EUROPEAN HISTORY

In this paper I try to develop an alternative vision referring to the birth of a nation. According to my point of view, the nation is a product of late modernity; therefore we could call this point of view "modernist". I argue that before the age of French Revolution there was no such thing as nation in the modern sense of the word. Nation (as a specific form of political community) and nationalism (as a certain type of self-interpretation) are the results of the French Revolution, both historically and politically (or ideologically). Still, contrary to the majority of "modernist" theorists (like Ernest Gellner, to name one), who are adepts of a sociological explanation and who consider-as a result-the birth of nation a "sociological necessity", I try to deliver solid arguments to demonstrate that the nation is nothing else but the incorporated form of an ideology, namely the ideology of national sovereignty. As a consequence, it is not (or the birth of nation was not) a historical or even "sociological" necessity. Beyond all these convictions, I also argue that there are some sorts of mechanisms (mostly political by nature) which did not only stimulate the birth of a nation, but explicitly required the existence of nations. One of these is certainly the democratic governance-or the republic, as it was known at that time. It is not accidental that István Bibó, one of the greatest Hungarian political thinkers ever, had the strong conviction (expressed over and over through his work) that nationalism and democratism are twins because they came into the world at the same time and place.

The industrial revolution, which started in Britain before sweeping through Europe and the USA, is traditionally viewed as the deepest mutation ever known to have affected men since Neolithic times. As Cipolla (1975:7) contended: “Between 1780 and 1850, in less than three generations, a far-reaching revolution, without precedent in the history of Mankind, changed the face of England. From then on, the world was no longer the same. Historians have often used and abused the word revolution to mean a radical change, but no revolution has been as dramatically revolutionary as the Industrial Revolution, except perhaps the Neolithic Revolution” . The industrial revolution shaped the face of new industrial and economically successful societies by modifying their social and economic structures and destabilizing all established hierarchies. It eventually influenced every aspect of people’s daily life. Thanks to the introduction of new high-impact inventions into the world of production, which emerged in a changing intellectual environment, the human power of production was released in a spectacular way. The industrial revolution indeed witnessed an explosion of the production of various manufactured goods such as textile items and metal products. Equipped with new technologies, the industrializing economies were henceforth able to produce an increasingly larger quantity of products to answer the basic needs of a growing population characterized by new consumption habits and aspirations. The industrial growth was accompanied by the large-scale development of the transport infrastructure (roads, canals and railroads) that contributed to expanding the markets and speeding up the commercial flows. The factory system, a new form of labor organization, developed progressively and started to regulate people’s life as never before. Combined with the modernization of agriculture, the industrial revolution moreover accelerated the urbanization process in the industrializing countries. It also witnessed the emergence of a new social structure characterized by the consecration of a more-and-more powerful and influential bourgeoisie, animated by a rising capitalist spirit, and the birth of a new working class sometimes called “the proletariat”. All these changes helped to transform the societies which successfully undertook an industrial revolution and move their economy on a new growth trajectory. The industrial revolution is to some extent the birth certificate of the modern world.

2020

This research paper is aiming to discover the relationship between the Enlightenment in France and the First Industrial Revolution in Britain. This is claimed in this paper that due to the time period of these two events, the Enlightenment idea first impacted and somehow incurred the First Industrial Revolution. After the Revolution was on track, it reversed to influence the late Enlightenment. Moreover, it became clearer that these two events not only affect each other, but also brought worldwide evolution phase by phase.

There are many arguments related to the origins of globalization process that we are more blatantly experiencing for the last few decades. But few of them focus on the effects of industrial revolution. In this paper, I will try to set a direct connection between industrial revolution and globalization process. For this aim, transformations as a result of industrial revolution in Europe will be reviewed within the context of capitalist mode of production, marketing and consumption. Thus, I will argue that industrial revolution that resulted in the emergence of industrial capitalism is one the most important factors behind globalization.

iksad publishing house, 2022

According to Historians Robert Darnton and Francois Furet, revolutionary ideas were spread into French political culture through pornography and porous state borders, while Jergen Habermas mentioned about French public sphere that helped to allow social change discussions among the periodical press, learned societies etc. that was created due to cultural changes of commercialism and consumerism in France. Class struggle was made due to a toothless monarchy that could not advocate and represent millions of people, which finally created a power vacuum. Social mobility was another reason for class struggle, through which Bourgeoisie was beginning to feel self-confident in their merits and self-privileges while the poor class was showing protested the feudal landlords (anti-seigneurial) by their bad attitude. The French monarchy was in a deep financial crisis due to the worldwide conflict with England due to the seven-year war (1756-1763). France lost its colonial power throughout the world and surrendered against the British allied group. Public debt was in full swing, making the monarchy disrespectful, suspicious, unskilled, and less confidential. The crisis in France finally created Enlightenment as one of its narratives for the French Revolution. It raised the right of people sovereignty mentioned in Rousseau's Social Contract long ago. The paper's objective is to discover the socio-economic-political consequences, of course, while the outcome is to achieve in-depth knowledge about French Revolution. Books and academic journals are information sources for a paper's methodological process. The feature question is, what are the discredits of French monarchies that brought the Revolution in 1789?

In this study will focus on the reasons and the consequences of the French revolution. We know that the French revolution is one of the most important event in the modern history of Europe. As a political science student, it is very important to know about the context of the French revolution which has a great impact on the political science discipline. Therefore, the causes and consequences behind the French revolution can be explained in social, economic, political perspectives. However, this paper will explain the four political causes of the French such as absolutism, inequalities of right, the influence of enlightenment scholar and bankruptcy of the government.

2000

Supreme Court Economic Review, 2003

For this paper it will be limited to knowledge pertaining to natural phenomena and regularities that can be harnessed for physical production. This was much aided by the invention of the printing press, of course, the growing mobility of people and goods, the existence of a lingua franca, and the creation of an international community of knowledge that corresponded with one another, read each others' books, and began to share standards for what was to be believed and what was to be rejected. The real culprit for the lack of technologically-induced growth was that not enough was known. This seems to be a tautology, and requires some elaboration. Basically, the argument in a nutshell is that technology consists of techniques or routines which in the final analysis are sets of instructions-tacit or codified-that tell people how to produce. Yet these routines rest on some underlying body of "useful knowledge" about the natural phenomena and regularities that make them possible. 1 All techniques rest on some epistemic base that contains the knowledge of nature and the environment that makes it possible. Early farming still exploited knowledge of the seasons and the regularity that the offspring of two animals with some salient characteristic was more likely to display this characteristic. The popular distinction between "science-based" techniques and empirical techniques refers to the degree of formalization and generality of the knowledge, but this seems less than useful for the economic historian. Natural regularities may be as "unscientific" as the cataloguing of trade winds and the realization of the movements of the tides, which were harnessed for the techniques of transportation and shipping. Especially in the second half of the eighteenth century natural philosophers became less obsessed with "truth" and more with the cataloguing of measurable relations between variables, preferring to learn what could be computed and what worked (Heilbron, 1990). The modern notions of "science" may look as primitive to some future person as pre-Copernican astronomy and pre-Lavoisier chemistry do to us. An epistemic base can be narrow or it can be wider. In the extreme case, all that is known is that a technique works. The measure of the epistemic base can just be bound between zero and infinity, since it is inconceivable that everything will be known. What we can say is that epistemic bases can become wider as more is known. To some extent, this is associated with the rise of modern science. But epistemic bases can also increase with engineering and artisanal knowledge, better understanding of the characteristics of animals and materials, improved knowledge of geography and topography and many other areas in which useful knowledge expanded but which are not necessarily part of the formal and

IJARW, 2023

The decision to change the production relations of each country depends on the nature and level of development of the productive forces of that country. Among them, the rapid development of science and technology as a special productive force, the direct production force as a decisive factor in the transformation of production relations. In this study, the author focuses on analyzing the industrial revolution and the development of industrial revolutions, including the dramatic change in the quality of the fourth industrial revolution compared with the previous industrial revolution.