What About the Common People?

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, 80% of Europeans made their livings as farmers. Unfortunately, ineffective techniques and poor conditions often caused crop failures which inevitably led to famines and poor economies.  

This is what I imagine the sad farmers looked like when their crops failed. 

The Agricultural Revolution modernized and commercialized farming in Europe with the help of new techniques. The techniques, such as crop rotation and selective farming, were products of the scientific revolution. 

Crop Rotation

By alternating growing different types of crops, soil exhaustion and fallow were lessened, improving crop yields. 

One of the most important developments of the Agricultural Revolution was the enclosure of the land, particularly in England. Some believed that in order to improve farming, farmers had to consolidate their lands into one fenced in area, rather than occupy several scattered fields.

Opinions differ as to whether or not this consolidation of the lands was beneficial to the common person. 

Pro-enclosure:

Supporters of enclosure (the wealthy) believed that this system would improve farming because the new techniques could be easily applied, making farming more efficient. The wealthy land owners benefited directly from this system because they produced  higher crop yields and could charge higher rents. After the enclosure acts, many poor farmers lost their own land, so they had to work the land of the wealthy. This gave the laborers relative stability because it provided secure jobs. This officially marked England's transition into a market-oriented agricultural society with the addition of a landless proletariat (working class). England was growing up and on its way to becoming capitalist (aww). 

Anti-enclosure:

Adversaries of enclosure believed that this system hindered social mobility. Because the wealthy tended to monopolize the land, they poor seemed to have few opportunities to improve economically. Obsessed with a making a profit, large land owners leased their land to middle-class farmers who relied on the proletariat to work the land. Laborers worked long hours and became entirely dependent on cash wages.  

Katie Coyne's Opinion:

I think that, while it seemed as though the lower class had lost its social mobility, life after enclosure was more stable for everyone. Previously, people essentially shared the land (*cough* communism) and farmed rather haphazardly. Their dated techniques provided inconsistent crop yields which led to famines and distress. With the help of the newer techniques and the enclosure, farming became much more lucrative and successful--not to mention famines became less common. While many did not own land themselves, they had stable jobs working the land. I believe that a certain degree of economic stability can eventually lead to social mobility. Once one has a relatively stable job, he can attempt to move up economically. For this reason, I think that, theoretically, the lower and middle classes should have had more social mobility after enclosure than before.