According to the author, what is the traditional understanding of how industrial change occurred? Why would this traditional understanding be easier for a contemporary audience to picture than the other, more long-term factors the author describes?
Answers
Answer:
People use the term “modern” in a variety of ways, often very loosely, with a lot of implied associations of new, contemporary, up-to-date, and technological. We know the difference between a modern society and one that remains tied to the past and it usually has less to do with art and more to do with technology and industrial progress, things like indoor plumbing, easy access to consumer goods, freedom of expression, and voting rights. In the 19th century, however, modernity and its connection with art had certain specific associations that people began recognizing and using as barometers to distinguish themselves and their culture from earlier nineteenth century ways and attitudes.
Explanation:
Chronologically, Modernism refers to the period from 1850 to 1960. It begins with the Realist movement and ends with Abstract Expressionism. That’s just a little over one hundred years. During that period the western world experienced some significant changes that transformed Europe and the United States from traditional societies that were agriculturally based into modern ones with cities and factories and mass transportation.Urban Culture
Urban culture replaced agrarian culture as industrialization and cities grew. Cities were the sites of new wealth and opportunity with their factories and manufacturing potential. People moving from small farms, towns to large cities helped to breakdown traditional culture and values. There were also new complications such as growing urban crime, prostitution, alienation, and depersonalization.
In a small town you probably knew the cobbler who made your shoes and such a personal relationship often expanded into everyday economics—you might be able to barter food or labor for a new pair of shoes or delay payments. These kinds of accommodations that formed a substructure to agrarian life were swept away with urbanization. City dwellers bought shoes that were manufactured, transported by railroads, displayed in shop windows, and purchased only for cash. Assembly lines, anonymous labor, and advertising created more consumer items but also a growing sense of depersonalization. The gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” increased and were more visible in the city.
According to the author, the traditional understanding of how industrial change occurred is that technological innovations drove economic growth and change.
This view holds that inventors and entrepreneurs developed new machines and processes, which led to increased production, economic growth, and social change.
This traditional view is easier for a contemporary audience to picture because it presents a simple and straightforward cause-and-effect relationship between technological innovation and economic growth.
This view is also consistent with the dominant narrative of Western history, which often focuses on the achievements of individual inventors and entrepreneurs.
In contrast, the other, more long-term factors that the author describes, such as changes in social institutions and cultural values, are more complex and difficult to measure.
These factors may also be less visible or tangible than technological innovations, making them harder to conceptualize for a contemporary audience.
Additionally, these long-term factors may have been influenced by a wide range of historical and cultural factors, making it harder to attribute industrial change to any one specific cause.
For similar questions on industrial change,
https://brainly.in/question/10651
#SPJ2