754-762

            While much of continental Europe suffered from revolutions in 1848, Great Britain again managed to escape the grasp of revolution and, since Great Britain was not entangled in revolutionary chaos, continued its social and political progress. The government continued to be responsive to the complaints of the public, as demonstrated by the 1867 Reform Bill. Many workers had felt as if their limited and indirect representation in state was unjustified and, instead of further repressing and controlling these workers, Parliament granted these workers the representation that they desired. While the passing of the 1867 Reform Bill (which was ironically driven by Conservative Benjamin Disraeli) was undoubtedly an accomplishment for liberalism, it also called to question the role of women within the British society and whether women should be included in the social changes that Britain was undergoing. While this question was publicized by John Stuart Mill, who defended women’s rights to freedom in his literature, it was overlooked or somewhat pushed to the side. While Great Britain had been so quick to mold to cease the complaints of the workers, women did not gain basic liberties until World War 1, which reveals a contradiction within liberalism and calls to question the true value of women with British society.

Response to: http://j91h.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-to-response-to.html

In Justine’s response to my post she disagreed with my description of Romanticism as “simple”, and I have to say that I agree with her argument. The word “simple” does not do the accomplishments and transformation of the Romantic period justice. However, in comparison with the intellectual accomplishments of the Enlightenment, which were based in trying to discover a logical reason or explanation to reality, the entire concept of Romanticism, to follow one’s emotions and impulses, seems to be, well, rather simple. The Enlightenment was not necessarily inaccessible, but just takes more effort in interpreting. When studying the Enlightenment, I felt as if I had to pick-and-choose between philosophe’s, and while I was by no means searching for an explanation for the meaning of life or anything of that sort, it is much easier for me to access and relate to the reality depicted in a Romantic work than that described by the philosophe’s. 

732-742

Willingness to compromise is the essential component in preventing revolution. If a government hopes to escape revolution it needs to be humble enough to reshape and change with the will of the people. While the Congress of Vienna (1814) had presented an idealistic proposition to ensure peace and prevent revolution, it did not stress the importance of embracing governmental and systematic change in order to avoid revolution. The success that systematic change has in avoiding revolution is best demonstrated by the British reform in 1832. The period after the Napoleonic Wars brought great hardship to Great Britain, and, as a result, social unrest, particularly within the middle class. As pressure from lower classes increased, British political leaders realized that the only way to avoid revolution would be to have an open ear to the complaints of the British people and try to mold itself, moderately, to resolve the problems through the Reform Bill of 1832. This Bill reduced (but did not eliminate) the influence and presence of the British elite in Parliament and opened Parliament to some members of the middle class. The result of this alteration in Parliament were changes that heeded to the needs of the middle class (such as the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846) and thus made a greater majority of the British public content. While discontentment with the gains of the 1832 reform remained and was demonstrated through the rise in Chartism during the 1840s, ultimately, the willingness of the British government to adhere to the complaints of the people at all was critical in preventing revolution. The actions of the British government in 1832 demonstrated the need to change according to the complaints of the people in order to prevent revolution. 

Response to "Token Self-Indulgent Post"

Much like Laura, I too have a “soft spot” for Romanticism. Her post, which contrasts the Enlightenment and Romanticism, inspired me to consider why Romanticism is such an attractive period. I think that much of the attraction to the Romantic period comes from its simplicity. While “simplistic” is not the correct word to describe the works created during this period, the foundation of Romanticism, to depend on human emotion, experience and nature, is not incredibly complex. Unlike the Enlightenment, Romanticism relied on themes that are personal and consequently tangible to a greater audience. To contrast, the Enlightenment, in an effort to assess reality and give logical reasoning to existence, birthed obscure concepts to which an audience could not necessarily relate or agree. The Romantic period provided an “explanation” of reality that was much more simple and understandable than the many interpretations of reality created during the Enlightenment, trying more to express reality than analyze it. During the Romantic period, reality was interpreted as nothing more than one’s experience and existence provided by nature. It is the simplistic nature of Romantic period, to draw on and interpret real experience and as no more than reality, which allows people to maintain a “soft spot” for Romanticism.

709-717

It is no surprise that the French Revolution evoked fear within other European countries. Thus, the Restoration period, which was driven by the desire of Metternich and Tsar Alexander 1 to establish and maintain peace within Europe, was a natural response to the chaotic French Revolution. However, instead of establishing a peaceful system in which the majority of people were content (within their respective countries), the Restoration was entirely dependent on the power of the government to maintain peace and made little attempt to alter governmental systems to better fit the wants of the people. The problem with this is that it overlooked the fact that a revolution is driven by the dissatisfaction of the people with the governmental system. Thus, the Restoration period, while driven by good (and idealized) intentions, was not necessarily open to change and people's dissatisfactions were merely bottled up, and, due to this lack of change, the Restoration was doomed.