertising campaigns. They needed to know what to say, how often, over which channels and to whom. The consumer society was exploding and by 1945 it was in full swing. As radio progressed on popularity audience research (on the marketing of commodities) would be equally as important as hardware research (on the production of commodities). For this they needed demographical figures, audience figures, and research data and Lazarsfeld was in the right place at the right time to cater to this need. However, regardless of background and location Lazarsfeld and his equals operating under the command of those who needed such research had to create satisfactory techniques were inevitably conditioned by the practicality of their financers’ interests. Can such condition create unquestionable tactics? Much of the work of marketing orientation remains undone and has become media sociology.

The Ideological Field: Social Democracy: Theorists do not live by theory alone. Facts do not stand by themselves; they have to be justified by an ideological position. Such a position can be conscious or unconscious and, if the former, more or less public. Social democracy and the work of Lazarsfeld are linked by biographically and theoretically. The marketing orientation and at least one important variant of European social democracy share a common conception of ‘the people’ and it is at first appearance paradoxical; they are both sovereign and passive. High consumption capitalism justifies itself in terms of mass satisfaction, and insists that the market is the true measure of democratic expression. The people are consumers and choose from the possibilities available and when they choose they confirm the legitimacy of the supplier. Put another way, social democracy requires marketing orientation, a rigorous procedure for giving people what they want. However, as is the case with young students seeking career guidance advice, it is not only expected but appreciated when guidance is proffered.

Conclusion: Over the course of the 20^th century capitalism would work to present consumer sovereignty as the equivalent of freedom, in the common view and the common parlance. (If you do not like one thing, choose another). The assumption that choice among the givens amounts to freedom becomes the root of the worldwide rationale of the global corporations (the global shopping centre). A society develops and continues to develop by freedom of choice but such choices are manipulative and promise much but deliver little. By ignoring these choice processes Sociologists have done their share to consolidate and legitimise the regime of capitalism. That the dominant paradigm is now proving vulnerable to critique is a measure of decline of capitalist legitimacy, commercial values and the political self-confidence of the rulers.

Sociology Of Mass Communication

Introduction: The purpose of this essay is to give some examples of the work of sociologists in media analysis. It takes a number of surveys conducted in the past and analyses them from the sociological point of view and determines their significance. The route between sociology and mass communication seems to be a one-way street. This is surprising because the exercise of social power, the mediation of social relations, the reproduction of society and culture, and the organisation of social experience are significant in sociology and media studies. (Sociology has a lot to say about the media and the media very little to say about Sociology.)
The sociological study of communication is an attempt to answer the simple question of ‘who says what, in which channel, to whom and with what effect?’ This definition implies overt intention, avowed purpose, and communicative efficiency. However, some sociologists take the view that a greater emphasis on the role of society and external social forces in defining the roles of ‘sender’ and receiver’ is more appropriate. The former view further assumes that messages are as much received as sent and that motives for receiving are as significant as motives for sending. Thirdly, it further assumes the media are not neutral but complex social institutions with motives. Fourthly, messages are sent by media that have encoded purposes with many possible interpretations of origin and function.
Developments Of Theory: Directions of change are occurring in media theory summarised as; radical subjective (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.), radical objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.), subjective functionalist (Belief in or stress on the practical application of a thing, in particular.), and; objective functionalist (Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.), all of these are characterised by critical thinking, qualitative methods and attention to knowledge and culture rather than to society and behaviour. The objective functionalist view is that Communication can be seen as an integral part of a culture and consciousness, as well as a tool of human activity. The primary question in sociological analysis of communication is ‘does culture (including mass media) influence social structure or does social structure influence culture?’
Media as Organisation and Institution: Viewing the media as a social institution where formally organised work takes place directed toward the production of knowledge and culture, the media share features with other complex institutions. Since most media work is part of show business it is not surprising that ‘illusions’ have to be protected. News is a manufactured version of reality with influences, for example, generated by public or private status. Journalists can be moved by professionalism alone and report the world as they believe it is with the hope of communicating the message that the world is improvable by ‘middle class’ ideals which are perceived as anti-working class and thus tainted. What pleases the public and finally sell newspapers may very well be the primary influence in news reporting.
Media Content and Culture: Systematic analysis of content and media output is subject to statistical research and manipulation. The primary of such research tends to be to shed light on aims of originators and to interpret cause and affect. The tradition of comparing media reality with social reality remains strong. For example, media reportage on legitimate social welfare recipients as being somehow a danger to society is often obvious. The middle class ethos appears under threat by such activity and media will protect such interests while risking weak and disadvantaged people.
The Media Audience: Sociologists are always fascinated by media audiences. Topics looked at include structure and variance and social-demographic factors which relates to cultural background and time availability. Another question for sociologists is whether the audience are ‘passive’ or ‘active’ in assimilating media messages. There are inconsistent answers to this question. The main product of the media is audience and this can be sold to advertisers. Developing audiences by not patronising them is a financial transaction imperative to the success of media outlets. Thus, catering to the demands of the audience is necessary.
Media Effect and influence: this too is an area significant and widely researched field for sociologists. Some research concludes that the media is powerful but homogenised (standardised) in its objective to change long-term public opinion. The media will construct their own definition of reality and sell it to the audience and thus the media plays a part in the unfolding of major social events, especially at times of critical events. Research suggests that the public view is influenced by the creation of this Hyperreality, which can be adapted by audiences as absolute reality.
Conclusion: The sociology of mass communication has always been stimulated by and concerned with issues of wider social relevance and we can see some extension of the range of issues that are raised in relation to mass media. These issues include, for example, the position of women, international media flow, and its consequences; the consequences for society of media change. Technology is moving at a rapid pace but these changes too are worthy of closer sociological analysis. Local community may or may not benefit from rapid change in interactive media and the heralded information society is being greeted at its dawn by social analysts with a mixture of optimism and pessimism comparable to that, which greeted the first age of mass media.

Mass Media And Popular Culture.

Introduction: The history of humanity is a study of the influence of the media, a study of the influence of print, television, games, computers, and telephones. Most human beings are now consumers of popular culture, part of a global community of willing participants in the exchange of text dispersed by mass communication. Our opinions can be formed by media influences as our attitudes become affected by this relentless exposure.
Early Mass Media: The News Papers: newspapers derive from pamphlets printed and circulated in the 1700s. They are important in the history of modern media because they ‘packaged’ ideas and information in an easily dispersible way and as such had deeper impact on public opinion. The cheap daily press was pioneered in the US and soon copied across the globe. By the early 1900s most countries had ‘national’ newspapers relatively quickly and took The New York Times and The Times of London as their template. Since 1960 with the arrival of popular radio and television newspaper popularity and sales has been in decline.
Newspaper Publishing: Newspapers are normally (not inaccurately) associated with media tycoons. Newspapers are often owned and controlled by large companies and firms or families who also, in modern times, have control in other media outlets. Even local newspapers are now part of a chain owned and run by distant companies with little or no knowledge of ‘local’ issues. This concentration of ownership is a source of great concern to governments but they have achieved little or nothing worthwhile to change the situation. Advancing technology has made newspaper production and distribution much cheaper but electronic media also further threatens the continued success of the newspaper industry. Newspapers as a whole play less of a role in society than once was the case. They have been challenged by the spread of other media, first by television and now by internet.
The Impact of Television: The increasing impact of television is the most important development of the media in modern times. Virtually every household possesses a TV, which is switched on for many hours in the day with the average adult watching for three hours per day.
Public Broadcasting: TV is big business with the state involved in the administration of at least one major television network. These ‘Public’ television services are paid for by License fees and, in many cases combined with advertising revenue. The frequency of advertising on public (and private TV) is controlled by governments and viewing figures (ratings) monitored by TV companies can dictate whether or not a series continues. The arrival of satellite and cable TV has diminished the power and influence of major TV networks by dismantling audiences which is further effected by ‘self programming’ by people opting to watch what they want to watch and when they want to watch it by using recorders and DVDs. They can now construct their own viewing schedules. Public networks are under strain and the proliferation of new channels keeps adding to the problem.
The Effect of Television on Behaviour: Much research ahs been carried on the matter of TVs effect on audiences. Three commonly researched areas are effects on crime, nature of news and the role of TV on social and cultural life. Sociologists have carried on extensive research on TV and violence. Violence is defined as the threat or use of force, directed against the self or others, in which physical harm or death is involved. TV drama is high in violence; children’s programmes (especially cartoons) were also violent. However, does this violence effect audiences and, if so, how? There is no real evidence to suggest that audiences are affected by TV violence other than actually decreasing aggression. Themes of justice and retribution are enforced on TV (if you do the crime you do the time) demonstrates to viewers that violence is not really an option. More miscreants are brought to justice on TV then there are in real life and thus viewers are more likely to be influenced by moral themes rather than aggressive behaviour. In general audiences, children and adults, are passive and undiscriminating in their reactions to what they see. The same can be said of Gaming, which can act to develop skills that may be relevant in life and to wider participation in a society that depends more and more on electronic communications.
Sociologists Study TV News: Sociologists tend to study news more than anything else on television. TV news is a main source for news for the population. The ‘Bad News’ (1976) research project concluded that news about industrial relations typically was presented in a selective and slanted fashion. Using terms that were ‘anti-union’ in relation to the Miners Strike, this was on going during the research project. Strikes were depicted as disruptive to the public and film used depicted strikers as irrational or aggressive whereas in reality this was not the case at all. Bad News pointed out that those who constructed the news were acting as ‘gatekeepers’ for what gets on the agenda – what the public hears about at all. The views of the journalists reflect the outlook of dominant groups in society. These results were challenged; one argument is that millions of people were affected by the strike than took part in it and therefor the dominant group were the ‘innocent victims’ of the strikers and their side should be taken. Sometimes millions of people’s lives are disrupted by the actions of a handful of people and the majority deserve to know exactly why.
Television and Genre: television today operates on a continuous flow. TV is unending and most channels never go off air at all and apologise even if disrupted for a few seconds. However, while TV is a flow, programming is a jumble. A schedule consists of a number of genres such as game shows, comedies, dramas, soaps and so on. Each genre has its own rules and conventions, which mark it out and separate it from others. These are partly rules about content; soaps happen in domestic settings while westerns in 19th Century America. Characters and contexts also come into play with genre, which sets up different expectations for the viewers. TV producers know what TV viewers expect and so will operate with these boundaries. Cross-genres also occur sometimes for comedic effect and sometimes in Docudramas (re-enactments) for entertainment value.
Soap Operas: Soap is the most popular type of genre and has its own subgenres. Gritty soaps (Coronation Street and Eastenders) differ from American soaps like Dallas, which depict more glamorous lives, and Middle class soaps like Neighbours. Soaps are like TV in that they are never-ending and demands regular viewing and are more of interest to women, sensitive domestic creatures, than men. Sociologists contend that soaps are a means of escape for women who find their own lives dull and oppressive but the more plausible idea is that soaps address universal problems of a personal and emotional nature.
Theories of Media: Communication refers to the transfer of information from one individual or group to another, whether in speech or through another medium. The more efficient the mode of transportation the greater the flow of information. (Stone age society could not communicate on rocks so information did not flow from one community to another). Papyrus (a form of paper) in ancient Rome allowed communications to occur by allowing messages to be carried across society. ‘The medium is the message’ means that the nature of the media in a society influences its structure much more than the content. For example TV is different from a printed book and thus the ‘immediacy’ of TV will inevitably create a global society because it gives more people access to global information.
Jürgen Habermas: The Public Sphere: He updated Marx’s thinking on the basis that he believed Marx had not given enough credence to the influence of culture in society. The ‘culture industry’ (film, print, TV, music and radio) with its undemanding products undermines the individuals capacity for independent thought. The media has all but eliminated the ‘public sphere’ where issues of general concern can be discussed. We only watch debates on TV but we rarely participate in them. The absence of such debate, according to Habermas, has led to the demise of public opinion, which is now formed, by manipulation and control.
Baudrillard: The World of Hyperreality: The impact of modern mass media is more profound than any other technology. The media has transformed the nature of our lives. TV does not represent the world but defines it. Hyperreality occurs when the ‘reality’ is a string of images rather than the ‘real’ world. TV presents the world in a hyperrealistic way and our perception is not of reality but of Hyperreality. For example, the Gulf War became a TV event and not really a war as history has taught us. We witnessed it in living colour and were enthralled by the events that kept us guessing what would happen next. A very long but always interesting TV event. The question is now, did it happen at all? In the real world the events that took place are not what we saw on the screen so it can be argued that we saw a war but not the war. The same can be said about an election candidate that we choose to vote for without ever meeting them. We vote for the ‘hyper-real’ person but not the real one.
John Thompson: The Media and Modern Society: Thompson analysed the relation between the media and the development of industrial societies. He argues that the media have always played a central role in the development of modern institutions. He felt that early sociologists paid too little attention to the media in the development of industrial societies. He felt the modern mass media do not deny us the possibility of critical thought; in fact, it provides us with many forms of information we never had before. Media messages are the source of a lot of discussion, telling and retelling, interpretation and reinterpretation, commentary, laughter and criticism. This will constantly shape and reshape our knowledge and understanding. His theory of the media has three distinctions; face to face interaction (Dialogical), mediated interaction (using technology) (Dialogical), and mediated quasi-interaction (one-way form) (monological). The third type tends to dominate the other two but all three intermingle.
Thompson Ideology and The Media: Ideology refers to the influence of ideas on people’s beliefs and actions. Ideology is about the exercise of symbolic power – how ideas become used to hide, justify, or legitimate the interests of dominant groups in social order. In short Thompson sees the media as a monological organ of society that reaches mass audiences and based and used to advance dominant social thinking.
The Globalisation of Media: World News is a daily, and sometimes, hourly occurrence on many TV networks. They have contributed to the globalisation of the media. We can watch events actually happening ‘live’ from distant countries and because we are absent witnesses we perceive these events in a hyperrealistic way. TV shows and films, with few exceptions, are for global audiences. This new world information order has developed unevenly and reflects divisions between developed and underdeveloped societies. – News: Flows of news are often dominated by small numbers of continentally based ‘news agencies’ which, in turn, interact with each other in news distribution. Between them the main agencies send out millions of words every day to television, radio, and print. – Cinema, Television, Advertising and Electronic Media: American sources are dominant in TV production and distribution of cinema, TV, advertising and electronic media.
Media Imperialism: A cultural Empire has been established across the developed world and control of the world’s news distribution systems is dominated by American interests. Media entrepreneurs such as Rupert Murdoch with his ‘News Corporation’ dominates developed society as does Silvio Berlusconi and his ‘Mondadore’ corporation and Ted Turner with CNN. This media imperialism is of deep concern to governments across the world; ‘too much power in too little hands’.
The Issue Of Media Regulation: Large imperial organisations can not only make money but also influence public thinking. Owners of such corporations are usually right wing and anti-Liberal. With advancing globalisation independent governments have little control of these ever-expanding media Empires thus the issue of media regulation becomes a more difficult task. To dictate who should own what is wrong and can effect a free economy and job creation and a further problem is who should do the regulating and who will regulate the regulators? Media owners are unelected and are a threat to democracy but they too may be under threat with the impact of multimedia and the internet, which they cannot seem to harness. Individuals are free to set up blogs and websites to discuss their points of view and with expanding followers can have freedom of expression to a global audience.
Multimedia: New communications technologies are behind profound changes in the global market. There are four main reasons for this; advancing capabilities, declining costs, digitisation, and satellite communication combined with fibre optics. The transformation of data into ‘bits’ converted by receivers back into data has allowed computers to send and receive all forms of media messages, audio, visual, written. Advancing speed of computers has made this machine the central point of reference for all forms of communication. Participants now have control over what they see or hear and the digital revolution has annihilated distance and created organised chaos.
The Internet: This is a global network of PC users all using an ‘un-owned’ resource that is only in its infancy. Fibre optics means that people can communicate, watch, hear, read, and write on one single device and if they deem it necessary can publish their work. No one can be sure what the future holds but developments are so rapid that they are at the heart of the future of communications. In cyberspace we are not longer people but ‘messages’ on computer screens. No one knows who anyone else really is and as such we may be losing our identities (Hyperreality).

Sociology And The Media

Introduction: Sociology is the study of human social life, groups, and societies and its subject is our own behaviour as social beings. The Scope of Sociology: Everybody these days wants to be ‘in love’ but the reality is that ‘love’ is a relatively new concept to modern society and non-existent in some cultures. Up until recently love and marriage were not really connected. In some cultures, marriage is for property or wealth accumulation and love may or may not follow for such ‘relationships’ in time to follow. Marriage (if at all.) Modern society is seen in terms of familiar features of our own lives but there is a much broader view as to who we are and what or why we do as we do and thus is the essence of sociology.
Developing A Sociological Outlook: Learning to think sociologically means cultivating the imagination. A sociologist is somebody who can break free from the immediacy of personal circumstances and put things in a wider context. The sociological imagination requires us to think away from familiar routines and look at them anew. The simple act of having a cup of coffee becomes more than routine when viewed from a sociological point of view. Rituals associated with drinking coffee, it is a drug, the chat that goes with it, and where we go and so on are all of sociological significance.
Studying Sociology: Sociological imagination allows us to consider something as an individual as Divorce as reflective of larger issues. Unemployment also has significant sociological consequences even though it is an individual problem. Ones private position may be reflective of a wider position in wider society. It is the business of sociology to investigate the connections between what society makes of us and what we make of ourselves. Out activities give shape to the social world and are also structured by that social world. Thus, the concept of social structure is important in sociology. There are regularities in the way we behave and our behaviour is not only structured by society but we as ‘building blocks’ of this structure can and will reconstruct as we go along.
Intended and Unintended Consequences: This process of construction and reconstruction brings about actions with different results than we desire. Sociologists refer to this as intended and unintended consequences. It is sociology’s task to study the resulting balance between social reproduction, the continuity of society, and social transformation, and the changes that occur.
Early Origins: Sociology finds its beginnings in the early 1800s with the emergence of the Industrial Revolution in Europe. A key development was the enlightenments struggle to apply science instead of religion to understand the world. No individual founded sociology and there were many contributors to sociological thinking and some were more significant than others.
Auguste Comte: He invented the word ‘sociology’ and believed that this new field could produce knowledge of society based on scientific evidence. Sociology, he argued, should contribute to the welfare of humanity by understanding, predicting and controlling behaviour.
Emile Durkheim: He saw his peers as too speculative and vague and sought to establish sociology on a scientific basis. He argued that sociology should study social facts, aspects of social life such as economic and religious influences; ‘study social facts as things’ and thus they can be studied more rigorously. He believed that what held society together was shared values and customs. In his theory on the ‘division of labor’ he argued that people became more and more dependent on each other because they needed goods and services supplied by others. In the analysis of suicide he showed that it was not a ‘selfish act’ but social factors exert a fundamental influence on suicidal behaviour.
Karl Marx: According to his view social change is prompted by economic influences. Conflicts between classes, the rich versus the poor, provide the motivation for historical development. The class struggle was the key element of social change. He envisioned a forthcoming society where there would be no division of class (Communism) and thus equality in society would eliminate conflict.
Max Weber: In his view (contradictory to Marx) economic factors are important but ideas and values have just as much impact on social change. He argued that Christian influences contributed to the rise of capitalism and thus cultural values help shape society and individual actions. The development of science, technology, and bureaucracy (rationalisation) was in fact the organisation of social and economic life according to principles of efficiency and knowledge.
Later Thinkers: Foucault & Habermas: Foucault’s works concerned bureaucracy (hospitals, prisons, institutions) and sexuality all of which had not existed by created by social change and development and ‘sexuality’ is a property of the self (something we have). The study of knowledge as a source of power was a means of monitoring people and controlling them. Habermas argues that capitalist societies destroy moral order on which it depends.
Is Sociology A Science: Science is a means of using evidence to develop a body of knowledge about a subject matter? Therefor sociology, by these standards is a science. However, human beings are not objects and all behave differently and when they are under scrutiny they may behave differently.
How Can Sociology Help Us In Our Lives: It allows us to see the social world from a different perspective? If we understand how people live we can acquire a better knowledge of what their problems are. Sociological research helps us assess the results of policy initiatives. Sociology can provide us with self-enlightenment and thus influence our own future and finally, sociologists can find themselves in practical situations such as urban planning, industrial consultancy, social workers and personnel managers.

American Democratic Politics, Religious Revival and Reform, 1824 to 1840

Dorothea Dix was a 19th century reformer who launched her career in March 1841 when she became infuriated at the mistreatment of patients in a mental institution in Massachusetts. She successfully petitioned to have heating for patients in such institutions and by doing so she launched her career as an advocate for humanitarian treatment of the mentally ill.

Like so many women and men of her era she was motivated primarily by a deep religious conviction and she was only one of many such people living throught the ‘second great awakening’ that was to shape a host of reforms that swept the United States after 1820.

The Rise Of Democratic Politics: 1824 to 1832: The Republican Party of 1824 was under increasing pressure brought about by westward expansion, industrialization and cotton cultivation in the south. These forces would eventually split republicans into two groups – those who thought state control was the way forward became Democrats and those who sought national control became National Republicans or Whigs.

Democratic Ferment: Political democratization took several forms. States started to abolish exclusivity of voting rights to landowners. Formerly appointive offices became elective and as the voting landscape changed so did control of power. It was now necessary to court voters and this meant grand parties, hosting of community leaders to political affairs and enamoring the voters with charm and diplomacy to ensure office was secured. Transportation and communications system were changing and thus the electorate became more politically astute and well informed. Women a free blacks were disenfranchised but opposition to ‘common people’ (meaning adult white males) was becoming a formula for political suicide.

The 1824 Election And The Adams Presidency: In 1824 sectional tensions brought the ‘era of good feeling’ to an abrupt end. Five candidates ran for office of President and John Quincy Adams was favorite whose only real opposition was Andrew Jackson. He went on to win more popular votes than any candidate but failed to gain a majority as demanded by the constitution. It had to go to the House Of Representatives for a final decision but another candidate, third in the running, Henry Clay of Kentucky aligned himself to Adams in a trade for a high office deal and so Jackson’s hopes were immediately dashed. The so called ‘corrupt bargain’ was to cast a long dark shadow over Adams term of office. Adams sought ‘improvement’ in education, communication, transport but his ambitions met with growing political opposition and his views only guaranteed him one term of office.

The Rise Of Andrew Jackson And The Election Of 1828: As Adams’ popularity declined Jackson’s rose. Jackson was a war hero and a link to the glorious past and Jackson’s widespread support created a modern political machine that would create a new political system; Adams men or National Republicans and Jackson’s men Democratic Republicans. The only one to truly recognize this fact was Martin Van Buren who saw that the two-party system of politics where the splintered political system could be naturally divided into two opposing groups. Then the parties could compete and a winner would emerge. Jackson ran for the newly renamed Democratic Party and was successful while Adams ran for the National Republicans thereby giving shape to the American two party system.

The mudslinging began almost immediately with allegations of murder, debauchery and extravagance being thrown from both sides but Jackson’s team had better aim after Adams men accused Jackson of being an illiterate backwoods man and thereby characterizing him as a ‘common man’ which was exactly what the people seemed to want in office. Jackson won the election with more than twice the electoral vote of Adams. The popular vote was much closer which highlighted the reality of the sectional bases of both parties and the accuracy of Van Burens astuteness in observing that the American political landscape was changed forever.

Jackson In Office: As an opponent of corruption and privilege Jackson made the civil service his first target. He enforced the ‘rotation’ system and made sweeping changes to staff holding high office. But his motives were questioned by his enemies as ‘the spoils system’ and those selected for high office seemed to be more friends than enemies. This was a start of a new Presidency that would be rife with problems and the first major one was the Nullification Crisis.?

Nullification: Jackson and his vice president John C. Calhoun, an ardent nationalist, had presidential notions and wanted to succeed Jackson after only one term. To do this he had to maintain the support of the South which was growing opposed to Tariffs which they blamed for migration of cotton cultivation, dramatic increases in cotton and reduction in British demand for their products. However, opposition was not just economic. Southerners believed that if the Federal government could interfere with one law it could interfere with another and thus ‘slavery’ could arrive on the table for abolition. Moods were changing in relation to slavery across the nation and newspapers such as The Liberator had come into being and they wanted slavery abolished as quickly as possible. The big issue between Jackson and Calhoun was the question of the Tariff of 1828.

The Tariff of 1828: This was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.
The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by putting a tax on them. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the US made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South. The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.
The Tariff marked the high point of US tariffs. It was approached, but not exceeded, by the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1830. .

Calhoun opposed the tariff on constitutional grounds and embraced the view that the Union was a compact by which the states had conferred limited and specified powers on the federal government. The imposition of tariffs to raise funds for common purpose, such as defense, were constitutional to Calhoun and the enforcement of any tariff for any other purpose that could be deemed detrimental to State economic growth and prosperity could only be imposed with state co-operation and agreement.
In 1828 Calhoun campaigned, against his President, arguing that aggrieved states had the right to nullify the law within its borders.

Jackson responded by devising two policies; one to appease the South and one for all others. The first was to pay out surplus money to all states to balance the distribution of wealth and thus appease dissent. Secondly, Jackson wanted to reduce tariffs from sky high levels of 1828 and thus appeased Calhoun who did not want to be seen to be at loggerheads with Jackson but Southerners remained dissatisfied.

Calhoun and Jackson had other personal problems with each other and these were added to when Jackson discovered that Calhoun had been a long time enemy of his and had advocated punishment for him in the past for his unauthorized raid into Spanish Florida. Jackson wanted to eliminate Calhoun from public life at all costs. The stage was now set for the Nullification Crisis.

In 1831 Calhoun admitted to his opposition to Jackson and some months lat in 1832 a South Carolina convention nullified the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 and so Jackson went to war with Calhoun. He sent weapons to loyal Unionists in Carolina and in December 1832 he issued a proclamation that, while promising South Carolinians further tariff reductions, condemned nullification as unconstitutional which he emphasized had established a ‘single nation’ not a league of states.

The crisis eased when Jackson signed into law two measures (the olive branch and the sword) namely, a Compromise Tariff Bill of 1833 which provided for a gradual reduction of duties between 1833 and 1842. The sword was the Force Bill which allowed the president to use arms to collect customs duties in South Carolina which nullified it immediately but accepted the Compromise Tariff Bill. The nullifies defiantly toasted their success and commended ‘the great compromiser’ Kentuckian Henry Clay who had negotiated the peace deal and, according to Southerners, ‘saved the country’ by his efforts.

The Bank Veto and the Election of 1832: The gap between rich and poor was widening in the 1830s and Jackson blamed this on Banking. He was not a successful businessman in the past and despised banks. He had no issue with individual wealth accumulation but wanted to obliterate wealth accumulation through corruption and privileges. The Second Bank of the United States had a monopoly over funding to state banks and also had the right to demand repayments in specie (gold or silver). The government had little or no control over the banks and Jackson wanted to end this situation. Henry Clay courted the banks in a bid to help him win the White House and managed to fast track a Bill that would secure banks from government control. Jackson vetoed the Bill and denounced the banks as a private and privileged monopoly that drained the west of specie, eluded state taxation and made the rich richer and the potent more powerful. Clay failed to persuade congress to override Jackson’s veto and pinned his hopes on gaining the presidency himself.

Jackson had made his position clear on many issues. He was a staunch defender of Unionist philosophy but he believed that the states were too diverse to take instruction from Washington. The safest way was to allow state freedom so that they would remain content and reject dangerous doctrines like nullification. Breaking his promise to retire he ran again and was successful and now ready to dismantle the Bank of the United States.

The Bank Controversy And The Second Party System 1833-1840: Jackson’s veto of the recharter ignited controversy. The opposition were not happy about his efforts to destroy the Bank and this created greater public interest in politics and the economy. By 1840 the Whigs and the Democrats were fundamentally divided over the bank. Money took the form of IOUs (promises to redeem in specie) and they fueled economic development by making business easier. But when notes depreciated because of public doubts about a banks solvency, wage earners suffered because they were paid in paper rather than specie. Paper money also encouraged economic speculation. Farmers who had bought land on credit were left in debt when prices dropped. Would the US embrace swift economic development at the price of speculators languishing while others got rich or would the nation opt for modest growth based on honest hard work and frugality? Between 1833 and 1840 these questions were dominant.

The War On The Bank: Jackson could have let the Bank to die in 1836 but he feared its power and decided to act fast. The Bank anticipated the move and started to call in loans and credit. Jackson reacted by removing federal deposits and place them in state banks but the move backfired. The state banks got cash rich and started to loan out large sums of cash for land purchase and thus Jackson’s policy was producing the very kind of economy he wanted to suppress.

The Rise Of Whig Opposition: During Jackson’s second term the opposition gave way to the new Whig Party and his opponents promptly aligned themselves to this new political entity. Southerners saw it as a chance to punish Jackson for his stance on nullification and his war on the Banks created similar results. Southerners also feared the lack of wealth distribution on internal improvements and that it was unfairly balanced between north and south. This would mean that Southerners would lag behind the wealthier north and so much money was tied up in slavery that it made the situation more volatile as a mood of anti-slavery was creeping in outside the southern states. Northern reformers were also working against Jackson and wanted slavery and liquor abolished, education improved and the general elevation of public morality. Reformers found the Whigs more attractive than the Democrats. The Whigs wanted more involvement in society and the economy while the Democrats believed that it was not good to impose uniform ds on a diverse society. The reformers, mostly Protestant, despised Irish Catholics and saw them as drunken lazy slobs and the Irish went into the Democratic Party. By 1836 the Whigs had become a national party with broad appeal in both North and South.

The Election Of 1836: Jackson’s popularity was a tough act to follow and the Whigs could not succeed, in this short time, in taking the White House. However, even though Martin Van Buren won for the Democrats it was obvious that trouble lay ahead because of the loss of Democratic votes to the Whigs who came close to victory.

The Panic Of 1837: After Jackson’s departure the Panic of 1837 began. In 1835 and 1836 the banking credit and loans business was booming and commodity and land prices soared. But in May 1837 prices began to tumble and bank after bank began to suspend specie payments. After a short rally by 1839 the banks began to collapse and The Bank Of The United States failed and banks throughout the nation began to collapse. The ensuing recession was severe as wages fell, prices soared and the population saw this as punishment from God and the end of the world was imminent.

Log Cabins, Hard Cider, And A Maturing Second Party System: Van Buren ran again for the Democrats while the Whigs opted for a single candidate (not to make the same mistakes of 1836), William Harrison, a farmer with few enemies. The Democrats made a fatal mistake and tagged him “Old Granny” a man who loved sipping cider in his old Log Cabin but the tag backfired because the image of an ordinary man being victimized by an aristocratic Van Buren who lived in regal splendor drinking fine wines while people were hungry on the streets. The Whigs used Democratic tactics against the Democratic candidate. Harrison had a clear victory because of economic depression and the ‘log cabin’ campaign but there was also another factor. The social and moral reform movements that emerged in the 1830s were gaining momentum and they originated not in politics, but in religion.

The Rise Of Popular Religion: Historians contend that in 19th Century America religion was the foremost of the political institutions. In other states religion and politics were at odds with each other but in America they were intimately united. However, this is not to say that religion ruled but that it was compatible with politics rather than antagonistic. Just as Americans expected politicians to address the common man they also insisted that ministers preach to ordinary people. Ministers had to speak the language of the heart and not theological complexities. They also insisted on doctrines that put individuals in charge of their own destiny and that anyone could attain heaven. In short, Americans wanted a ‘democratic’ heaven over which they could have some control. The harmony between religion and politics gave rise to the religious revivals known as The Second Great Awakening.

The Second Great Awakening: This ignited in the 1790s and swept across America during the half century that followed. But as the revivals progressed they also transformed. The second coming of Jesus was proclaimed and repentance was necessary in order to reap the rewards of eternal life. The most famous gathering took place in Kentucky in 1801 when a huge congregation of mixed religions assembled to hear sermons, sing hymns and be saved. The frenzy had some extreme features as men and women rolled around like logs, jerked their heads furiously and barked like dogs. The whole affair, critics claimed, was mo lustful than spiritual with “more souls begot rather than saved”. Of all the religious movements it was the Methodists that proved the most dominant. They argues that religion was about the heart and not the head. They travelled from place to place on horseback bringing with them the word of God. They went to remote areas and set up weekly classes before departing. These classes formed a Methodist code of behavior known as ‘Discipline’ which reinforced family and community values.

Eastern Revivals: In the 1820s the Second Great Awakening had begun to move Eastward. The man who spearheaded the revival of New York was Charles Finney who had experienced a powerful religious conversion. He became a Presbyterian Minister and started to conduct revival camps from New York to Boston. His experience and spiritual wisdom made him ‘the father of modern revivalism’. He used techniques such as a conversion chair where people sat and were surrounded by the congregation who prayed over them to cleanse their souls for the re-entry of Jesus. Finney’s congregation would leave meetings with a cleansed soul with all guilt washed away and were ‘Born again’. Finney had a large middle class following and was also a favorite of most women whom he converted before converting their family.

Critics Of Revivals: The Unitarians: Revivals drew criticism. It was doubted by some that revivalists had any sacred power to change anybody and they were condemned as fakers and charlatans for trying. The influential ‘Unitarians’ who believed that Jesus was not divine but no more than a human model for moral life had some considerable support in wealthy circles. They contended that moral goodness is cultivated over time and not instantly by barking like dogs. The Unitarians, who influenced Dorothea Dix, claimed that all Christianity had one purpose: “the perfection of human nature, the elevation of men into nobler beings.”

The Rise Of Mormonism: The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons founded by Joseph Smith, a New York confused boy who grew up to create a religion founded on a discovered book of revelation pointed out to him by an Angel named Moroni. In short, Mormonism contends that an ancient Hebrew prophet came to America and created a prosperous nation to await Jesus. Some dark sin was caused during the wait and as punishment God created the Indians who, by the time Columbus got to America, had forgotten the entire affair. Mormonism had placed America as the center of religious history. Smith revealed his ideas to doubtful Protestants and was persecuted as a heretic and he absconds to live with the Indians whom he wanted to convert. They built a city called Nauvoo in Illinois but in 1844 a group of dissident members, vexed on the plural marriage issue, had him thrown into jail and later murdered him and his brother.

The Shakers: Mother Ann Lee, the founder of ‘The Shakers’ had a following who believed she was the Daughter of God just as Jesus was the son of God. The Shakers had convulsive like fits while worshipping and pursued religious perfection. They produced furniture noted for it’s beauty but also strived for complete celibacy. Children would be adopted or fostered to prevent sexual activity. The practiced christian socialism and shared land and implements to create remarkably prosperous villages.

The Age Of Reform: The relentless struggle for divine perfection, spiritual independence was compatible with social requirements of all individuals. Saved souls could unite in the purpose of elimination of all evil in society. To achieve this, a wide range of social services began to spring up in civilized America. Abolition of slavery, rights of women, temperance, humane treatment of criminals and the insane and public eduction were all on the reformers agenda. All conflict was perceived as the clash of good and evil and they had God on their side so could not lose. Those churches that refused to condemn any evil, mostly slavery, we’re themselves condemned. The age of Reform drew its fuel from the evangelical revivalists and they had the power of God to help them convince a spiritually malnourished society.

The War On Liquor: Early 19th century Americans were heavy drinkers. One reason for this was the state of agriculture. Prior to the transport revolution, farmers who could not transport their corn and rye began to manufacture whiskey. Drunkenness pervaded which resulted in many social problems such as domestic violence, disease and economic failure. The American Temperance Society was formed in 1826 and rapidly increased its membership nationwide. Even women and children, as victims of violence and poverty, we’re becoming members. The main targets of the temperance reformers were the working classes but the workers showed little interest until the argument that society would collapse if drinking were to take hold was floated. In dread of losing their jobs or businesses and temperance spread farther and faster as the movement won new support and now began to demand prohibition. The campaigners fought a hard but successful battle and by the 1840s consumption had dropped to less than half it’s peak rate in the 1820s.

Public School Reform: The typical American school in the early 19th century was rural. Reading and counting were the main activities for the classroom of mixed ages from three to twenty. Parents were satisfied with these arrangements but reformers wanted a better system to equip children for a growing economy. Reformers wanted state support for education, extending school time, standards textbooks, a grade system and compulsory attendance. The purpose of school was to spread industrial values and combat ignorance. Industry, honesty, sobriety and patriotism were the values to be instilled in all students. School reformers prevailed after a struggle because their opponents failed to unify. Women wanted reform because it would improve opportunities and they were right. By 1900 over 70% of teachers were women. The school system was soon seen as a way for creating a common American culture out of a diverse society. However, black children did not enter public school, reformers did not include them in their plans, black children encountered hostility and violence.

Abolition: Anti slavery sentiment flourished in the Revolutionary era. The northern states had emancipation schemes in place but the South had a growing dependence on slavery and that was unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. Colonization in Liberia, West Africa was a northern proposal for a solution to the problem but most African Americans did not want to be transported to a new continent. They saw themselves as African American and demanded the right to be treated as citizens of America. Black activist David Walker, born a free man, led an anti-white campaign and he urged slaves to rise up and murder their masters if slavery were not abolished. In the 1830s Black leaders began holding conventions devoted to abolishing slavery in the South and repealing discriminatory black codes in the North. White abolitionists launched campaigns to stop new slaves from being transported into the Union. William Lloyd Garrison of New England launched a newspaper ‘The Liberator’ which established him as the most prominent and provocative of all white abolitionists. He filled his paper with stories of slave mistreatment and thereby appealed to the humanity of his vast readership to abolish slavery. He wanted immediate emancipation without compensation to slaveholders. He also wanted full equality with whites and formed the American Antislavery Society to achieve this end.

Fugitive slaves also had a role to play in abolition and the foremost of these was Frederick Douglas who wrote his autobiography which sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Relations between black and white abolitionists were not always harmonious but racial prejudices were mild by comparision to anti-abolition whites who transferred their hatred to white abolitionists. Abolitionists drew on the language of revivalists and condemned slavery as a sin but issues of strategy and tactics divided those who desired an end to slavery. Garrison advocated non resistance in which the doctrine held that the fundamental evil of slavery was its reliance on force, the opposite of Christian love. Government also rested on cohersion and any person who voted or participated in politics was not a true Christian. The second issue dividing abolitionists was the role of women in the movement. Women participating in this crusade were seen as ‘indelicate’, women should obey men, not lecture them. In 1840 Abolitionists were split on these issues and the break up of the American Antislavery Society that followed did not damage the larger movement.

Women’s Rights: When the Grimke sisters took up the cause of women’s rights in 1838 they were not just defending their right to participate in the Antislavery movement. They were responding to perceived similarities between women and slaves. Women under slavery were degradated and sexually vulnerable. In the early 19th century women were not allowed to vote, hold public office, educated or allowed into the professions. Married women had no legal identity, could not own property, control their own earning, sue or be sued or enter a contract. Divorced women could not get custody of their children and domestic violence went unchallenged. Women’s place was in the home and they had no legal rights. However, reform movements gave women a chance to work in public as volunteers and they could claim that their objectives were to clean up society to enhance the quality of home life for all women. Feminism first emerged in abolitionism and it gave its female participants thee courage and inspiration they needed to fight the fight for their own rights. In 1848 New York the first true feminist convention took place at Seneca Falls. It declared that all women were equal and modeled itself on the Declaration of Independence. It passed twelve resolutions that were to be the code of all feminist activities to follow. By 1860 changes started to occur, a New York law allowed married women to vote but it took until 1920 for women to secure a national right, fifty five years after the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.

Penitentiaries And Asylums: n the 1820s reformers had started their war on poverty, crime and abuse of mentally or physically challenged people. Secular and religious reformers believed that human nature could be improved through placement in the proper moral environment. Teh reformers model for this proper environment for paupers, criminals and the insane was an asylum which would remove deviants from corrupting influences by placing them in a controlled environment under moral supervision and disciplined work. Up until the early 19th century the way to deal with such people was through public flogging or execution rather than extended prison terms. Two different types of penitentiary care emerged in antebellum America. The Auburn system forbade inmates any communication with each other and the Pennsylvania System confined prisoners to isolation in a single cell and deprived of human contact with no news or visits from the outside for the duration of the sentence. The poor and mentally ill were inmates in less rigorous institutions where they could be taught (if possible) to work at being virtuous and productive citizens. Insane asylums were set up for the mentally ill but they too had the optimistic believe that insanity was curable through proper moral environments. These institutions, prisons, almshouses and asylums were forms of social control but inmates were not protected from the punishments of incarceration and regimentation.

Utopian Communities: The reformists belief in the possibility of human perfection found its greatest expression in utopian communities. They began in the 1820s and expanded over the next few decades. These communities were experiments in unification of like-minded people aiming for social and economic harmony and the eradication of evil and the advancement of religious ideals. Scottish mill owner Robert Owen founded New Harmony in Indiana where he improved the home and work life of his community members with the aim of elimination of vice and misery. He believed human character was the fruit of its environment so if the latter is perfect then so will be the former. His community failed because it was too attractive to idlers and fanatics but his ideas inspired more Utopians to follow. Experimental communities multiplied in the 1830s and 1840s many f which had the common belief that modern life in large urban environments was not natural and not helpful to the development of the mind and spirit. The most controversial utopian experiment was the Oneida Community established in 1848 in New York. It advocated Christian communism and renounced private property but, most controversially, in place of conventional marriage it had ‘complex marriage’ in which every male was married to every female. Critics of the community saw it as a free sex for all club and a sex haven designed by its founder, John Humphrey Noyes, but the prosperous Oneida outlived other less radical utopian societies. Utopian communities, despite ridicule, exemplified the idealism and hopefulness of all reform movements in antebellum America.

Conclusion: In the early decades of the 19th Century politics became an activity of the common people. Voting barriers changed, party machines began to expand and religion and revivalism spearheaded the campaign for a better society for all through improving moral behavior. Revivalists challenged the idea of man nor being in control of his own destiny and advocated that all humans, men and women, had the ability to perfect themselves. The election of Andrew Jackson was the will of the people but his dictatorial manner contributed to the emergence of the second party system. Religion gave rise to new reform movements, some seeking legal equality for slaves and women, others wanting temperance, better education, institutional reform and utopian communitarianism. While complaining about the corruptness of politics the reformers made their demands using the same techniques they admonished in the politicians.

Nationalism In Europe Between 1815 And 1848

“A fighting Revolution requires economics (Marx); a victorious Revolution requires engineers (Russia); a defeated Revolution calls for psychology (Vienna)”. (David, 1987)
Paul Lazarsfeld
Nationalism has a long history in European politics from ancient Rome to modern times. When it came of age in France on July 14th 1789; it posed a fatal threat to traditionalist administrations and feudalism. In Europe’s post Napoleonic years the autocrats decided to deal with the antediluvian but intensifying problem by suppressing its advocates with tyranny and totalitarianism. Austrian’s most accomplished Diplomat, Conservative, Sophisticate and Dictator Klaus Von Metternich led the futile campaign. Two of Europe’s strongest xenophobic states were Belgium and Poland but remarkably both these countries demonstrated their nationalistic objectives in contrasting ways. Belgium through peaceful political negotiation and Poland with a force that would be their own downfall. The former succeeded and the latter failed. However, both are flawless examples of the ineffectuality of any crusade to stop the relentless rage of the dogma of nationalism.
The ideology and power of Nationalism as a revolutionary force was by no means new in Europe by the arrival of the 19th Century. In fact, Julius Caesar, an early advocator of jingoism, communicated to his generals the importance of nationalism as a derivative of patriotism and made reference to it in his writings of The Gallic Wars (58BCE – 51BCE) when he wrote of the ‘patriotic’ Roman Army General Titurius at war with the Gauls; “…On the score of patriotism he has now regard to gratitude for the kindness of Caesar…” (Caesar, 51 BCE) One of the immediate causes of the French Revolution had been the failure of a patriotic reform movement under the ancient regime. Nationalist sentiment had then turned to revolutionary means for fulfilment. The result was that ‘nationalism became the spearhead of an attack on feudalism’, and from the start of the revolution the appellation ‘patriote’ was practically synonymous with revolutionary.’ (Cassels, 1996)
Consequently, Nationalism was very powerful in the period 1814 to 1848. France and Great Britain were strong nation states and as such stimulated other nations including Germany, Italy and Russia toward unification. Germans recognised that every nation had a particular ‘Volksgeist’ or spirit; “Each people possesses its own cultural traits shaped by ancestral history and the experience of a particular physical environment, and mentally constructs its social life through language, literature, religion, the arts, customs, and folklore inherited from earlier generations.” (Hamilton, n.d.) And very quickly a pan-European desire for nationality continued to gain momentum. This aspiration was quickly outlawed by reactionary forces which led to the formation of secret societies such as Joseph Mazzini’s ‘Young Italy’, Carbonari in Italy and the German Buschenschaft which meant that nationalistic ideology was not going to evaporate. The idea that language should have its own nation was a terrifying one to the Austrian Empire since it contained dozens of subjugated language groups and consequently if nationalism were to proceed the empire would be dissolved; “Individual freedom was finding expression in politics and in the arts. Liberal movements were tied to nationalism which was defined by language and cultural tradition. Nationalism threatened Europe and its Monarchies and was therefore unacceptable to the Congress of Vienna.” (Merriman, 2010) Under these realistic fears it had to act.
In post Napoleonic Europe ‘The Concert of Europe’ was an unpremeditated catalyst for the escalation of Nationalism in the ‘Age of Metternich’. The rise of nationalism, the unification of Germany, the ‘Risorgimento’ in Italy enumerates some of the main constituents to the ineffectiveness of the Concert and, as such, made the Concert the originator of its own demise. The general consensus across Europe was that nationalism was a force to be reckoned with and when German nationalists began assassinating reactionary leaders, Metternich, unaware of his powerlessness against it, confirmed its supremacy by pushing the Karlsbad Decrees (1819). German poets, authors and composers, including Brothers Grimm and Beethoven, were beginning to inspire moods of national pride in the German states with their work. Metternich was rendered powerless against ‘romantic nationalism’ manifesting itself in the arts. German philosopher and ‘enemy of human liberty’ (Berlin, 2003) Johann Fichte spoke about how Germans should recognise a broad national identity. He called Germany the ‘Fatherland’ and spoke about Germans living without interference from foreign powers. Fichte’s prominent position in Germany gave his statements great credence. Metternich had fervently guarded Austria’s interests with great skill and it was not his fault, but the fault of ages, that Austria’s interests were in complete antagonism to those of German and Italian nationality.
In its relentless pursuit of a consolidated federation of Europe, united in the preservation of ‘Conservatism’ posing as peace and prosperity, the Concert, petrified at the bloodthirstiness of the Revolutionary nationalistic proletariat, proceeded to contaminate the noble ideals of the Enlightenment. These ideals revealed themselves as liberalism, romanticism and ultimately nationalism which endangered the ‘Old Regime’ perceived, by the lower classes, as corrupt and abusive in the pursuit of new profits garnished from the Industrial Revolution that rampantly swept across Western Europe. Napoleon had recognised the seeds of nationalism and manipulated the ideology and turned it into a source of aggression by exploiting this patriotic dynamism and, by so doing, scared the powers of Europe into the belief that such ideology was destructive and life-threatening to the well being of the European Monarchy and the inevitable domino effect for the upper classes. French conquests awakened nationalism in Europe and individual freedom was finding expression in the philosophy of the free man (or woman) within the free independent state defined by common language and cultural boundaries and the calls for independence and political freedom across Europe were loud and vexing to the Conservative upper echelons’. This pan-European demand for nationalism as a force for change was not only obvious in the bigger nations but also from the voices of the smaller countries such as Belgium and Poland.
Belgium was an artificial state that was put together in 1830-31 by the international powers as a political compromise and an experiment in building one state out of two nationalities. Outside of Brussels it consisted of Dutch-speakers in Flanders, its northern half bordering the Netherlands, and French-speakers in Wallonia, its southern half bordering France. Throughout its entire history Brussels was a Dutch-speaking town, until the middle of the 19th century, when the deliberate “frenchification” policy of the Belgian authorities succeeded in turning it into a predominantly French-speaking city. Belgium was feeling only the tremors of European Revolution in 1848 because by then it was under a relatively new constitution. The one nationalist rising to involve the international community had occurred in Belgium in August 1830. Here, a coalition of Catholics and Liberals declared their country’s independence from Holland. Prussia, fearful of two revolutionary states bordering its Rhineland provinces wanted to send in troops. France threatened intervention and Britain expressing the objective of ‘an independent Belgium free from French and Dutch alike’ (Clarke, 1989) consulted with France and they announced agreement on non-intervention and issued a protocol to break Dutch-Belgian ties. Some years later a final international guarantee of Belgian independence was declared. The painless solution of the Belgian problem indicated that the European concert could work effectively in the face of demanded nationalism. The episode clearly demonstrates that nationalism was not really the threat to European integration but the violence associated with its rejection. Historians argue that Belgium escaped the ‘spring of nations’ because, like Britain after the Glorious Revolution (1688), Belgian powers had learned its lessons almost two decades earlier. Although north and south Belgium had two different language based cultures both had common ground with discontentment at protestant suppression. Violent street riots inspired by the 1830 French insurrections soon led to a ‘Declaration of Independence’ from Dutch suppression and a constitutional monarchy. The Belgians were satisfied, got on with the work of prosperity, oblivious to the nationalistic endeavours of their continental neighbours. The country was one of the small pockets outside of Britain that was feeling the impact of the Industrial Revolution and with it came a new sense of independence and financial freedom. But the angry Belgian artisans and workers were feeling stifled by advancing mechanisation and the government, unlike other more aggressive European states, recognised this reality and responded quickly to demands for concessions before opposition took a deadly toll. By 1848; “Belgium was widely admired as a model for liberals in other countries.” (Rapport, 2009) Clearly, nationalistic ideals had achieved a liberal society, through political negotiation, that was now a role model for the rest of Europe and justification for the ‘patriotic’ movement.
On the other hand Poland was a Liberal and constitutional state refashioned by the Congress of Vienna and ruled by Alexander I who liked the notion of Liberal reform but rarely practised it. He exasperated nationalistic citizens who sought self rule and aimed for it through secret societies formed by the intelligentsia.
The cultural climate of the early 19th century Europe stimulated the evolution of Polish demands for self-government and under this influence, Polish literature flourished as evident in the works of a school of 19th-century Romantic poets, led by Adam Mickiewicz; “his patriotism is evident in his celebration of the Polish language, in his loving rendition of folk lore, in his detailed poetic descriptions of Polish customs, landscapes and people. (Grol, 1996) Mickiewicz concentrated on patriotic themes and the glorious national past. Chopin, a leading composer of the century, also used the tragic history of his nation as a major inspiration. Nurtured by these influences, nationalism awoke first among the intelligentsia and certain segments of the nobility, then more gradually in the peasantry. At the end of the process, a broader definition of nationhood had replaced the old class-based “noble patriotism” of Poland.
Nationalists in Poland were somewhat sparse or, at least, silent during the developing stages of the Revolutions of 1848 because fear was instilled in radicals by previous experience almost two decades earlier. The most dramatic surge of resistance to Metternich’s conservative order came in Poland in November 1830 when patriotic Polish soldiers became rebellious after the Tsar of Russia mobilised troops from Poland in response to Western Revolution. The ten month insurrection led to inestimable death and imprisonment. However, the evidence is that while the Polish may have been in fear they were not entirely silent on the matter of Revolution. In distant lands, as political refugees, they represented their nation in ‘Young Europe’ aimed at liberating oppressed nations in peaceful ways. Metternich’s concept of a conservative and unified Europe, oblivious to the smaller states, was permanently under threat. By the ‘hungry forties’ (especially 1848) Poland was hit hard by harvest blight and deeply concerned about warlike noises coming from Germany where liberals were calling for a Revolutionary war against Russia to liberate Poland and cement German unity. The intractable problem of German-Polish relations meant that the Polish paid little significant heed to the demands of the Germans. Although the Poles, with European wide sympathy, were the most determined of European people. They had little to show for 1848 and the flame of Polish Revolution was kept alight by emigration. Being the only country in Europe whose autonomy was gradually limited rather than expanded throughout the 19th century, as a punishment for the failed uprisings; in 1831 Poland lost its status as a formally independent state and was merged into Russia as a real union country and in 1867 she became nothing more than just another Russian province. Afterwards no major uprising was witnessed in the Russian controlled Congress Poland and Poles resorted instead to fostering economic and cultural self-improvement.
Despite the political unrest experienced during the partitions, Polish nationalists opted to emulate Belgian political strategies and went on to benefit from large scale industrialisation and modernisation programs, instituted by the occupying powers, which helped it develop into a more economically coherent and viable entity.
Metternich failed to take his own advice; ‘It is useless to close the gates against ideas; they overlap them’ (QDB, 2011) and his ambitions for an autocratic conservative Europe were illusory to say the least. Rampant poverty, political flouting of smaller states, enlightened thinking, industrialisation and pan-European contempt for elitism were the five major influences of rapidly expanding nationalistic movements craving a fairer deal for the grassroots of their nations. Belgium was the justifiable role model and stimulus for change on the European mainland while Poland the incriminated paradigm of revolutionary failure.

Bibliography.
Anon., n.d. Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855). [Online]
Available at: http://daisy.htmlplanet.com/amick.htm
[Accessed 30 10 2011].
Berlin, I., 2003. Freedom And Its Betrayal. In: Six Enemies of Human Liberty. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. Berlin, Isaiah, Freedom and Its Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty (Princeton University Press, 2003.
Caesar, J., 51 BCE. The Gallic Wars. In: The Gallic Wars. London: Oxford University Press, p. 197.
Cassels, A., 1996. Ideology & International Relations In The Modern World. In: A. Cassels, ed. London & New York: Routledge, p. 26.
Clarke, J., 1989. British Diplomacy And Foreign Policy, 1782-1865. In: London: s.n., p. 192.
David, S. F., 1987. In: Paul F. Lazarsfeld – A Biographical Memoir. Washington DC: National Academy Of Sciences, p. 256.
Grol, R., 1996. Adam Mickiewicz, Poet, Patriot and Prophet. [Online]
Available at: http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/mickiewicz/grol.html
[Accessed 25 10 2011].
Hamilton, A., n.d. Herder’s Theory of the Volksgeist. [Online]
Available at: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/05/herders-theory-of-the-volksgeist/
[Accessed 26 October 2011].
Merriman, J., 2010. A History Of Modern Europe. In: S. Forman, ed. From The Renaissance To The Present. London & New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,Inc..
QDB, 2011. QDB. [Online]
Available at: http://quotedb.net/
[Accessed 28 October 2011].
Rapport, M., 2009. 1848: Year Of Revolution. 1 ed. New York: Perseus Book Group.

The Age Of European Mass Politics

By 1850 Great Britain, France and Russia were the three major powers in Europe. However, the forthcoming unification of Germany and Italy was to change the face of Europe dramatically. In the last three decades of the 19th Century Europe entered a period of major economic, social, political and cultural change. The second Industrial Revolution brought about scientific and technological advances and the arrival of steel and electricity transformed manufacturing.

Cities grew rapidly, political parties developed and the age of mass politics came into being. The creation of socialist parties and socialists were being elected across Europe. Unions put forth demands and engaged in strikes. In the three decades after 1848 Liberalism prevailed and without the Liberal’s male suffrage, political democracy and other significant changes would not have occurred. Liberal democracy emerged as the dominant form of European politics from the second half of the 19th Century to present day.

In the first half of the 19^th Century Germans and Italians were agitating for political unification. (A political union is a type of state, which is composed of or created out of smaller states. Unlike a personal union, the individual states share a common government and the union is recognized internationally as a single political entity. A political union may also be called a legislative union or state union.) After 1848 Germany and Italy were not unified and revolutionaries remained angry about this. Italian unification came as a result of the expansion of Piedmont-Piedmont-Sardinia (the peninsulas strongest most Liberal state) and its monarchy, the House of Savoy.

The case of Germany was somewhat different. German unification was affected by autocratic manipulation of diplomacy and war. The German Empire was reactionary and flying in the face of European Liberalism. German and Italian unification created two new great powers in Europe and the impact of these changes were to be widely felt for decades to come.

The Political Unification of Italy: Many forces were working against Italian unification, the state was very much fragmented, questions of who rules after unification were toxic, the notion of papal rule was feared in certain influential quarters and the Habsburg monarchy presented a formidable obstacle. However, some factors promoted the ‘Risorgimento’ (Resurgence) of Italy. Nationalism was increasing in the middle and upper class circles. Professionals and academics also sought it and there was, as always had been, a hatred for Austrian rule over certain parts of Italy. Most people wanted resurgence independent of the pope and the Catholic Church.

Leadership For Italian Unification: Two sources of possible leadership  for Italian unification:

1. King Victor Emmanuel II (House of Savoy) was the King of Piedmont-Sardinia and he aimed to exert his control over the entire peninsula. He was King of Italy’s most prosperous region and in 1852 he made the wise decision to appoint the brilliant politician Count Camillo di Cavour to be his Prime Minister. Cavour was an aristocratic Liberal and wanted Italian unification by expanding Piedmont-Sardinia.

2. Giuseppe Mazzini, a political activist, revolutionary, nationalist and democrat who wanted Italian unification but not by the expansion of Piedmont-Sardinia. He was an enemy of monarchical control and saw unification as a ‘common faith and purpose’ that would make Italy a democracy. He claimed that unification was the work of all the people of Italy and not just a royal desire. He wanted to mobilise the people and was involved in setting up numerous political organisations to achieve not just Italian unification but European unification. His very existence and propaganda in Italy kept the concept of unification alive.

Alliances And Warfare To Further Italian Unification: Austria’s domination of Italy was making unification very difficult. Cavour formed an alliance with Britain and France against Austria in the Crimean War. In 1854 France and Britain joined the Ottoman empire against Russia and Cavour saw by pledging Piedmont-Sardinia’s allegiance to the allies as an opportunity for future Italian unification.

The war succeeded and at the signing of the ‘Peace Of Paris’ (1856) Cavour expressed his desire to the allies for Italian unification and the threat of war with Austria. Napoleon III wanted more influence in Italy and to set up an alliance he proposed a royal union between his nephew and the daughter of King Victor Emmanuel II and that would cement relations between Piedmont-Sardinia and France. Following this, France agreed to cooperate with Piedmont-Sardinia in war against Austria. The Austrians gave the excuse when they proposed recruiting Italian troops to fight for Austrian interests and thus they became the aggressors and forced Prussia and other German states to distance themselves from Austrian aggression. Austria then invaded Piedmont-Sardinia and France mobilised it troops. However, French allegiance to Piedmont-Sardinia was called into question when Napoleon III forged a peace settlement with Austria. He believed that if Italian unification were to happen it would threaten the balance of power in Europe and that would result in damage to France. However, in the Treaty of Turin (1860), Napoleon III agreed to Piedmont-Sardinia’s annexation of most of central and northern Italy and Piedmont-Sardinia ceded Savoy and Nice and so all of northern and central Italy was unified.

Garibaldi and The Liberation of Southern Italy: Giuseppe Garibaldi was an Italian military and political figure who had a long career of struggle for Italian unification. A member of Mazzini’s ‘Young Italy’, a political movement aiming for Italian unification, he dedicated himself to the lifelong cause from an early age. After a long exile in Brazil garibaldi returned to Rome during the revolutions of 1848 and offered his services to Piedmont-Sardinia but was rebuffed. He went to Lombardy and assisted the provisional government of Milan against the Austrian occupation. The unsuccessful ‘First Italian war of Independence’ he led his legion to two minor victories. He next went to Rome and defended it against French occupation, which led to the siege of Rome. The French prevailed but a truce was negotiated and Garibaldi withdrew from Rome. After some travel bringing him to America he returned to Italy in 1854 and participated in the Austro-Sardinian War and won victories for Piedmont-Sardinia. Garibaldi took up arms again in 1866 with the full support of the Italian government in the Austro-Prussian war in which Italy had allied with Prussia against Austria and Hungary in the hope of taking Venetia from Austrian rule. He defeated the Austrians and Venetia was ceded. After the war Garibaldi led a political party seeking the capture of Rome, the ancient capital. He led a march into Rome but the papal army with the help of the French were a good match for his badly armed volunteers and after an injury had to withdraw from the papal territory. He was sent to prison and on his release he returned to his island Caprera. He sought the abolition of the papacy as ‘the most harmful of all secret societies’. When the Franco-Prussian war broke out in 1870 the Italians favoured Prussia and the French troops were withdrawn from Rome and the Italian army captured the Papal States without Garibaldi. The newly declared French Third Republic won Garibaldi support, regardless of former French hostilities, and Garibaldi went to France and led an army of volunteers that was never defeated by Prussians. After his return to Italy he retired to Caprera but remained active and even set up the ‘league Of Democracy’ (1879) which advocated universal suffrage, abolition of ecclesiastical property, emancipation of women and maintenance of a standing army. He remained active until his death in 1882.

Garibaldi’s involvement in two major conflicts during his life, namely the Austro-Prussian war (1866) in which the Austrians were defeated and Venetia became part of Italy, and the French withdrawal from Rome (1870) making it the nations capital and isolating papal control, at the start of the Franco-Prussian war (1870) led to the final, but somewhat limited, unification of Italy.

Limits of Unification: The limits to Italian unification became apparent in the following decades. Most Italians remained loyal to their family, local towns and church as well as to powerful local leaders. The majority of the population were illiterate and most spoke local dialects rather than Italian. Mass emigration to the United States and Argentina only resolved some of the problems of over-population and the Catholic Church was anti-unification condemning it to its loyal supporters as anti-religious and not to be encouraged by participation with its political leaders. This meant, to the predominantly catholic population that to vote would be an act of evil.

Italian Politics: The king of Italy ruled through a corrupt and aggressive premier, Francesco Crispi, and his mafia style parliament. He was replaced by Giovanni Giolitti in 1903 and brought stability to Italian political life. In 1904 the non-voting stance of the Catholic church allowed corruption to prosper and they relaxed their rule in the hope that voters would shun the corrupt politicians and mostly defeat any Socialist candidates.

The Rise of Italian Nationalism: Aggressive nationalism, forceful colonisation in Africa and Libya and Crispi was forced to resign after his army was crushed in the latter country. He was replaced with Giolitti whose reforms frightened employers and conservatives. Right wing activists objected that Libya was being mismanaged while left wing activists demanded withdrawal and the split was so intense that to get support Giolitti had to strike a deal with Catholic leaders but the deal collapsed and in 1914 he was forced from office. The Italian Liberal state had survived many challenges, but greater ones lay ahead.

The Unification of Germany: The unification of Germany, like Italy, had many formidable obstacles. Firstly, in the wake of 1848, the upper classes were wary of change and feared strong nationalistic tendencies which would lead to equalisation of all citizens and thus damaging the status quo. Secondly, which power, Austria or Prussia, could help Germany in the pursuit of unification? Some wanted Austrians excluded from a unified Germany and some wanted Prussians excluded. Thirdly, in both Austria and Prussia repression was rampant and that German unification would not be achieved through liberalism. Prussia had some advantages in territorial possessions, a strong economy and the population was homogenous (German speakers). It was a successful Protestant state and thus was in a strong position to spearhead and advance ‘natural unification’.

On the other hand ‘Catholic’ Austria dominated a multinational population. The Habsburg monarchy had a lot to lose by encouraging nationalism that would catch fire within all imperial boundaries. German nationalists were not agreed on the Austria Prussia question and liberals wanted a unified Germany with a parliament independent of Austrian or Prussian aristocracy or autocratic influence.

William I, Bismarck and the Resolution of the Constitutional Crisis: The first step in the process was to ensure the monarchy was equal to the task. The Liberal William I took control and made it clear from the outset that he was anxious to serve moderate conservatives but also wanted to rule constitutionally. Liberals won a clear victory and those who favoured German unification now had a public forum in the Prussian parliament of 1858. Businesspersons believed that unification would be good for trade and so the stage was set.

Meanwhile the Austrian war against Piedmont-Sardinia and France had divided Prussians; there was contempt for Austria for engineering the war on one side, on the other there were those who were impressed by Italy’s successful bid for unification and the strategy they employed. Thus proving that unification was not as elusive as it seemed. In 1858 pan-German associations formed as unification pressure groups started to appear. The largest of these was Nationalverein (National Union) seeking a constitutional and parliamentary German state.

The Prussian government were very suspicious of the National Union because its members favoured political freedom. Members were mostly middle class and had already rebuffed membership of workers unions.

Army reform was an issue that would contribute significantly to German unification. The minister of war wanted expensive reforms to the army budget but liberals demanded a draft for all citizens. Government, despite its Liberal majority, sanctioned funds for military reformation and this event was significant tin that it provided parliamentary sanction to the unchallenged power of the Prussian army. The Liberal opposition formed a new party ‘The German Progressive Party’ and declined to vote and the government had to be dismissed. A second Liberal government was then elected but they too rejected army reform and the king was forced to appoint ultra-conservative Count Otto Von Bismarck as the new prime Minister.

As prime Minister, Bismarck was convinced he could create a new German state that would not be too large, or too democratic, for Prussia to dominate. Bismarck spent three decades holding power and shrewdly manipulating domestic and international politics. His politics became known as ‘Realpolitik’ – the pursuit of a nation’s self interest based on costs and consequences of action. It lacked moral and ethical consideration and was primarily about Prussian domination of Europe and therefore German domination of Europe.

Bismarck announced that the government would operate without constitutional authorisation and did so for four years. He struck against liberalism by suppressing press freedoms and public congregations of a political nature.

Realpolitik: Realpolitik refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. The term realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian. Balancing power to keep the European pentarchy was the means for keeping the peace, and careful Realpolitikers tried to avoid arms races.

‘Realpolitik’ was coined by Ludwig von Rochau, a German writer and politician in the 19th century. In his writings he describes the meaning of the term: “The political organism of human society, the state, originates and subsists in virtue of a natural law which man, with or without consciousness or will, carries out… The imperative of Nature on which the existence of states depends is fulfilled in the historically given state through the antagonism of various forces; its condition, extent and achievements varying infinitely according to space and time. The study of the forces that shape, sustain and transform the state is the starting-point of all political knowledge. The first step towards understanding leads to the conclusion that the law of the strong over political life performs a function similar to the law of gravity over the material world.

Realpolitik in Europe: As used in the U.S., the term is often similar to power politics, while in Germany, Realpolitik is used to describe modest (realistic) politics in opposition to overzealous (unrealistic) politics, though it is associated with the nationalism of the 19th century.

Realpolitik policies were created after the revolutions of 1848 as a tool to strengthen states and tighten social order. The most famous German advocate of “Realpolitik” was Otto von Bismarck, the First Chancellor (1862–1890) to Wilhelm I of the Kingdom of Prussia. Bismarck used Realpolitik to achieve Prussian dominance in Germany, as he manipulated political issues such as the Schleswig-Holstein Question and the Hohenzollern candidature to antagonize other countries, possibly with the intention of war.

Characteristic of Bismarck’s political action was an almost Machiavellian policy, demonstrating a pragmatic view of the real political world. One example of this is his willingness to adopt some of the “liberal” social policies of employee insurance, for example; realistically, by doing so, he could manipulate small changes from the top down, rather than face the possibility of major change, from the bottom up.

Another example, Prussia’s seemingly illogical move of not demanding territory from a defeated Austria, a move that later led to the unification of Germany, is one of the often-cited examples of Realpolitik. Similarly, in the German Green Party, people willing to compromise are referred to as Realos (realists), and opponents as Fundis (fundamentalists or ideologues).

Another example of Realpolitik in use is Adolf Hitler’s attempt to obtain a predominantly German region of Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland in 1938. At first, Hitler demanded then President Edvard Beneš hand over that region of the country, but Beneš refused. Subsequently, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave Sudetenland to Hitler in the (ultimately vain) hope of preventing a war, as codified in the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain was able to do this because Great Britain wielded power over Czechoslovakia, therefore it was able to overrule Beneš’ refusal.

E. H. Carr (Edward Hallett Carr) was a liberal realist and later left-wing British historian and international relations theorist who argued for realistic international policies versus utopian ones. Carr described realism as the acceptance that what exists is right, and the belief that there is no reality or forces outside history such as God. He argued that in realism there is no moral dimension, and that what is successful is right, and what is unsuccessful is wrong. Carr was convinced that the Bolsheviks were destined to win the Russian Civil War, and approved of the Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s opposition to the anti-Bolshevik ideas of the War Secretary Winston Churchill under the grounds of realpolitik. In Carr’s opinion, Churchill’s support of the White Russian movement was folly as Russia was likely to be a great power once more under the leadership of the Bolsheviks.

Relation To Realism: Realpolitik is related to the philosophy of political realism, and both suggest working from the hypothesis that it is chiefly based on the pursuit, possession, and application of power. Realpolitik, however, is a prescriptive guideline limited to policy-making (like foreign policy), while realism is a descriptive paradigm, a wider theoretical and methodological framework, aimed at describing, explaining and, eventually, predicting events in the international relations domain.

Alliances and Warfare to Establish Prussian Leadership: Russia and France had the most to lose if Germany became unified. The 1863 Polish revolt against Russian domination gave Bismarck a great chance to befriend the Russians. Other nations were sympathetic with the Polish while Bismarck took the side of the Russians and signed an agreement to side with the Russians against the Poles. Prussian-Austrian relations were soured. Bismarck’s first war was in Denmark over the Schleswig-Holstein question. The Schleswig-Holstein Question was a complex of diplomatic and other issues arising in the 19th century from the relations of two duchies, Schleswig and Holstein to the Danish crown and to the German Confederation.

Schleswig was a part of Denmark during the Viking Age, and became a Danish duchy in the 12th century. Denmark repeatedly tried to reintegrate the Duchy of Schleswig into the Danish kingdom. On March 27, 1848 Frederick VII of Denmark announced to the people of Schleswig the promulgation of a liberal constitution under which the duchy, while preserving its local autonomy, would become an integral part of Denmark.

This led to an open uprising by Schleswig-Holstein’s large German majority in support of independence from Denmark and of close association with the German Confederation.

The military intervention of the Kingdom of Prussia supported the uprising: the Prussian army drove Denmark’s troops from Schleswig and Holstein in the First Schleswig War of 1848–1851. The second attempt to integrate the Duchy of Schleswig into the Danish kingdom due to the signing of the November Constitution by King Christian IX of Denmark was seen as a violation of the London Protocol, leading to the Second Schleswig War of 1864.

Though Schleswig, Holstein and Denmark all had had the same hereditary ruler for some centuries, the inheritance rules were not quite the same. The Dukedoms of Schleswig and Holstein were inherited under the Salic law, which ignored females: the Kingdom of Denmark had a slightly different inheritance law, which included male heirs inheriting through the female line. In the 19th century this slight difference in inheritance law meant that when the childless King Frederick VII of Denmark died the Kingdom of Denmark would be separated from the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein because two different people would inherit the Kingship and Dukedoms. This finally happened on the death of Frederick in 1863.

The central question was whether the duchy of Schleswig was or was not an integral part of the dominions of the Danish crown, with which it had been associated in the Danish monarchy for centuries or whether Schleswig should, together with Holstein, become an independent part of the German Confederation. Schleswig itself was a fiefdom of Denmark, as the duchy of Holstein was a German fief and therefore part of the German Confederation with the Danish king as duke.

This involved the question, raised by the death of the last common male heir to both Denmark and the two duchies, as to the proper succession in the duchies, and the constitutional questions arising out of the relations of the duchies to the Danish crown, to each other, and of Holstein to the German Confederation.

Much of the history of Schleswig-Holstein has a bearing on this question. Following the defeat of Germany in World War I, the Danish majority area of Northern Schleswig was finally unified with Denmark after two plebiscites organised by the Allied powers. A small minority of ethnic Germans still lives in Northern Schleswig.

The North German Confederation: The North German Confederation 1866–71, was a federation of 22 independent states of northern Germany. It was formed by a constitution accepted by the member states in 1867 and controlled military and foreign policy. It included the new Reichstag, a parliament elected by universal manhood suffrage and a secret ballot.

The Reichstag could debate and deal with budgets, but it had limited power compared to the Federal Council, which represented the member states. The Confederation was dominated by its designer and first and only Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, who was also the prime minister of the Kingdom of Prussia, which had 80% of the population. After defeating Austria in war, Prussia had just annexed the previously independent nations of Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, Nassau and Frankfurt. In 1871 it became the basis of a new nation, the German Empire, which adopted most parts of the federation’s constitution and its flag.

It succeeded the German Confederation. Its territory comprised the parts of the German Confederation north of the river Main (with the exception of Luxembourg), plus Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Prussia’s eastern territories and the Duchy of Schleswig, but excluded Austria, Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, Luxembourg, Limburg, Liechtenstein and the southern parts of the Grand Duchy of Hesse.

It cemented Prussian control over northern Germany in economic matters, especially through the Zollverein (Customs Union), which included the states of southern Germany that were not in the Confederation. The most important work of the new federation was to promote industrial freedom, as demanded by the liberal elements of the business community. For example, economic tolls and restrictions were ended and a federal postal and telegraph system was set up. The result was faster economic growth, and an increase in personal freedom.

The Confederation was replaced by the new German Empire in 1871. Its constitution was largely adopted by the Empire and remained in effect until 1918. This constitution granted immense powers to the new chancellor, Bismarck who was appointed by the President of the Bundesrat (Prussia). This was because the constitution made the chancellor ‘responsible’, though not accountable, to the Reichstag. This therefore allowed him the benefit of being the link between the emperor and the people. The Chancellor retained powers over the military budget, after the constitutional crisis that engulfed Wilhelm I in 1862. Laws also prevented certain civil servants becoming members of the Reichstag, those who were Bismarck’s main opposition in the 1860s.

The Confederation came into being after Prussia defeated Austria and the other remaining states of the German Confederation in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Its constitution, which came into force on 1 July 1867, was written by Bismarck, with major changes made by the delegates to the North German Reichstag.

Executive power was vested in a president, a hereditary office of the King of Prussia. He was assisted by a chancellor responsible only to him. Legislative power was vested in a two-house parliament. The states were represented in the Bundesrat (Federal Council) with 43 seats. The people were represented by the Reichstag (Diet), elected by male universal suffrage. The Bundesrat membership was extended before 1871 with the creation of the Zollverein Parliament in 1867, an attempt to create closer unity with the southern states by permitting representatives to be sent to the Bundesrat.

For all intents and purposes, Prussia exercised effective control over the confederation. With four-fifths of the states its territory and population, the Hohenzollern kingdom was larger than the other 21 states combined. It had 17 votes in the Bundesrat, and could easily control the proceedings by making deals with the smaller states. Additionally, Bismarck served as Prussia’s foreign minister as well, and thus had the right to instruct the Prussian representatives to the Bundesrat.

Following the Confederation’s quick, decisive victory over the Second French Empire and the subsequently formed Third Republic in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden (together with parts of the Grand Duchy of Hesse which had not originally joined the confederation), unified with the states of the Confederation to form the German Empire, with William I taking the new title of German Emperor (rather than Emperor of Germany as Austria was not included).

The Franco-Prussian War and German Unification: Prussia’s victory over Austria increased tensions with France. The French Emperor, Napoleon III, feared that a powerful Germany would change the balance of power in Europe (the French opposition politician Adolphe Thiers had correctly observed that it had really been France who had been defeated at Sadowa). Bismarck, at the same time, did not avoid war with France. He believed that if the German states perceived France as the aggressor, they would unite behind the King of Prussia. In order to achieve this Bismarck kept Napoleon III involved in various intrigues whereby France might gain territory from Luxembourg or Belgium – France never achieved any such gain, but was made to look greedy and untrustworthy.

A suitable premise for war arose in 1870, when the German Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was offered the Spanish throne, which had been vacant since a revolution in 1868. France blocked the candidacy and demanded assurances that no member of the House of Hohenzollern becomes King of Spain. To provoke France into declaring war with Prussia, Bismarck published the Ems Dispatch, a carefully edited version of a conversation between King Wilhelm and the French ambassador to Prussia, Count Benedetti. This conversation had been edited so that each nation felt that its ambassador had been disrespected and ridiculed, thus inflaming popular sentiment on both sides in favour of war.

France mobilized and declared war on 19 July, five days after the dispatch was published in Paris. It was seen as the aggressor and German states, swept up by nationalism and patriotic zeal, rallied to Prussia’s side and provided troops. After all, it came as a sort of déjà vu: current French public musings of the river Rhine as “the natural French border” and the memory of the French revolutionary/Napoleonic wars 1790/1815 (many German territories were devastated serving as theatres of war and the sacking the old German empire by Napoleon) was still alive.

Russia remained aloof and used the opportunity to remilitarise the Black Sea, demilitarised after the Crimean War of the 1850s. Both of Bismarck’s sons served as officers in the Prussian cavalry. The Franco-Prussian War (1870) was a great success for Prussia. The German army, under nominal command of the King but controlled by Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, won victory after victory. The major battles were all fought in one month (7 August till 1 September), and both French armies were captured at Sedan and Metz, the latter after a siege of some weeks. (Napoleon III was taken prisoner at Sedan and kept in Germany for a while in case Bismarck had need of him to head a puppet regime; he later died in exile in England in 1873.)

The remainder of the war featured a siege of Paris, the city was “ineffectually bombarded”; the new French republican regime then tried, without success, to relieve Paris with various hastily assembled armies and increasingly bitter partisan warfare.

Bismarck acted immediately to secure the unification of Germany. He negotiated with representatives of the southern German states, offering special concessions if they agreed to unification. The negotiations succeeded; while the war was in its final phase King Wilhelm of Prussia was proclaimed German Emperor on 18 January 1871 in the Hall of Mirrors in the Château de Versailles. The new German Empire was a federation: each of its 25 constituent states (kingdoms, grand duchies, duchies, principalities, and free cities) retained some autonomy.

The King of Prussia, as German Emperor, was not sovereign over the entirety of Germany; he was only primus inter pares, or first among equals. However, he held the presidency of the Bundesrat, which met to discuss policy presented from the Chancellor (whom the president appointed).

At the end, France had to surrender Alsace and part of Lorraine, because Moltke and his generals insisted that it was needed as a defensive barrier. Bismarck opposed the annexation because he did not wish to make a permanent enemy of France. France was also required to pay an indemnity.

Nationalists versus Internationalist Movements: Bismarck did not trust the Catholic Centre Party and the Social Democratic party and doubted their loyalty to him. In 1870 the pope asserted the doctrine of ‘papal infallibility’ and to Bismarck this meant that Catholics could be ordered not to obey his rule. He launched his ‘Kulturkampf’ (“cultural struggle”) and priests had to complete a secular curriculum in order to be ordained and the state would only recognise civil marriages. Gradually Bismarck began to realise that the Catholic party might be useful to him against the Social Democrats and he relaxed his laws and abandoned Kulturkampf. However Catholics and Jews were forbidden high posts in the civil service. The state helped German Protestants to prosper in Poland and buy up properties that would otherwise fall into the hands of Catholics who made up most of the population there.

Bismarck became obsessed with destroying the Social Democrats who were proving popular at elections but still only held a handful of seats in the Reichstag (the main legislature of the German state under the Second and Third Reichs.) Two attempts to kill Emperor William II gave Bismarck, who claimed it was a social plot, the ammunition he needed to convince the Reichstag to pass antisocialist legislation that denied socialists the freedom of assembly, association and press. The police acted and suppressed socialist activities and forced workers to quit unions.

William II and German Nationalism: in 1888 William II became emperor and Bismarck lasted only two years as his chancellor. He was in favour of improving conditions for workers while Bismarck wanted more suppression and, after many bitter arguments, Bismarck resigned. His replacements could do little or nothing to control William II who wanted popularity with the people and defined himself as an agent of God.

German conservatism was transforming and becoming more nationalistic and anti-Semitic. The economic crash of 1873 was blamed on Jewish greed. Some Germans identified Jews with liberalism and socialism and in 1892 the German Conservative Party made anti-Semitism part of its party platform. Jews were second class citizens and nothing they could say or do could change that.

The social democrats were still gaining in popularity and were engulfed by the mood of aggressive nationalism that was sweeping across Germany. The German Empire embodied the decline of liberalism and the rise of aggressive nationalism in late 19^th century Europe.

National Awakenings in The Habsburg Lands: Germany and Italy were politically unified when leaders mobilised nationalist feeling in upper class circles and carried out aggressive foreign policies and nationalism threatened the existence of the Hapsburg monarchy. The unification of Germany and Italy altered the balance of power in Europe. Unified Germany (not Austria) was the strongest state in central Europe.

Diversity and Cohesion in the Hapsburg Empire: The provinces that formed the Hapsburg domains represented a wide diversity of linguistic, cultural and historical diversity. However the largest group was the Germans who accounted for 35% of the population. The question here is how did the empire stay together with such a diversity of ethnic rivalries and demands?

The answer to this is the process of state making and the discouragement of nationalism. The tradition of the Hapsburg monarchy was drenched in history and in these revolutionary times this represented tradition, which a concept was embraced by a population reliant on custom as security in the face of change. Secondly, the Hapsburgs relied on the middle classes and they reciprocated by investing in grand design and architecture which created a culture of fine art and this was a unification of all ethnic tastes and desires. Thirdly, there was widespread support by other European nobles for the Hapsburgs and some of these even depended on them for continued survival. Fourthly, Catholicism, the religion of the majority of the peoples of the Hapsburg domains was another factor for unity in Austria. Fifthly, the imperial army retained considerable prestige and they helped hold the monarchy together. German speakers held the bigger offices in the army and they rarely interfered (as in France) with social affairs such as strikes by workers.

Repression of Nationalism In The Hapsburg Empire: Nationalism was somewhat limited in the Hapsburg domains and the monarchy feared demands for autonomy or independence would pull the empire apart. Nationalism could also challenge the empires structure and the success of German and Italian nationalism also threatened the empires territorial integrity by raising the possibility that the very small Italian and, above all, the German speaking parts of the empire might prefer inclusion in Italy or Germany, respectively.

Hungarians were the second largest ethnic group within the empire and they demanded political influence commensurate with the size of the Magyar territorial domains. Baron Alexander von Bach was an Austrian politician and his most notable achievement was instituting a system of centralised control at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria.

He served as Minister of Justice in 1848 and 1849 and then Minister of the Interior from 1849 to 1859. A well-known liberal lawyer, he was first called a “minister of barricades.” However, he gradually accepted conservative views, endorsing the centralizing constitutional program of Prince Schwarzenberg in March 1849 and thus further inflaming Hungarian sentiments.

After the death of Schwarzenberg in 1852, he largely dictated policy in Austria and Hungary. Bach centralised administrative authority for the Austrian Empire, but he also endorsed reactionary policies that reduced freedom of the press and abandoned public trials. He represented later the Absolutist (or Klerikalabsolutist) direction, which culminated in the concordat of August 1855 that gave the Roman Catholic Church control over education and family life.

On the other hand the economic freedom rose greatly in 1850s. The internal customs duties were abolished. Bach was created Baron (Freiherr) in 1854. He was also the guardian of Science Academy in 1849 – 1859.

Prisons were full of political prisoners; during his administration, Czech nationalist Karel Havlíček Borovský was expatriated to Brixen (1851 – 1855). The pillars of so-called Bach system (Bachsches System) were, in the words of Adolf Fischhof, four “armies”: a standing army of soldiers, a sitting army of office holders, a kneeling army of priests and a fawning army of sneaks. His fall in 1859 was highly caused by the failure in Italian war against Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia and Napoleon III. Bach served as Ambassador to the Holy See in 1859-1867. He died secluded, in 1893.

Political Crisis And Foreign Policy Disasters: In the wake of the Austrian defeat in Italy and mounting German hostility and the rise of neoabsolutism Francis Joseph dismissed Bach as head of government and promulgated a new constitution. The October Diploma (1860) re-established a form of conservative federalism.

The October Diploma (1860): The October Diploma was a constitution adopted by Habsburg Emperor Franz Joseph on October 20, 1860. The Diploma attempted to increase the power of the conservative nobles by giving them more power over their own lands through a program of aristocratic federalism. This policy was a failure almost from the start, and Franz Josef was forced to make further concessions in the February Patent of 1861. Even so, Historians have argued that the October Diploma began the “constitutional” period of the Habsburg Empire

In 1860, Franz Josef and the Habsburg Empire were “threatened with a crisis of existence.” 1856 had begun a period of diplomatic isolation following the defeat of Russia, a key Austrian ally, in the Crimean War. The second war of Italian Independence had ended in 1859 with an Austrian defeat at the hands of Napoleon III, and Franz Josef was forced to cede Lombardy to the French. These losses worsened the already weak state of the Austrian economy and exposed the weaknesses of the empire’s bureaucracy. Both liberals and conservatives were anxious for reform after a decade of near absolutist rule, while Hungarians and Czechs wanted greater autonomy over their own affairs.

In March 1860, Franz Josef asked the Imperial Parliament, or Reichstag, to advise the emperor on matters of reform. The Reichstag, composed almost entirely of conservative aristocrats, naturally recommended a reconstruction of the empire based on the principles of aristocratic federalism. Their report was ignored by Franz Josef, but by the end of the year, he would adopt the principles of aristocratic federalism in his own document.

It was the realities of foreign policy that led the emperor to adopt the conservatives’ ideas. He hoped to establish a Holy Alliance with Czar Alexander II of Russia and King William I of Prussia and believed that a strongly conservative domestic policy would be an advantage in the upcoming negotiations. He demanded that a constitution be written within a week and settled the general principles of the document during a train stop en route to the conference.

Results: Historian A.J.P Taylor called the Diploma a victory for the Old Conservative nobility. The Habsburg government was reorganized on a federal basis, and the provincial diets were given the power to pass laws with the Emperor and the Reichstag. In a concession to the liberals, the membership of the Reichstag was increased by over a hundred new members. However, the Diploma called for the Reichstag to meet very infrequently, and its jurisdiction covered only part of the empire. The provincial diets were packed with the landed aristocracy, thus giving them more direct power over their own lands. Hungary was given special status in the Reichstag through a provision that called for non-Hungarian delegates to meet separately from the whole body to discuss non-Hungarian matters. This, however, fell far short of the Hungarian leaders’ desire for greater autonomy and recognition.

Almost immediately after the Diploma was passed, it became clear that it would not last long. The empire’s finances continued to fail, further showing the weaknesses of the current administration. Prussia and the German Confederation began to sense a weakness in the monarchy that could be exploited; while Hungarians were furious with the few reforms they had been given. In the end, it was the German liberals who were eventually able to effect change. These liberals made up a substantial number of the most powerful bureaucrats and, while they often opposed the emperor, they were supporters of a strong centralized state instead of a weak, federalized one. Through their influence, the emperor was pressured into appointing the liberal Anton von Schmerling as Secretary of State in December. Von Schmerling took to rewriting the October Diploma, and in February 1861, the emperor adopted the February Patent.

Creation Of The Dual Monarchy: The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (German: Ausgleich, Hungarian: Kiegyezés) established the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. The Compromise re-established the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hungary, separate from and no longer subject to the Austrian Empire. Under the Compromise, the Cisleithanian (Austrian) and Transleithanian (Hungarian) regions of the state were governed by separate Parliaments and Prime Ministers. Unity was maintained through rule of a single head of state of both territories and governments. The armed forces were combined with the Emperor-King as commander-in-chief. Certain key ministries were under the direct authority of the Crown, and served the whole Empire and Kingdom.

History: In the Middle Ages Austria was a quasi-independent state within the Holy Roman Empire, ruled by the House of Habsburg, while the Kingdom of Hungary was a sovereign state outside the Empire. In 1526 at the Battle of Mohács, Hungary was defeated and largely conquered by the Ottoman Empire. The crown of Hungary was inherited by the Habsburgs, with part of the Kingdom preserved from the Ottomans, who were subsequently driven out of Hungary in 1699. From 1526 to 1806, Austria and Hungary were in a “union of crowns,” having the same ruler but remaining two countries. In the 18th century, Hungary was legally subordinated to Austria, though remaining nominally sovereign.

In 1804–6, the Holy Roman Empire was abolished, and the Austrian Empire was created. The Austrian Empire included Hungary as a constituent state, no longer sovereign. This was resented by the Hungarian people, or Magyars. Nationalist sentiment among the Magyars and other peoples of the region threatened the stability of the state and the power of the Austrian elite.

In the failed Hungarian Revolution of 1848, the Magyars tried to regain independence, and were defeated by the Austrian Empire only with the aid of the Russian Empire. After 1848, the Empire instituted several constitutional reforms, trying to resolve the problem, but without success.

In 1866, Austria was completely defeated in the Austro-Prussian War and its position as the leading state of Germany ended forever, as the remaining German minor states were soon absorbed into the German Empire created by Prussia. Austria also lost almost all of her remaining claims and influence in Italy, which had been her chief foreign policy interest. The state needed to redefine itself to maintain unity in the face of nationalism.

Adoption: In the wake of the defeat by Prussia, there were renewed calls in Hungary for complete separation from Austria. To avoid this, Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria and his court floated the suggestion of a dual monarchy.

Hungarian diplomat Ferenc Deák is considered the intellectual force behind the Compromise. Deák initially wanted independence for Hungary and supported the 1848 Revolution, but he broke with the outright nationalists and advocated a modified union under the Habsburgs. Deák took the line that while Hungary had the right to full internal independence, questions of defence and foreign affairs were “common” to both Austria and Hungary under the Pragmatic Sanction. He also felt that Hungary benefited through continued unity with wealthier, more industrialized Austria, and that the Compromise would end the pressures on Austria of continually choosing between the Magyar and Slav populations of the Kingdom of Hungary.

Imperial Chancellor Beust quickly negotiated the Compromise with the Hungarian leaders. Beust was particularly eager to renew the conflict with Prussia, and thought a quick settlement with Hungary would make that possible. Franz Joseph and Deák signed the Compromise, and it was ratified by the restored Diet of Hungary on 30 March 1867.

Beust’s desired revenge against Prussia did not materialize. When in 1870, Beust wanted Austria-Hungary to support France against Prussia, Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Andrássy was “vigorously opposed,” effectively vetoing Austrian intervention.

Terms: Under the Compromise, Austria and Hungary each had separate parliaments that met in Vienna and Buda (later Budapest), respectively, that passed and maintained separate laws. Each region had its own government, headed by its own prime minister. The “common monarchy” consisted of the emperor-king, and the common ministers of foreign affairs, defence, and finance in Vienna. The terms of the Compromise were renegotiated every ten years.

Continuing pressures: The Compromise of 1867 was meant to be a temporary solution to the problems the state faced, but the resulting system was maintained until the forced dissolution of the state following World War I. The favouritism shown to the Magyars—the second largest ethnic group in the state after the Germans—caused discontent on the part of other ethnic groups like the Czechs and Romanians. Although a “Nationalities Law” was enacted to preserve the rights of ethnic minorities, the two parliaments took very different approaches to this issue.

The basic problem in the later years was that the Compromise with Hungary only whetted the appetites of non-Hungarian minorities and regions in Hungary that were historically within the boundaries of the previous Hungarian Empire. In these, the majority of Hungarians felt they had unwillingly—and only under coercion—accepted the Compromise. The Austrian Archduke—whom was separately crowned King of Hungary—had to swear in his coronation oath not to revise or diminish the historic Imperial (Hungarian) domains to the Hungarian Nobility, Magnates, and Upper Classes.

These Hungarian groups never acquiesced to granting “their” minorities the recognition and local autonomy, which the Germans had given of the Magyars themselves in the self-same Compromise.

As such, several ethnic minorities faced increased pressures of Magyarization. Furthermore, the renegotiations that occurred every ten years often led to constitutional crises. Ultimately the Compromise—intended to fix the problems faced by a multi-national state—failed to sublet the internal pressures the old unitary state had felt. As to which extent the Dual Monarchy stabilized the country in the face of rising nationalism is debated even today—particularly by those ethnic groups thus disenfranchised.

Conclusion: The unification of Italy and Germany had both largely been affected by the expansion of the most powerful states that would become part of the unified state that resulted. Cavour transformed Piedmont-Sardinia into a liberal monarchy through reforms before achieving the unification of Italy. In Germany Bismarck had harnessed economic liberalism to the goals of conservative political nationalism in achieving the unification of Germany. In the wake of the 1848 revolutions nationalism had proven itself a major force for unification in Italy and Germany. In the Hapsburg lands nationalism was a force that came to challenge the existence of the empire. In the age of militant nationalism, ethnic tensions within the Austro-Hungarian Empire would become those of Europe. Each of Europe’s three other powers, Britain, Russia and France had political unification for centuries and had had no revolution in 1848. France emerged from this period with an authoritarian empire.

Revolutions Of 1848

1848 was the year of Revolutions in Europe. In Sicily, France, London, Brussels, Zürich and other major European countries those who were exiled, through poverty or war, from their homelands began to return to their, by now, more prosperous and peaceful Native places. The new republic in France was the catalyst for Revolutionary central Europe. Clumsy attempts at suppression led to forced acceptance of a Liberal agenda. Only Britain and Russia were to escape the Revolutionary wave. In Many countries the Monarchy gave in to Liberal demands and new Governments were appointed. A common process was present in many of the European Revolutions. Mobilisation of Liberalism, republicans and nationalists unifying to anti-regime units combined with harvest and business failure had increased dissatisfaction with Conservatism. Essentially, middle class movements with the support of artisans believed that political change would inevitably change trade and profits but such victory would only come at a heavy price.
Revolutionary Mobilisation: The late 1840s brought food shortages to Europe. Unemployment plagued Manufacturing towns. Economic discontent was not the cause of a wave of Revolutions across Europe. Hard times provided the impetus to political opponents of existing regimes. Liberal reformers pursuing change were ready to push for male suffrage, press freedom, radical reforms to improve the conditions of the labouring poor. When a spark ignited the fires of protest, moderates and radicals joined forces in Revolution. The sudden overthrow of the ‘July Monarchy’ in France was that spark.
The February Revolution In France: The Monarchy in France had more enemies than friends. Nobles doubted its legitimacy while others demanded a more popular sovereignty. A disastrous harvest in 1846, which led to a severe recession in 1848 as workers, demanded voting rights and state assistance for their trades. A giant banquet on February 22nd 1848 in Paris was banned and in protest Demonstrators paraded the streets and the National Guard refused to disperse the crowd. However, as the day wore on violence broke out and forty people were shot dead. Protesters barricaded the streets and after the King was forced to abdicate the victorious crowd proclaimed the Second French republic at the town hall. Universal male suffrage and abolition of slavery in the French colonies were proclaimed. Soon the Revolution spread in the provinces of France and liberty trees were planted all across the country. The euphoric Revolutionary wave had begun in the new republic. Political clubs began to crop up and new newspapers began to appear and political awareness was on the increase.
Revolution in The German States: German liberals and radicals had some fundamental differences. Liberals bided their time as radicals were more restive. The ‘hungry forties’ in Germany meant frustrated citizens started to cause riots and the formation of so called ‘craftsmen clubs’ meant political ideology began to spread. Demands for an end to feudalism, repression, unconstitutional states and voting expansion were proliferating. The outbreak of the 1848 Revolution in France forced the German states to start making concessions. One of the most significant of these was the ‘march Government’ of 1848 which was formed out of fear of Revolution. Barricades were erected at Altenburg and the military executed 250 people. The shootings led to further riots and soon the King of Prussia relented and announced unification with Germany. Industrialisation was also a source of civil unrest as artisans struggled to compete with mechanisation and mass production. Clubs and unions started to form in other German states that saw Prussian success. In a short few months Germany was unified and the political landscape had changed in favour of Liberalism.
Revolution in Central Europe: In Habsburg the liberals wanted constitutional reform, emancipation of peasantry, freedom of press and voting rights. Rebels in Hungary also had similar demands and so had Austria. Poland and Italy sought freedom from Habsburg rule. Liberals and radicals in central Europe followed the lead of France and students and artisans demanded reforms. The Habsburg dynasty hopes for holding its Empire together was collapsing and fading into oblivion. Revolution soon came to Bohemia with demands for independence. The fire of Revolution was widespread.
Revolution in The Italian States: Italians revolted against Austrian rule. Italian demands for political reform, Italian unification, radicals wanted a republic and workers wanted improved benefits. Street riots echoing Paris, Berlin and Vienna were organised.
The Elusive Search For Revolutionary Consensus: The Revolutions of 1848 generated resistance from the political and social forces that had most to lose. In Prussia it was Kings and Nobles, in Habsburg the Emperor and his army, in France the upper classes. The split between liberals and radicals worked to the advantage of the oppositions.
Crisis In France: In France the political crisis intensified by May 15th 1848. Up to this point all Revolutions in France were caused by the fact that rulers that came to power were Conservative. That was the case up to Louis Philippe. He extended voting rights among other privileges to middle classes but also retained some of the qualities of previous rulers. The lower classes remained ignored and eventually Louis Philippe abdicated to England after civil unrest by the lower classes and the French second republic was formed. This Government got off to a good start. It introduced universal adult suffrage (everyone over 21 could now vote) and also made dramatic changes, for the better, to the streets of Paris and started to ‘national workshops’ scheme of Government supported employment for skilled and unskilled workers. However, these workshops were never financially viable and in a short period of time the system collapsed due to oversubscription. The Government had no choice but to terminate the service which left thousands of men unemployed and infuriated and the so called ‘June Days’ began. More barricades were erected and fighting broke out. After three days of bloodshed the insurgents were defeated and departed and the Revolution abandoned. New laws were introduced to restrict freedom of press and public assembly while political clubs were closed down and women banned from political involvement. By November the new elections introduced Louis Napoleon Bonaparte as best candidate and he won with an overwhelming majority and became President of the second republic.
The Frankfurt Parliament: The Frankfurt assembly of 1848 was the first freely elected Parliament for all of Germany and it owed its existence to the March Revolution in the states of the German confederation. In the German states liberals and radicals split as Conservatives gained momentum. Liberals wanted unification under a constitutional Monarchy while radicals wanted a republic. In May 1848 over eight hundred elected delegates met at Frankfurt’s St. Paul’s Church intending to share the future of the German states. Delegates had many different views as to how Germany should be unified and after months of deliberation the solution of a ‘smaller Germany’ came about. The Parliament voted that any state could join the Union but only if it had German speaking Natives. Using the ‘American Declaration of Independence’ as a template the Frankfurt parliament declared the equality of every citizen. However, before the parliament could approve the constitution proposed by the Frankfurt liberals the King dissolved it in April 1849 and declared a state of emergency. Liberal abstentions and popular indifference gave Conservative domination and they created a new system of Nobles, officials and churchmen and others selected by King. The Frankfurt Parliament was an abject failure for liberals and nationalists. Germany would not be unified by liberals.
Counter Revolution: A lack of consensus among the Revolutionaries led to counter Revolutions in the Habsburg Empire and in German and Italian states. Ethic conflicts broke out across Europe and landowners and peasants went to war. The complexity of central Europe was far from being resolved by the 1848 Revolutions.
Counter Revolution In Habsburg Central Europe: The confusion of competing national claims and rivalries within the Habsburg Empire made counter Revolution an easy task. To all states, freedom meant many things to many people. The only real agreement was on the contempt held for the Habsburg policies. This contempt for Austrian control was rampant. One by one in the German states the March Ministries of 1848 fell from power as rulers counter revolted against parliaments and assemblies that were quickly rendered powerless. Scattered radical insurrections failed. The German Revolution of 1848 was over and in August 1851 the German confederation annulled the basic rights of the German people. The major work of the Frankfurt parliament had been undone.
Prussian And Austrian Rivalry: Now that the German Revolution had been swept away by counter Revolution the Prussian Monarchy proposed the creation of a Prussian union. It would consist of two unions. The German confederation and all German speaking nations. However, the proposal had a short life span because both Prussia and Austria wanted European domination.
Counter Revolution In The Italian States: In 1848 Revolutionaries challenged the authority of the Pope in the Papal States. An insurrection against Pope Pius IX was suppressed but yet another outbreak came in Rome. In Rome, after Pope Pius fled a new cabinet met workers demands and confiscated church property. In elections, the radicals won an overwhelming victory and the Roman Republic was proclaimed. French troops were summonsed by Pope Pius but they had to retreat when met by resistance. Pro Papal forces were sent in by Naples and Spain and the French shelled Rome in 1849. The constitutional assembly capitulated under force and soon the lack of strong popular support for unification restored old powers.
The Agony of The French Second Republic: The French Second Republic (or simply the Second Republic) was the republican government of France between the 1848 Revolution and the coup by Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, which initiated the Second Empire. It officially adopted the motto Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. The Second Republic witnessed the tension between the “Social and Democratic Republic” (French: la République démocratique et sociale) and a Liberal form of Republic, which exploded during the June Days Uprising of 1848.
Insurrection and Suppression: In France, the democratic socialist movement was gaining momentum winning major support among peasants. The ‘Montagnards’ called for progressive taxation, higher wages, no tax on wine, credit facilities for peasants and free primary schools. The left lost some credibility in the aftermath of a failed insurrection in 1849 when the French army were sent to support the Pope in Rome, which the left claimed, was a violation of the new constitution. The insurrection did not draw enough support to defeat the French army and the insurrection was quelled. However, Louis Napoleon was given the necessary motivation to act against the left wing liberals and ordered suppression of the left and curtailed freedom of association and assembly. For now, at least, the left were silenced.
Legacy Of 1848: The so called ‘springtime of the people’ of Europe led to a wave of repression that dashed the hopes of the Liberal movement in 1848. European history reached a turning point, in the words of some historians, and failed to turn. States became stronger and more unified in the common cause of Liberal suppression; more professional armies enforced the counter-revolutions and restored order. 1848 was the first time that European workers put forward demands for political rights and although they failed on this occasion they did leave some very crucial legacies.