village people

I enjoyed reading Blackbourn’s “Populists and Patricians” this week. Throughout the class so far I became under the impression that the peasant class was just was just a conservative, dependent, and politically removed class in Germany during this time period. Blackbourn, however, seemed to shed light on some of the intricacies, and realities, of this peasant class. Their involvement in the small (slightly crazy sounding) political parties stunned me—it made me see that these rural village communities were aware of the changes taking place in the German states, especially with regards to the rise of cities. That these groups essentially facilitated the rise of mass politics because their own involvement forced other, larger groups to begin appealing to the peasants flies in the face of other notions which assumes that mass politics arose from the enlightened upper classes who realized the righteousness of extending political consideration to all. It wasn’t the upper and liberal classes aiding the supposedly progressive rise of mass politics, it was the lowly peasants themselves. Another thing that I found surprising was the lower class’ very un-conservative political support. This group, which I had been led to believe by other historians was an eternal stitch in the conservative garment, actually held radical political ideology. Now although many of the peasants might have voted for the more liberal organizations only because they were the only groups to address their needs directly, their failure to vote conservatively still marks a break with the notion that this class is under the under the influence of the conservative Junkers and their conservative Catholic priests. The revolution from the top/change from the top attitude that seems to have dominated the German mindset hitherto this point seems now to have failed, as the lower classes are now the ones ushering in their own revolutionary views—acceptance of mass politics, socialist agendas as well as anti-Semitism that will play a large role in Germany’s future.

don't tread on me

Talk about one cool group of people – the post-Kulturkamph Catholics in Germany had it going on. I was just amused during Anderson’s “The Kulturkamph and the Course of German History” that this supposedly ignorant, illiterate and un-autonomous group was able to repeatedly puzzle and anger the upper-class, educated, and politically savvy individuals attempting to control the outcomes of elections. I found it humorous that the more liberal parties, after advocating and receiving more universal suffrage, get angry when local Catholic majorities use their votes to outvote liberal sentiments. All of a sudden they no longer seem pleased with more universal suffrage. Angry at the Catholics’ densely uniform voting patterns, Wilhelm Wehrenpfennig attributes their success to their “dumbness.” What was really dumb, however, was the amount of attention and fear-mongering that rose up over this new Catholic threat. For example, Anderson mentions how in the elections of Upper Silesia in 1871 the Center Party (supported by Catholics) only “garnered a mere 27%” of the votes in a regency where Catholics made up more than 90% of the population.” All the attention of the election, however, went to one small district’s results, Pless-Rybnik, where little known esthetic Father Eduard Muller was able to defeat a much wealthier, cultured, incumbent, prince/duke. Round of applause ladies and gentlemen for Father Ed Muller. What I loved was that he beat the prince at his own game – pretend not to care about politics, let natural deference play the deciding factor, etc. He was essentially a hermit, and he beat the prince. Awesome. Further evidence for the coolness of this group of Catholics in Germany at this time is their non-loyalty to papal decision. No one, not even Bismarck (or the Pope apparently), can put a finger on these guys to control them – they flow in their own current.

Hausen's Homogenity

While reading Karin Hausen’s “Technical Progress and Women’s Labour in the Nineteenth Century” I particularly enjoyed her portrait and development of a Germany centered around the sewing machine. By limiting the scope of her essay she was able to paint a very detailed picture of the popular, supposedly liberating yet actually enslaving, sewing machine. When thinking of history the first thing that comes to mind are the battles, the heroes, the major conferences, treaties, etc, etc. It’s slightly humorous to see how important something as simple as an appliance can be in shaping social history. With that said, however, I do believe Karin Hausen likely exaggerates her argument regarding the sewing machine’s burdensome and enslaving nature. While it is true that an astonishing number of sewing machines are sold over the last half of the 19th century, many of them on hire purchase, Hausen leads the reader to believe that the majority of those women became slaves to their equipment. She paints an extreme picture where women in the lower classes, fearing absolutely work in the factories, are forced into the sewing machine trap and work countless hours in messy houses with annoying children with massive debts in an oversupplied Market for the rest of their existence on earth. Most examinations into social history, however, show that human experience is never that homogenous. People will not all live the same lives even if they’re under similar conditions. There are too many independent variables to lump a whole entire population of lower class women into a terrifying picture. Furthermore, while her statistics are powerful, her primary sources are mild at best. Although the lack of first hand accounts may be understandable, statistics by themselves can never paint a full story and only mask the little realities and small personal stories of thousands of individuals.