Heh, this is an essay I wrote and was particularly proud of. Trust me, it's very interesting...

The prosperity of the eighteenth century British economy does to a certain extent owe much of its success to human empiricism. This essay will determine exactly what effect human nature had on the state of industry. This century in particular was economically a new place because of the liberalization granted by the British government. As parliamentary democracy and the constitutional monarchy slashed the powers of despots and absolutism, government began to step away from the economic affairs of the people, cutting the ties of the traditional roles of feudal society that was only recently abolished. The scientific community not only enlightened itself but also disregarded its barriers to industry and other forms of science. Ordinary tradesmen embarked on remarkable scientific conquests while the laboratory concept flourished as sociologically popular in the new institutions of Britain. For the purposes of this essay, empiricism will be a word used to describe naturalism in innovation. That is to say that human behavior such as gaining wealth, satisfying personal or group curiosity in a scientific or industrial community or improving conditions are the most critical elements to economic development. It is our very nature in a capitalist economy that will bring success. This essay will focus on the prelude to the industrial revolution, which will be defined strictly in the eighteenth century. Thus, value will be placed on science and technology that will inevitably generate the new powerful industry in Britain. The more liberal government, rather than acting as, simply allowed the 'invisible hand' (as put by Adam Smith) into the country and so it prospered. The rest was left to human empiricism of the British citizens. Empiricism, defined as, "the view that experience, especially that of the senses, is the source of all knowledge" (Encarta). Thus, this essay will often refer to 'empirical tendencies' which will imply the behavior of curiosity, wanting to satisfy our inherent nature, as a reason for one to partake in industrial or scientific development. It will be looked at in three approaches: interaction, institution and the 'capitalist spirit'. A most important note is, however, that, "the interest in making new discoveries contrasted to the preservation of old traditions and the uses made of science or scientific activity in general are all eminently sociological phenomena" (Ben-David 2). This proves that it is the endeavors of the individual which strive for improvement which is, in essence, the prelude to the Industrial Revolution. It was an era where this economic freedom is granted and the excitement of minds from all classes began to discover the science of the future and invent the technology to which it will be applied.

The interaction approach is based on the idea that the success of development and scientific knowledge, which results in industrial progress, is directly related to the interaction of a group of scientists- a scientific community. It implies the transformation of science as a practical and informative community into a useful and industrially stimulating economic sector. Developed by Michael Polanyi in 1942, it suggests that these 'groups' of scientists interact, guided by their own tradition, and are independent of social influence. "Thus, although science is conceived as the activity of a human group this group is so effectively insulated from the outside world that the characteristics of the different societies in which scientists live and work can, for many intents and purposes, be disregarded" (4).

In terms of the 18th century British economy, the lines of craft and engineering, pharmacy and chemistry, and construction and mathematics to which each were normally separately bound, have been merged by an economy that now has the social structure for mass growth. This structure was one of great change, firstly in terms of population of the island nation. Eighteenth century Britain experienced a stable prosperity in the growth of Britons. "Improvements in medicine, hygiene and food supply enabled people to live longer…The terrible plagues which had so often killed large numbers of people in earlier times did not come to Britain after the seventeenth century…These developments probably gave the first impetus for population expansion" (Parker and Reid 5). Ironically, the growth of the economy and the growth of society become interdependent, as innovations brought upon by an improved private sector create ideal conditions for population increases while the population fuels the growth of the economy. "This was a time of change in agriculture, which greatly improved the standard and availability of food in Britain" (5). Above all, food is a critical resource of a population which will indefinitely control the fate of the nation through capitalism. Conversely, agriculture not only continues as one of the largest sectors of the economy, but also grows with the population boom. As men and women married younger, the improvements in health, restored confidence to begin large families which could be fed and in turn work in factory jobs that did not require apprenticeship, thus encouraging more children to generate a larger household income. "Everyone had to be fed and clothed and provided with basic necessities of life. This gave incentive for bigger and better industry and agriculture." (6). These new Britons would eventually fill the factories of the expanding capitalist Britain. These changes in the agricultural system were not only brought upon by the natural inclinations forced by a booming population, but also by private cooperation, somewhat like a 'scientific community'. For example, by 1700, most British villages on cultivatable land harvested an 'open-field system' which followed the principle (the 'fallow principle&#39 that soil would be exhausted if it was cultivated too many times and would require a year's rest to regain nutrients. Since most farmers owned little land, each field would need to be rotated, sacrificing profit for the farmer's land in question becoming a fallow for the season. "Of course, the routine would not work unless everybody with lands in the great open fields obeyed it; so we have…communal management" (27). Thus, the needs of each farmer, as all were landowners, were similar and could be accommodated and shared by a community of different, independent men. That is to say this sharing of private endeavors was encouraged not by legal ruling as what was previously done in Britain's history of the absolute monarchy, rather an empirical approach to maximize profit. "It is possible and indeed necessary to construct a model through which individuals are, in their economic activities, 'led by an invisible hand' to promote the good of society. This model involves accepting that individuals are, in their career and in their business life, and companies in their business operations, will normally act in a self interested fashion, pursuing their own profit" (Turner 372). Empiricism is the answer to the prosperity generated by the liberal economy both today, or in the case of its beginnings in Britain, the 18th century. The feudal system of farming, regulated by aristocracy, contained individuals into particular social classes. The result was slow economic development. Science, technology and other industrial development were left to royally appointed personnel. Opening the private sector somewhat allowed empiricism, our natural curiosity, to satisfy the minds of the inquirers as well industry. "This was not communism, since the strips and their crops were privately owned; but it meant a much higher degree of cooperation" (Parker and Reid 27). It is however important to note that legal ruling was placed on the dividing of the land which was inefficient; using small strips of land scattered among village fields that would be impossible to harvest specifically by the owners. The problems caused in an open-field system therefore were mostly to blame on government interference. Little profit would be made once each farmer took their share and so the empirical tendencies would need to spearhead innovation in a revolution of British agriculture.

This is further supported in this 'interaction approach', "Changes in the interests and goals of a whole…are related to breakdowns in interaction…These breakdowns are due to…basic innovations that arise in response to the inadequacies of the existing tradition for the purposes of part or all the community."(Ben-David 6) The universal goals of the nation evidently did resolve for change, hence the proceeding of the revolution. Thus, scientific progress was due in part to changes in the goals of this community. The empirical tendencies of the peasant farmers spurred commercial farming. However, the early form of this sort of large- scale production reduced open-field only by 2-3%. This was because of low demand. The new idea of privatized capitalism had not yet had a chance to absorb itself into 18th century English lifestyle, thus a majority of the population worked in agriculture and had no use (or money) for large quantities. The large cities of Great Britain that had not grown to the industrious scale that would necessitate factory labour however, did. Thus, empiricism, when liberated in all economical sectors, developed the infrastructure for such growth. In order for a lower class farmer to commercially grow, investment is needed. "If a farmer wanted to run his farm on commercial lines, producing for the market, then he had to be prepared to lay out the money just like any other expansion-minded businessman" (Parker and Reid 28) The empiricism of agriculture and industry interacting can be applied to how businesses would have the financial ability to grow: "it was easier to raise money… than ever before" This was the result chiefly of a great expansion in the banking system, in particular the setting up of 'country banks' (that is, private banks operating in provincial towns), from which enterprising landowner- and tenants- could raise loans" (28). The Enclosure movement marks the first movement for private ownership of farmland. As commercial agriculture became more popular, the concept of communal cooperation dissipated and landowner began to ask parliament permission to enclose their land from neighbouring farmland.

One of the immediate effects involved the wealthier owners to exploit those who may have only owned a small strip of land, "But if we take a long-term view of the whole process we can see that the benefits of the changes outweighed the hardships caused. The new efficient farming enabled the growing population to be fed, and to work for greater prosperity in the new industrial towns, while without the agricultural changes there might have been a serious shortage of food, with incalculable effects" (34). The concept of many factors of different sectors of society working together is a key feature of the Revolution, and is vital to economic progression in the eighteenth century.

Other factors had to coincide before the system could grow really successfully. First and foremost there had to be a ready supply of capital. More capital would be needed to furnish it with machinery and still more to purchase raw materials… They had to have plenty of labour available- and again this essential condition was met for the first time in England during the eighteenth century.

The new developments in farming tended to create a surplus of unwanted people in the villages. These people naturally drifted away and usually ended up in the towns, where they might find employment in the new factories. (79)

A great deal of the successes of these interactions of the innovative ('scientific&#39 community and the community of enterprise depended upon the unity of the social structure.

The Institutional Approach implies that a shift in the empirical interests of a community can be determined by spreading the rift of scientific method to tradition. "The closure and the specificity of the disciplines are abolished, and the scientific community is open to outside influences" (Ben-David 6-7) In other words, other empiricists such as craftsmen or those seeking and contributing knowledge for their own purposes contributing to progress. It concludes that both the interests and traditions of the British scientific community would have had to have been joined to applied science in order for it to grow through the input of others beyond the community, which eventually leads to development of industry. For example, James Watt was employed as a maker of scientific instruments for the University of Glasgow, trained in mathematics and engineering. Note the empirical nature of Watt's approach: "a model of Newcomen's engine came to him for repair, and he turned his mind to the possibilities of improving it" (Parker and Reid 73). "Matthew Boulton…first saw potential of the invention and entered into partnership with Watt" (73) Two types of empiricism applied: that to satisfy human curiosity and that to produce profit. The outcome remains the same, industrial development and universal prosperity (the engine is one of the most important types of technology to this day). However, one key factor exists in the institutional approach- education. James Watt was particularly well educated to have worked at the University of Glasgow and was therefore exposed to much scientific opportunity.

These opportunities are the essence of what gave Britain its flair to support institutions such as The Royal Society of London. The Society began as a few scientists who met in the mid-seventeenth century to discuss their research and discoveries in hope the contributions of each individual would benefit the whole of the group in their scientific endeavors (which may translate to economic endeavors). The Society also published books and gave public lectures based on cumulative research of each scientist to accelerate the flow of knowledge throughout the scientific community, which proves that the isolated approach of institution was beneficial to the whole of Britain (and Europe) in spreading ideas. "This new professional approach meant that the Society was no longer just a learned society but also de facto an academy of scientists…the Society…maintain[ed] its autonomy, essential for scientific research" (Royal Society). A lot of the discoveries based upon empiricism were still made by the educated classes and institutionalizing them privately benefited the work of the individual as well as the entirety of the innovative community. This is evident in many famous scientists who made famous discoveries and happened to be affiliated with this useful British institution. "Charles Du Fay carried on researches [of electricity]…and in a letter to the Royal Society of London (1734) he formulated his most important conclusion" (Durant and Durant, 518). "John Strachey gave the Royal Society (1719) 'A Curious Description of the Strata Observed in the Coalmines of Mendip in Somersetshire" (556). It is evident that intelligent empiricists such as these men acknowledged the importance of the Royal Society and thus the importance of spreading their ideas into the community.

When these ideas spread they both correspond with the direction of the scientific community as well as offered a new direction to improving technology and industry. What is seen as valuable in science will usually have some benefit to practical, profitable technology, especially in the above examples (electricity and coal). "Since the seventeenth century, philosophies to a large extent have been attempts to…differentiate the fields where scientific logic applies and where it does not…Because this philosophy is constantly influenced and challenged by science, the influence is, at times, inevitably reversed." (Ben-David 7) This implies that the changes in goals of a community are attributed to changes in philosophy, which inherently influence each other. When Britain was privatized and liberalized, the economic philosophy became open to the scientific community due to the tradition of sovereignty from outside practices being abolished. This was the key of how science could enter an economy through the eyes of the empiricist rather than the scientist, merchant or craftsman separately. From the empirical standpoint, "involvement in a capitalistic economy creates a predisposition to a view society in an atomistic manner…rather than as an organic entity steeped in tradition and primordial experience" (8).That is to say, adjoining the liberal economy to the scientific community creates a view more materialistic to the science, which will inevitably apply the science to something economical to create profit. The theme of unversed tradesmen experimenting like scientists became popular as a root of capitalist innovation- the motivation of economy driving the commoner to extend beyond the abilities of the professionally trained class. "Newcomen, an ironmonger…and his partner John Calley, a plumber, traveled round from mine to mine…doing work on site, so they were well-acquainted with the importance of drainage. At some point between 1700 and 1705 they produced their 'engine" (Burke, 171-2). Note the occupations of these two men who would eventually invent the first engine- a plumber and an ironmonger. As stated, their experience with more practical forms of work educated them on the needs of the mining sector of the economy. Their basic skill gained from working in common trade provided the resources to innovate and so the incentive for profit motivated them to apply these skills.

The legal privatization of banks were extremely important to the financial support of economic growth. Through the natural process of borrowing for profit and controlling the finances of the entire nation, practically, they organized the currency in Great Britain who was up to this century, short of notes which would have placed many then prosperous industries bankrupt. The banks of London also established a 'clearing house' (primitive stock exchange) so investors could coordinate their deals. The concept of capitalism as a finite system for circulating wealth, both economically and socially providing checks and balances to itself, is apparent in the new banking system. "The improvements in communications and the founding of banks capable of issuing their own notes did much to produce what economists call greater 'liquidity' in the currency. All these improvements and advances meshed together to make it easier for investors to build their machines, for industrialists to use them and for people of every sort to buy the foods they produced." (Parker and Reid 80-81). This is especially important because it is one thing to invent for profit or for scientific inquiry, but funding it can be much more difficult, and , "very few men could have afforded to embark on such enterprises out of their own pockets" (80).

The major investors in industry came from those who would probably make little to no profit on its development at all, thus done in the name of empiricism, the 'capitalist spirit'. This unique feature of the liberal economy is a form of empiricism independent of an interactional or institutional approach and seems to be free of any of the natural progressions such as that to satisfy curiosity or that to generate profit that seemed to assemble into an efficient system. More so a sociological rather than economic phenomenon, the atmosphere of Britain in this new century of prosperity and progression encouraged an energized bourgeoisie to invest beyond their own interests and rather the interests of the nation which will inherently benefit the British economy as much as the interactional or institutional approaches. "Merchants who made fortunes in overseas trade and invested them in industry (for example, Liverpool merchants who played a large role in the development of Manchester); landowners who employed the surplus of their agricultural incomes in mining or transport undertakings (for example, the Duke of Bridgewater); and above all, the self-denying energy and vigour of the first capitalists themselves" (81) Whether in hope industrialists would develop a way to improve their standard of living or make a scientific breakthrough, the idea of free and open trade between nations, businesses and people subjected human qualities into the economy. It is important to note that, naturally, not every attempt at a new innovation would be successful, so only the 'capitalist spirit' could explain why these costly, practically unprofitable innovations were so vital and why a patron would continue to support such. For example, the natural progression of capitalism did not allow for the growth of the silk industry, yet Thomas Lombe's factory (believed to be the first factory by definition, in 1718) was seen as a rise above the bounds of technology at the time. "Lombe's factory looks in retrospect rather like a false start. But the way had been pioneered and when the inventions came…to transform the cotton industry, the principle of a water-powered factory was already to a certain extent familiar" (77).

Empiricism, in terms of natural curiosity, plays a vital role in non-profitable innovation. Humans may tend to be observing and interested despite professional training or trade. "[Priestley] was…a scientific dabbler…[In]the late 1760s…[Priestley] divided his time…investigating the behavior of gases in the brewery next door" (Burke 176). Joseph Priestley was interested in the 'fixed air' above the vats in the brewery and eventually experimented with water to trap it, created carbonated water or, 'soda water'. Although he did make a name for himself, it wasn't apparent that he was interested in becoming rich as he was supported by his brother in law and had no permanent job. It was perhaps an individualist goal to gain pride through accomplishment rather than simply accumulating wealth. This is inherently the essence of the 'capitalist spirit'. The result empiricism is essentially improvement through the actions of motivation, but this is enriched when the motivation is less materialistic or selfish, such as those of d'Alembert. "an incidental interest in mathematics became a passion: "mathematics," he said, "was for me my mistress." (Durant and Durant 515). Switching from law, a practical, profitable occupation, to a hobby to which he was not well versed and then equating his love of it like to that of a woman demonstrates the concrete interest one can have in an innovative field even if it is not for the sake of profit. As in any society of any time period, passion for invention without profit was seen as generally wasteful. "He continued till he was forty-eight…[his adoptive mother] thought it disgraceful that a man should so abandon himself to study and show no economic itch." (515). D'Alembert's admirable ethics are definitely evidence of this 'capitalist spirit' which tends to strive for personal excellence, satisfy desire for discovery and brings order to inefficiency or ignorance. "Probably his inspiring motives were not a desire for posthumous fame but a proud rivalry with established savants, and that beaver instinct which takes delight in building, in forging upon a chaos of materials or ideas." (515). In summary, the fruits of labour in this period were not all attributed to gaining wealth or even satisfying personal goals, rather much was destined to improve the conditions and pave the way for the future.

In conclusion, empiricism is the single largest attribute to the development of technology, thus industry, thus the economy in the eighteenth century British economy. The progress in interaction between the discoverers, the innovators and the rest of the nation proved to mesh the sectors of society in unisance beginning with the population. From a political standpoint, Britain had the hegemony of its island nation, having had no war or plague on domestic land, local resources and a vast empire from which to import. The population could experience steady growth, which brought upon prosperity to agriculture which promoted the population boom. Britain was left with an excess of citizens which would supply labour to the new industries spawning from the loosened boundaries between communities of tradesmen and scientists, all of which was done without government intervention. Meanwhile, the institutional approach preserved empirical tendencies of all men, whether well-educated scientists working in traditional laboratories or craftsmen meddling with their own observations to improve the quality of their labours and produce profit. The institutional approach was most definitely an improvement and a promising outcome of the unity of the interaction approach- both of which were present in Britain in this century for the first time. Most interesting would be the 'capitalist spirit' which follows an unexpected form of empiricism. Not to be confused with the interaction approach which is not altruistic and in any case will please ourselves, the 'capitalist spirit' is the product of excitement from a generous system. Human empiricism forced eighteenth century Britain into prosperity and inspired those it benefited into giving back into it. Each and every factor supports another, which proves that capitalism, for the good of the nation as a whole, was very harmonious. But the good of the nation, as proven, came from the action of individual human empiricism.
Works Cited/Consulted

1. Ben-David, Joseph The Scientist's Role in Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1971.
2. Burke, James. Connections. London: Macmillan London Limited, 1978.
3. Durant, Ariel, and Will Durant. The Age of Voltaire. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
4. Parker, M.St.L., and D.J. Reid. The British Revolution 1750-1970: A Social and Economic History. London: Blandford Press Ltd.
5. Turner, Adair. Just Capital: The Liberal Economy. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2001.
6. History of the Royal Society. 9 Nov. 2003 <http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/royalsoc/rshist.htm>