Conference Report INDUSTRIALIZATION AND URBANIZATION—THE SENCSA CONFERENCE, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM, APRIL 1987 W. DAVID LEWIS Founded in 1979, the Southeastern Nineteenth-Century Studies Association (SENCSA) is an interdisciplinary organization that aims to bring together “scholars of literature, languages, history, philosophy, religion, music, art, architecture, science, and the social sciences for lively and provocative conferences.”1 Since holding the first of these meetings at Georgia Institute of Technology in May 1980, SENCSA has held one every year, with each conference devoted to a common theme. Considering that SENCSA’s April 1987 conference was at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, virtually in the shadow of the idle ironmaking installations that now constitute Sloss Furnaces National Historic Landmark, it is difficult to imagine a more appro priate theme than the one chosen: Industrialization and Urbaniza tion. Thirty-two scholars, most from southeastern institutions but some from colleges and universities outside the region, presented papers on a variety of topics ranging from “The New Industrialism and Pre-Raphaelite Art” (Robert Alan Donovan, SUNY at Albany) and “The Machine in Wessex: Hardy, Industrialization, and Urban ization” (Joan Weatherly, Memphis State University) to “Influenza in Manchester, 1918-1919” (Fred R. van Hartesveldt, Fort Valley State College) and “Johannesburg on the Veldt: The Birth of the City of Gold” (Dalvan M. Coger, Memphis State University). The sessions were punctuated by held trips to such local attractions as Sloss Furnaces. Excellent arrangements contributed further to the success Dr. Lewis is Hudson Professor of History and Engineering at Auburn University. He is the author of Iron and Steel in America (Wilmington, Del., 1976) and is currently writing a history of Sloss Furnaces. 'See the Editorial Note in the first (1987) volume of SENCSA’s annual journal, Nineteenth Century Studies.©1989 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/89/3003-0007$01.00 628 Industrialization and Urbanization 629 of an impressive and enjoyable three-day event. Inevitably, the thirty-one papers presented during the course of the proceedings varied in the degree to which they provided fresh insights into the cultural influence of industrialization and urbanization, but even those that seemed less original than the best were characteristically thoughtful and well prepared. The four papers in the opening session, “The New Society Takes Shape,” were typical of the overall quality of the conference. In a thoughtful presentation entitled “Out of Place, Out of Mind: Dis placement in Regency Art and Society,” Joel Haefner (Iowa City, Iowa) observed that inaccuracies in the works of Cobbett and other early-19th-century writers regarding the tangible results of industri alization reveal that the social “displacement” they discerned was “not physical so much as experiential,” part of a “re-mapping of the mental and imaginative mind of the Regency reader.” Surveying key works by such writers as Wordsworth and Lamb, and drawing on the insights of such scholars as Gaston Bachelard, Haefner contended that the physical places one encounters in Regency literature—a ruined cot tage, for example, or a deserted mansion—should be seen not as truthful or literal representations of fact but as “internalized struc tures,” an “architecture of the imagination.” Haefner’s discussion was reminiscent of Piranesi’s carceri, the engravings of William Blake, Poe’s “Fall of the House of Usher,” and other symbol-laden products of the human imagination that reveal a deep artistic response to social and technological change. It provided fresh insight into an important dimension of the Romantic reaction to the Industrial Revolution. Similarly enjoyable was “Economic and Literary Perspectives on Victorian Industrialization” by Philip M. Holleran and Lowell T. Frye (Hampden-Sydney College). The underlying theme was the way in which such essayists and novelists as Carlyle and Dickens misperceived the aims of Smith, Malthus, and other classical economists by assuming that these exponents of the “dismal science” were trying to defend the evils of industrial society. Instead, Holleran and Frye argued, they were honestly concerned about the plight of the wretched multitudes who suffered from industrialization, but they were also convinced that self-discipline and a true perception of basic economic laws provided the only way out of a bad situation. In their words...
Read full abstract