Technical Culture as a Factor in the First Industrial Revolution
In Power and Progress, Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson provide a detailed account of how technological advancements have rarely benefited the entire population. Their fascinating investigation, spanning from the Neolithic era to the present day, supports the idea—dating back at least to Rousseau—that inequalities increased with the advent of sedentary life and the development of agriculture. They also show how these inequalities have persisted over centuries. As the book’s title suggests, the primary explanatory factor is power—a power that is not limited to coercion but is strongly supported by ideas and their communication.
Chapter 5 deals with the First Industrial Revolution (circa 1750–1850). The authors recall five main types of factors that historians typically emphasize when explaining why Britain became the cradle of this economic upheaval: geography, culture (religion and entrepreneurial spirit), natural resources, economic factors, and political factors. Reviewing these different causes, they argue that none of them alone can fully explain Britain’s uniqueness. Instead, they propose another reason: the decline of feudalism, which had been eroded over previous centuries by three main causes: colonization, which relied on private enterprises; the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, during which land was redistributed, allowing for the rise of independent farmers and skilled artisans; and the 17th-century civil wars.
While the weakening of feudalism appears to be a crucial factor, I believe it is necessary to add a cultural element, as the reduction of opposition to social mobility alone does not fully explain the surge of innovations that occurred. In fact, I am surprised that technical culture is not highlighted as a key factor in the First Industrial Revolution, given that the well-known contrast between an Anglo-Saxon technical approach—embodied by Francis Bacon—and a more abstract, theoretical continental approach—represented by Descartes—dates back to the first half of the 17th century.
Curious about this issue, I asked ChatGPT why historians do not emphasize this cultural aspect more. It responded:
One reason historians do not highlight this aspect as much is that economic and institutional explanations (capital, labor, resources, political shifts) often dominate the debate. These are easier to quantify than the gradual diffusion of a technical mindset.
And it reinforced my observation:
Francis Bacon’s emphasis on empiricism and useful knowledge encouraged a culture of experimentation and innovation. The Royal Society (founded in 1660) played a major role in legitimizing and disseminating scientific and technical knowledge. Many inventors of the Industrial Revolution, such as James Watt and Richard Arkwright, were more tinkerers and self-taught engineers than academic theorists—illustrating the cultural shift toward the practical application of science.
The Limits of Innovation Today
ChatGPT then asks me a series of questions about the persistence of cultural differences in technical approaches and innovation between the Anglo-Saxon and European worlds. During our discussion, the following intuition occurs to me: if technical culture differences remain significant today, digitalization is blurring the distinction between what is considered technical and what is considered intellectual.
In this context, Europe could carve out a niche in the global economy, as evidenced by the emergence of entrepreneurial hubs, particularly in France with La French Tech. France also has world-class research in mathematics, physics, and neuroscience. However, multiple obstacles hinder the rise of a true Europe Tech, especially regarding companies’ ability to grow over the long term and reach a scale that would allow them to compete internationally—or even rival the American giants.
The Draghi Report, published in late 2024, provides a comprehensive list of economic and political hurdles to European competitiveness. It highlights, in particular, the lack of integration and cooperation across the continent. Yet, cooperation may be undermined by the rise of nationalist movements, which promote the illusion of national independence in the face of American and Chinese corporate dominance. The issue of technical culture, for its part, is addressed through the lens of skill development to meet labor market demands in the tech sector.
From the outset, the report asserts that European values, in this order, are: prosperity, fairness, freedom, peace, and democracy. The fact that prosperity appears first and that fairness replaces equality suggests that Mr. Draghi’s values may not fully reflect those of European populations. Regarding prosperity, I believe he makes explicit what often remains an unspoken political assumption—at least in France: the pursuit of prosperity continuously shapes behaviors at all levels of society. It is often tied to an idealized vision of the nation, which has historically translated into various forms of domination (especially colonial). And the perception of decline fuels political polarization. From my perspective, we are not declining—rather, other countries and regions of the world are developing, which naturally leads to a rebalancing of power.
To stay in the global economic race, growth is necessary. However, generating growth has become significantly more complex over the past few decades, largely due to globalization and digitalization. And, as Acemoglu and Johnson argue in Power and Progress, we have reason to doubt that productivity gains from current innovations will translate into job creation. Take robotics, for instance: many robots are developed not to assist humans but to replace them, as is already the case with numerous mechanized processes in manufacturing and logistics. The same applies to AI. Moreover, the digital market is global, solutions are continuously standardized and optimized, and AI is gradually enabling the development of more cost-effective solutions. Given the extraordinary concentration of tech companies today, is there room for everyone? The Draghi Report explicitly acknowledges that competing with Amazon, Google, and Microsoft in cloud computing is an unrealistic goal.
Continuing to develop a technical culture to foster more innovations at a faster pace appears to be a geopolitical necessity, but one that does not guarantee national wealth or job creation—only intensified competition. The true necessity lies in maintaining relative independence in a world where even longtime allies like the United States are succumbing to a brand of authoritarianism that falsifies reality, colonizes territories, and devastates the planet, all in the name of preserving idealizations of power and wealth.