User:Gabriel Mont/Luddite

Reputation

At the time of the Luddite activities between 1811 and 1816, the protestors were respected and admired by a subset of civilians and workers; the imaginary figure of General Ludd was even considered a hero. However, throughout the centuries following the end of the movement, the word "Luddite" has become an insult, a shift brought about in part by conflicting encyclopedia entries that paint the English protestors in a negative light. The reputation of the Luddites has changed in another way: historians studying the 18th-century protests have debated and influenced each-other's opinions on the matter, resulting in an ever-changing perception of Luddites in the academic sphere.

Public Reputation

Parliamentary records from the mid-1950s contain the first known association of the word “Luddite” with technophobia, but an unfavorable image of the Luddites was already present in encyclopedias. The 11th Edition Britannica from 1911, possibly to appeal to its well-off readers, frames the Luddites as antagonists to the machine owners whose equipment had been vandalized. The same work also insults Ned Ludd’s intelligence and focuses on the destruction of the movement, avoiding mention of any part machine owners might have had in the rise of the Luddites. The 1938 Americana discuses the Luddites with vague language and avoids mentioning the punishment inflicted on the participants who were captured by the government. Over time, the Britannica changed its facts, stating that citizens supported the Luddites in the 1929 edition, but then saying the rioters received only a small amount of approval in the 1969 edition. In 1961, the Luddites were pitied as fools by a compiler, who stated that the machines were not really causing job loss. Overall, by focusing on the machine smashing and siding with the government and machine owners, encyclopedias throughout the centuries modified the portrayal of the Luddites from protestors to technophobic rioters desiring chaos. A 2017 digital Britannica article is much more favorable to the Luddites, however, and displays sympathy for the workers who were suffering from job loss, reflecting a change of readership and the general human mindset. The word "Luddite," though, is still used as a derogatory term to label people as technophobic.

British historian Eric Hobsbawm concluded the Luddites used machine-breaking as a form of protest.

Views of Historians

The word "Luddite" has a very specific definition among history experts: it refers only to protestors that were active in specific areas of England from 1811 through 1816. The identity of the Luddites is uncontested, but historians have argued over other aspects of the movement. Two particularly hot points of contention are whether or not the machine-smashers were politically motivated and if the movement left lasting consequences.

Early historians consented that the actions of the Luddites were a form of protest, with an exception being put forth by Frank Peel in 1880. Peel focused on the Luddites’ way of speaking that resembled the rhetoric of a revolution. Later, F. Darvall took a more traditional stance, believing that the Luddites had acted for job-related motives without politics being involved. John L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond, through studying documents, came to the conclusion that Luddism arose to prevent unfavorable changes in laws and the workplace. The British historian Eric Hobsbawm combined some notions of previous historians to conclude that the Luddites broke machines in a strategic manner to bargain for control in their trades. E. P. Thompson later considered that the Luddite movement might have arisen due to a combination of political and work-related issues. Thompson thought that Luddism was a symptom of the unification of workers, and the British historian was the first to frame the riots as a contributor to progress. M. I. Thomis, however, did not see the movement in such a positive light, arguing in the 1970s that Luddism was merely a small piece in the history of trade unions. In the 1990s, Kirkpatrick Sale published a study that greatly contributed to the modern view of Luddites by the public. To Sale, the Luddites were mostly upset with the inclusion of machines in the workplace, portraying the workers as technophobic.

The contrasting viewpoints historians have put forth over the past few centuries have not wholly been consolidated, and experts regard Luddites in various ways depending on the location of the protests being discussed. Regardless of the many differing interpretations of the Luddite protests, most historians agree that a strict, rigid government, ignorant to the dissatisfaction of the working-class population, was the prevailing cause, directly or otherwise, of the riots.