England Textile Industry Research Articles

Intellectual property and industrialization: legalizing hope in economic growth

This article draws on theoretical resources from economic sociology and sociology of law to intervene in economic debates about the relationship between intellectual property and industrialization. Utilizing historical evidence from the earliest period of American intellectual property law and from a formative company in the New England textile industry, I propose a social process of influence that connects intellectual property law to industrialization. I argue that, consistent with the findings of New Economic Sociology, social relationship structures and social capital are the proximate influential force in industrialization. However, I also argue that transformative changes in those social relationship structures are rooted in the emergence of a particular type of political culture: what I call here, borrowing from Hannah Arendt and Frank Dobbin, a “Natal-Industrial Culture.” A Natal-Industrial Culture, as I propose it here, is a political culture in which collective hopes for the future are placed in new technologies and new cultural products, as means for achieving economic growth. Intellectual property law contributed to the emergence of this new type of political culture by holding out the promise of property, as a reward for the provision of new technologies or new cultural products. Because of the way that hope works on motivation—through cognitive pre-rehearsals of future attainment, which involve semantically-meaningful propositions and contribute to positive emotional experience—the promise of property provided a powerful stimulant to social capital formation. Working through the semantic resonances of property, intellectual property law contributed to a political culture in which invention and creativity were expected to secure a future of growth within the political community, both for particular members and for the political community, as a whole. By fostering a Natal-Industrial Culture, intellectual property law contributed to systematic invention and social capital-formation, leading, in turn, to the transformative changes in working and material provisioning that constitute industrialization.

Linked Labor Histories: New England, Colombia, and the Making of a Global Working Class

Aviva Chomsky has produced a book that seeks to explore the origins, processes, and outcomes of “globalization” in the restructuring of the international political economy over the course of the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. She focuses on the ways in which the mobility of labor, capital, and technology interacted with the political economy of both New England and Colombia to define the context and outcomes for working people and/or immigrants in both societies. It is an ambitious project that requires readers to think outside the box of “national” historiography and to link developments in both societies across time and space. It is also a project that grounds itself in the view that capitalism and democracy are shaped by contradictory agendas: “Democracy demands government by, for, and of the people. Capital seeks governments that will control the people in its interest. Democracy thrives on social equality; capitalism thrives on social inequality” (p. 4). Unfortunately, this contradiction is not as simple as the author professes, since it is not evident that democracy is sustained by social equality; rather, it may rely upon social inequalities to energize its citizens and create the conditions for political mobilization. However, capitalism is by its very nature predatory and will maximize opportunities for capital accumulation under conditions of both stability and instability, and under both authoritarian and representative/democratic political systems. Further, the study would have been better situated if Chomsky had explored the strategy of capital mobility that has been classified as “globalization” within the long history of such activity by the major European countries prior to the twentieth century. The British imperial expansion of the nineteenth century was both a predecessor and exemplar for American business elites, who saw globalization as a way of maximizing profitability under a variety of conditions. Like the United States in the twentieth century, British capitalists invested abroad in search of profits in regions where democracy was notably absent, even as the British state expanded the scope of democratic governance at home as a strategy for mobilizing domestic support for the imperial project.Given that broader context of “globalization as imperialism,” Chomsky’s study provides very interesting insights into the workings of American imperial expansion over the course of the twentieth century. It is particularly revealing about the ways in which “Yankee” capitalism functioned to create internal colonies of exploitation among immigrant workers in New England — the “cradle” of American democratic culture — as well as in the South, where the impoverished white working class was trapped by the oligarchs who controlled Southern life. The South’s antidemocratic culture of political corruption and aggressive disenfranchisement of both poor whites and people of color would seem to have functioned as a laboratory for practices that would later be exported to Latin America. In effect, the behavior of American capitalists in the twentieth century mimicked that of the American founders, among whom slaveholders were well represented. The original American constitution recognized property holders as full-fledged citizens, while slaves were reduced to the status of “beings of an inferior order.” Is it possible that the consistent opposition to labor unions that has informed American life in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, especially in the South, represents the internalization of the ethos of the American founders? Further, as Chomsky shows, the relationship between the promotion of social engineering and racist ideas by the Draper family, key players in the New England textile industry, should encourage scholars to think more systematically about the ways in which the predatory culture of American capitalism is rooted in the legacies of slavery and the obsession with racial hierarchy in American life.Chomsky’s study of American investment in Colombia illustrates both the globalization of capital and the perpetuation of disadvantages for working people in the United States and Colombia. As she correctly observes, American military “assistance” to the Colombian government has helped to exacerbate the crisis of legitimacy that the Colombian state has confronted for several decades. The study has certainly provided an interesting twist on the idea of the “Banana Republic” as a servant of American investors. However, it also suggests the need to interrogate American policy in a country that in the early twentieth century was dismembered through the secession of Panama in order to facilitate American control over the proposed site of the interoceanic canal. Does the dispossession and dehumanization of rural communities in Colombia reflect a longer-term preoccupation among American capitalist investors? Is it possible that the behavior of the investors is shaped less by antiunion sentiment per se, and more by the desire to systematically strip workers of their humanity, as was stipulated in the original American Constitution?

A Common Thread: Labor, Politics, and Capital Mobility in the Textile Industry

With important ramifications for studies relating to industrialization and the impact of globalization, A Common Thread examines the relocation of the New England textile industry to the piedmont South between 1880 and 1959. Through the example of the Massachusetts-based Dwight Manufacturing Company, the book provides an informative historic reference point to current debates about the continuous relocation of capital to low-wage, largely unregulated labor markets worldwide. In 1896, to confront the effects of increasing state regulations, labor militancy, and competition from southern mills, the Dwight Company became one of the first New England cotton textile companies to open a subsidiary mill in the South. Dwight closed its Massachusetts operations completely in 1927. In 1959, the branch factory Dwight had opened in Alabama at the end of the nineteenth century became one of the first textile mills in the South to close in the face of post - World War II foreign competition. Beth English explains why and how New England cotton manufacturing companies pursued relocation to the South as a key strategy for economic survival, why and how southern states attracted northern textile capital, and how textile mill owners, labor unions, the state, manufacturers' associations, and reform groups shaped the ongoing movement of cotton-mill money, machinery, and jobs. A Common Thread is a case study that helps provide clues and predictors about the processes of attracting and moving industrial capital to developing economies throughout the world.

Against the Current: Malden Mills Inc. (D)

This series of cases focuses on Malden Mills' strategy for rebuilding its Lawrence, Massachusetts, plants following a catastrophic fire in 1995. Through an analysis of the history of the Feuerstein family's successful management style in the supposedly dying New England textile industry, the case illuminates a unique and consistent corporate identity based on ethics, public relations, and iron-willed determination. See also the A, C, and D cases (UVA-E-0125, UVA-E-0127, and UVA-E-0128).

Dealing with Deindustrialization: Economics, Politics, and Policy During the Decline of the New England Textile Industry, 1920–1960

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Dealing with Deindustrialization: Economics, Politics, and Policy During the Decline of the New England Textile Industry, 1920–1960

Dealing with Deindustrialization: Economics, Politics, and Policy During the Decline of the New England Textile Industry, 1920–1960

Where Is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870-1960

Where Is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870-1960

Book Review: History: Where is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870–1960

Book Review: History: Where is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870–1960

Where Is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870-1960.

Where Is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870-1960.

Entrepreneurs: The Boston Business Community, 1700-1850.

Great merchants, investors, and industrialists have long dominated the historiography of Boston business, but this collection of essays urges a broader definition of the city's business community. Without denying the economic importance of the major traders of colonial Boston, or the merchants of the China trade, or the men who built New England's textile industry, it also finds signs of vigorous entrepreneurial activity in places where previously historians have rarely looked - for instance, among artisans, women, and members of minority communities. The volume comprises fourteen essays which cover a wide range of topics, including: women shopkeepers in eighteenth-century Boston, African-American businessmen and political leadership in antebellum Boston, artisans as entrepreneurs, the decline of Boston's wine trade, forms of business organization, and what merchants did with their money.

Where Is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870-1960.

Journal Article Where Is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870–1960. By William E Hartford. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996. xii, 256 pp. $35.00, ISBN 1-55849-022-1.) Get access Timothy J. Minchin Timothy J. Minchin Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of American History, Volume 84, Issue 2, September 1997, Pages 672–673, https://doi.org/10.2307/2952643 Published: 01 September 1997

Where is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870–1960

Where is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870–1960

Where is our responsibility?: unions and economic change in the New England textile industry, 1870-1960

Offering an informative case study of the post-war shift of the US economy, this study provides a broader historical view of current union struggles to preserve the nation's manufacturing base. It focuses on the developments in three cities: Fall River, New Bedford and Lawrence.

William F. Hartford, Where Is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870–1960. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996. x + 256 pp. $35.00 cloth.

William F. Hartford, Where Is Our Responsibility? Unions and Economic Change in the New England Textile Industry, 1870–1960. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996. x + 256 pp. $35.00 cloth. - Volume 52

Deference and Defiance: Labor Politics and the Meanings of Masculinity in the Mid‐Nineteenth‐Century New England Textile Industry

Gender & HistoryVolume 5, Issue 3 p. 398-415 Deference and Defiance: Labor Politics and the Meanings of Masculinity in the Mid-Nineteenth-Century New England Textile Industry MARY H. BLEWETT, MARY H. BLEWETTSearch for more papers by this author MARY H. BLEWETT, MARY H. BLEWETTSearch for more papers by this author First published: September 1993 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0424.1993.tb00187.xCitations: 6AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume5, Issue3September 1993Pages 398-415 RelatedInformation

The World of the Industrial Revolution: Comparative and International Aspects of Industrialization ed. by Robert Weible

966 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE under Conditions of War: German Aero-Technology in Japan during the Second War.” His analysis of necessity places this aspect of tech­ nology in a socioeconomic context and is of particular interest because of its wartime setting. Vernard Foley’s “Using the Early Slide Rest” takes the subject back to the late 15th century. The author uses an experimental model approach to resolve difficulties arising from con­ temporary illustrations and argues that the slide rest emerges in re­ lation to the introduction of the conical screw thread. “The Origins and Worldwide Spread of Warren-Truss Bridges in the Mid-Nine­ teenth Century,” by J. G. James, deals with the development and diffusion of the minimal framework system of equilateral triangles patented by James Warren in 1848. It is the densely packed, wellillustrated piece that we have come to expect from James and it will remain a source paper for some years. Andrew Nahum, in “The Rotary Aero Engine,” deals with this peculiar, short-lived (1908-18), but important engine and the author argues that the commonly ad­ vanced reasons for its demise are inadequate. There are excellent illustrations and tables of engine performance. An unusual paper is Dale H. Porter’s “An Historian’s Judgements about the Thames Em­ bankment.” It is a preliminary piece describing the historian’s ways of defining an event, evaluating sources, and makingjudgments about structuring his writing. The final papers deal with railway technology. John H. White discusses the reasons for replacing timber with steel in freight cars on American railroads at the end of the last century, and Ian R. Winship discusses the acceptance of continuous brakes on railways in Britain. The two articles illustrate how economy and safety influenced railway practice and shed new light on these topics. The diverse backgrounds of the contributing authors say a great deal about the subject of the history of technology on both sides of the Atlantic. These volumes are a major contribution to studies in the field and should be on the shelves of all well-stocked libraries. Denis Smith Dr. Smith is a lecturer and writer and chairman of the Rapers Committee of the Newcomen Society. The World of the Industrial Revolution: Comparative and International Aspects of Industrialization. Edited by Robert Weible. North Andover, Mass.: Museum of American Textile History, 1986. Pp. 177; illus­ trations, notes. $ 10.00+ $ 1.50 handling (paper). Unlike many collections of essays, this volume of papers from the 1984 Lowell Conference on Industrial History focuses on a few central themes. Nearly all of the essays concern the New England textile industry (the exceptions—David Goldfield’s comparison of 20thcentury city planning in the United States and Sweden and two com­ TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 967 mentaries on Goldfield’s paper—should interest historians of urban engineering and students of the work of Lewis Mumford), and all of the authors adopt the comparative method. The resulting coherence gives the book a cumulative influence greater than the sum of its individual components. Four of the essays about textiles concentrate on the antebellum industry. Peter Temin discusses capital; Darwin Stapleton examines the role of Michel Chevalier in transferring textile and other tech­ nology between Europe and the United States; and Richard Hills and Terry Reynolds each compare waterpower in the United States and Great Britain. In remarks long on ideas but short on data, Temin puts forth two hypotheses: (1) much of the capital involved in American textile production was working capital, as Sidney Pollard found was true in England; and (2) historians have placed too much emphasis on the relative shortage of labor in the American industry and not enough on the relative shortage of capital. With this second assertion, Temin touches on a major theme of the subsequent three papers, which each lend credence to the notion that the American industry developed in a capital-scarce environment. Like other European vis­ itors, Chevalier noted that cheap, hasty construction made American mills and railroads appear temporary in comparison to their European counterparts. Hills contrasts waterpowered mills in England, where many small, technically sophisticated establishments crowded along small streams that had supported industry for centuries, with...

The Museum of American Textile History: Archival Sources for Business History

Originally founded to house the papers and artifacts of the Stevens family, operators of several woolen mills in the Merrimack Valley, the Museum of American Textile History has grown to become a valuable resource for historians and others interested in the rise and fall of the New England textile industry. In the following essay, Dorothy Truman describes the depth and breadth of the museum's collections and highlights their importance to the study of business history.

New Towns of the Early New England Textile Industry

New Towns of the Early New England Textile Industry

A Garrisonian Discussion of Prejudice: "Not One Dares to Rise"

New England textile industry, wealthy Boston capitalist, and strong Whig (he was Congressman, Vice-Presidential candidate, and President Taylor's Minister to Great Britain), Lawrence's was a very strong recommendation. Ezra Lincoln, Secretary, Massachusetts Whig Committee, stated the proposition even more directly: [Goodrich's] appointment I am sure would help the administration in relation to the removal of Hawthorne 8c Walsh as literary men-Mr. G. as Peter Parley being more popular throughout the country than either of these gentlemen-.i7 To this end had the political appointment of writers come-political consideration not for their own artistic strengths and weaknesses but from an ultimate regard to retention of the sensitive checks and balances upon which party loyalty is built. From this analysis of the removal of Walsh and the placing of Goodrich in the position of Consul at Paris, it becomes clear that at the middle of the century the tradition of literary appointments was solidly established. As a means of literary sinecure it was less than perfect. One class of writers who needed help, that is, the novice, was rarely appointed (William Dean Howells' appointment as Consul at Venice is a notable exception). Mostly, men of letters of established reputation benefited from the system. It was, after all, literary men of established reputation that the patronage system inherently favored; and as a means of cultivating literary art it was at best a social gesture. What can be said in favor of a system of subsidy that fails to distinguish Hawthorne from Goodrich? Were the winners disturbed, in moments of self-awareness, to recognize it was more their image than merit that counted? Still, there was the triumph of the achieved power, the glory of recognition.

The Intellectual Origins and New-Worldliness of American Industry

The revolutionary technological changes that have come to typify our modern industrial society were first felt in the New England textile industry. The American zeal for useful improvements that greeted the industrial revolution was counterbalanced by a patriotic fear that the ill consequences of European manufacturing would be repeated here. The textile manufacturers who introduced the factory system into the United States early in the nineteenth century found it necessary, in order to win a full measure of public support and secure workers in a land where labor was dear, to demonstrate that “the moral standards of the community would not be impaired.”