Questões de Concurso
Sobre inglês
Foram encontradas 17.000 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham was regarded as the founder of utilitarianism and a leading advocate of the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and individual legal rights. Furthermore, the “panopticon” is a type of institutional building that has long dominated Bentham’s legacy. As a work of architecture, the panopticon allows a watchman in a central tower to observe occupants of surrounding cells without the occupants knowing whether or not they are being watched. As a metaphor, the panopticon was commandeered in the latter half of the 20th century as a way to trace the surveillance tendencies of disciplinarian societies. Is it still a useful way to think about surveillance today?
The French philosopher Michel Foucault used the idea of the panopticon as a way to illustrate the proclivity of disciplinary societies to subjugate its citizens. He describes the prisoner of a panopticon as being at the receiving end of asymmetrical surveillance: “He is seen, but he does not see.” As a consequence, the inmate polices himself for fear of punishment.
The parallels between the panopticon and surveillance cameras may be obvious, but what happens when you step into the world of digital surveillance and data capture? Unlike the panopticon, citizens don’t know they are being watched. Jake Goldenfein, from the University of Melbourne, tells me it’s important to remember the corrective purposes of Bentham’s panopticon when considering it as a metaphor for modern surveillance. “The relevance of the panopticon as a metaphor begins to wither when we start thinking about whether contemporary types of visuality are analogous to the central tower concept. For example, whether this type of visuality is as asymmetrical, and being co-opted for the same political exercise.” In the panopticon the occupants are constantly aware of the threat of being watched — this is the whole point — but state surveillance on the Internet is invisible; there is no looming tower, no dead-eye lens staring at you every time you enter a URL. There may not be a central tower, but there will be communicating sensors in our most intimate objects.
Internet: <theguardian.com> (adapted).
Based on the previous text, judge the following item.
According to the researcher Jake Goldenfein, the fact that nowadays people know they are being watched by cameras is the aspect that lessens the panopticon effectiveness as a metaphor for contemporary surveillance.
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham was regarded as the founder of utilitarianism and a leading advocate of the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and individual legal rights. Furthermore, the “panopticon” is a type of institutional building that has long dominated Bentham’s legacy. As a work of architecture, the panopticon allows a watchman in a central tower to observe occupants of surrounding cells without the occupants knowing whether or not they are being watched. As a metaphor, the panopticon was commandeered in the latter half of the 20th century as a way to trace the surveillance tendencies of disciplinarian societies. Is it still a useful way to think about surveillance today?
The French philosopher Michel Foucault used the idea of the panopticon as a way to illustrate the proclivity of disciplinary societies to subjugate its citizens. He describes the prisoner of a panopticon as being at the receiving end of asymmetrical surveillance: “He is seen, but he does not see.” As a consequence, the inmate polices himself for fear of punishment.
The parallels between the panopticon and surveillance cameras may be obvious, but what happens when you step into the world of digital surveillance and data capture? Unlike the panopticon, citizens don’t know they are being watched. Jake Goldenfein, from the University of Melbourne, tells me it’s important to remember the corrective purposes of Bentham’s panopticon when considering it as a metaphor for modern surveillance. “The relevance of the panopticon as a metaphor begins to wither when we start thinking about whether contemporary types of visuality are analogous to the central tower concept. For example, whether this type of visuality is as asymmetrical, and being co-opted for the same political exercise.” In the panopticon the occupants are constantly aware of the threat of being watched — this is the whole point — but state surveillance on the Internet is invisible; there is no looming tower, no dead-eye lens staring at you every time you enter a URL. There may not be a central tower, but there will be communicating sensors in our most intimate objects.
Internet: <theguardian.com> (adapted).
Based on the previous text, judge the following item.
The text informs that the prisoners of a panopticon know they are under surveillance, but they do not know the exact moments they are being watched.
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham was regarded as the founder of utilitarianism and a leading advocate of the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and individual legal rights. Furthermore, the “panopticon” is a type of institutional building that has long dominated Bentham’s legacy. As a work of architecture, the panopticon allows a watchman in a central tower to observe occupants of surrounding cells without the occupants knowing whether or not they are being watched. As a metaphor, the panopticon was commandeered in the latter half of the 20th century as a way to trace the surveillance tendencies of disciplinarian societies. Is it still a useful way to think about surveillance today?
The French philosopher Michel Foucault used the idea of the panopticon as a way to illustrate the proclivity of disciplinary societies to subjugate its citizens. He describes the prisoner of a panopticon as being at the receiving end of asymmetrical surveillance: “He is seen, but he does not see.” As a consequence, the inmate polices himself for fear of punishment.
The parallels between the panopticon and surveillance cameras may be obvious, but what happens when you step into the world of digital surveillance and data capture? Unlike the panopticon, citizens don’t know they are being watched. Jake Goldenfein, from the University of Melbourne, tells me it’s important to remember the corrective purposes of Bentham’s panopticon when considering it as a metaphor for modern surveillance. “The relevance of the panopticon as a metaphor begins to wither when we start thinking about whether contemporary types of visuality are analogous to the central tower concept. For example, whether this type of visuality is as asymmetrical, and being co-opted for the same political exercise.” In the panopticon the occupants are constantly aware of the threat of being watched — this is the whole point — but state surveillance on the Internet is invisible; there is no looming tower, no dead-eye lens staring at you every time you enter a URL. There may not be a central tower, but there will be communicating sensors in our most intimate objects.
Internet: <theguardian.com> (adapted).
Based on the previous text, judge the following item.
Although conveying different notions and images, the word adopted could replace the word “commandeered” (fourth sentence of the first paragraph) without contradicting the main idea of the sentence in which it is used in the text.
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham was regarded as the founder of utilitarianism and a leading advocate of the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and individual legal rights. Furthermore, the “panopticon” is a type of institutional building that has long dominated Bentham’s legacy. As a work of architecture, the panopticon allows a watchman in a central tower to observe occupants of surrounding cells without the occupants knowing whether or not they are being watched. As a metaphor, the panopticon was commandeered in the latter half of the 20th century as a way to trace the surveillance tendencies of disciplinarian societies. Is it still a useful way to think about surveillance today?
The French philosopher Michel Foucault used the idea of the panopticon as a way to illustrate the proclivity of disciplinary societies to subjugate its citizens. He describes the prisoner of a panopticon as being at the receiving end of asymmetrical surveillance: “He is seen, but he does not see.” As a consequence, the inmate polices himself for fear of punishment.
The parallels between the panopticon and surveillance cameras may be obvious, but what happens when you step into the world of digital surveillance and data capture? Unlike the panopticon, citizens don’t know they are being watched. Jake Goldenfein, from the University of Melbourne, tells me it’s important to remember the corrective purposes of Bentham’s panopticon when considering it as a metaphor for modern surveillance. “The relevance of the panopticon as a metaphor begins to wither when we start thinking about whether contemporary types of visuality are analogous to the central tower concept. For example, whether this type of visuality is as asymmetrical, and being co-opted for the same political exercise.” In the panopticon the occupants are constantly aware of the threat of being watched — this is the whole point — but state surveillance on the Internet is invisible; there is no looming tower, no dead-eye lens staring at you every time you enter a URL. There may not be a central tower, but there will be communicating sensors in our most intimate objects.
Internet: <theguardian.com> (adapted).
Based on the previous text, judge the following item.
It can be concluded from the text that, for Michel Foucault, the panopticon is a powerful illustration of the symmetrical relations that take part in organized societies.
( ) Social inequalities have prevented endeavors toward change in ESG.
( ) The standards for ESG reporting should be less rigid than those for financial reporting.
( ) Proper internal auditing requires precise ESG reporting.
The statements are, respectively,
When we learn a language, there are four skills that we need for complete communication.
Read the sentences below and determine whether they are true ( T ) or false ( F ) based onto these skills.
( ) Speaking refers to understanding, interpreting and analysing the speaker’s message.
( ) Listening is an integral part of the communication process as it is vital for the listener to stay engaged and actively comprehend what is said.
( ) Writing involves presenting your thoughts in the form of text using the right structure and flow of information.
( ) Reading skills effectively includes having clarity and fluency in your expression and vocabulary.
( ) Speaking skills are usually important when companies are hiring new employees.
Select the option that presents the correct sequence from top to bottom.
Read the sentences below and determine whether they are true ( T ) or false ( F ) about Knowledge of Modern Foreign Language(s) (NCP document).
( ) Foreign languages also work as means of access to different forms of knowledge.
( ) Under LDB Law, Modern Foreign Languages have gain status as an important course in the curriculum.
( ) Learning a Modern Foreign Language nowadays, is an essential means of communication among people.
( ) Foreign Languages are still an isolated course in the curriculum.
Select the option that presents the correct sequence from top to bottom.
According to the National Curriculum Parameters:
The role of education in a technology-based society has features that can ensure an unprecedented level of ............................. to education. This is so as the development of the ................................... and ............................. competencies required for full-fledged human development has now coincided with production-related expectations.
Select the option that presents the correct missing words in the paragraph.
Read the following sentences about “Uso e formação de Wh-questions e outras estruturas interrogativas.”
1. Wh-questions begin with what, when, where, who, whom, which, whose, why and how.
2. We use the ‘wh-questions’ to ask for information. The answer can be yes or no. We expect an answer which gives information.
3. We usually form ‘wh-questions’ with wh- + an auxiliary verb (be, do or have) + subject + infinitive verb or with wh- + a modal verb + subject + main verb.
4. When what, who, which or whose is the subject or part of the subject, we do not use the auxiliary. We use the word order subject + verb.
Select the option that presents the correct sentences.
Text
Reading skill will help you to improve your understanding of the language and build your vocabulary.
Read the text below carefully.
Social media, magazines and shop windows bombard people daily with things to buy, and British consumers are buying more clothes and shoes than ever before. Online shopping means it is easy for customers to buy without thinking, while major brands offer such cheap clothes that they can be treated like disposable items – worn two or three times and then thrown away
In Britain, the average person spends more than £1,000 on new clothes a year, which is around four per cent of their income. That might not sound like much, but that figure hides two far more worrying trends for society and for the environment. First, a lot of that consumer spending is via credit cards. British people currently owe approximately £670 per adult to credit card companies. That’s 66 per cent of the average wardrobe budget. Also, not only are people spending money they don’t have, they’re using it to buy things they don’t need. Britain throws away 300,000 tons of clothing a year, most of which goes into landfill sites.
People might not realize they are part of the disposable clothing problem because they donate their unwanted clothes to charities. But charity shops can’t sell all those unwanted clothes. Fast fashion goes out of fashion as quickly as it came in and is often too poor quality to recycle; people don’t want to buy it second-hand. Huge quantities end up being thrown away, and a lot of clothes that charities can’t sell are sent abroad, causing even more economic and environmental problems.
However, a different trend is springing up in opposition to consumerism – the ‘buy nothing’ trend. The idea originated in Canada in the early 1990s and then moved to the US, where it became a rejection of the overspending and overconsumption of Black Friday and Cyber Monday during Thanksgiving weekend. On Buy Nothing Day people organize various types of protests and cut up their credit cards. Throughout the year, Buy Nothing groups organize the exchange and repair of items they already own.
The trend has now reached influencers on social media who usually share posts of clothing and make- -up that they recommend for people to buy. Some YouTube stars now encourage their viewers not to buy anything at all for periods as long as a year. Two friends in Canada spent a year working towards buying only food. For the first three months they learned how to live without buying electrical goods, clothes or things for the house. For the next stage, they gave up services, for example haircuts, eating out at restaurants or buying petrol for their cars. In one year, they’d saved $55,000.
The changes they made meant two fewer cars on the roads, a reduction in plastic and paper packaging and a positive impact on the environment from all the energy saved. If everyone followed a similar plan, the results would be impressive. But even if you can’t manage a full year without going shopping, you can participate in the anti-consumerist movement by refusing to buy things you don’t need. Buy Nothing groups send a clear message to companies that people are no longer willing to accept the environmental and human cost of overconsumption.
source: learnenglish.britishcouncil.org
Text
Reading skill will help you to improve your understanding of the language and build your vocabulary.
Read the text below carefully.
Social media, magazines and shop windows bombard people daily with things to buy, and British consumers are buying more clothes and shoes than ever before. Online shopping means it is easy for customers to buy without thinking, while major brands offer such cheap clothes that they can be treated like disposable items – worn two or three times and then thrown away
In Britain, the average person spends more than £1,000 on new clothes a year, which is around four per cent of their income. That might not sound like much, but that figure hides two far more worrying trends for society and for the environment. First, a lot of that consumer spending is via credit cards. British people currently owe approximately £670 per adult to credit card companies. That’s 66 per cent of the average wardrobe budget. Also, not only are people spending money they don’t have, they’re using it to buy things they don’t need. Britain throws away 300,000 tons of clothing a year, most of which goes into landfill sites.
People might not realize they are part of the disposable clothing problem because they donate their unwanted clothes to charities. But charity shops can’t sell all those unwanted clothes. Fast fashion goes out of fashion as quickly as it came in and is often too poor quality to recycle; people don’t want to buy it second-hand. Huge quantities end up being thrown away, and a lot of clothes that charities can’t sell are sent abroad, causing even more economic and environmental problems.
However, a different trend is springing up in opposition to consumerism – the ‘buy nothing’ trend. The idea originated in Canada in the early 1990s and then moved to the US, where it became a rejection of the overspending and overconsumption of Black Friday and Cyber Monday during Thanksgiving weekend. On Buy Nothing Day people organize various types of protests and cut up their credit cards. Throughout the year, Buy Nothing groups organize the exchange and repair of items they already own.
The trend has now reached influencers on social media who usually share posts of clothing and make- -up that they recommend for people to buy. Some YouTube stars now encourage their viewers not to buy anything at all for periods as long as a year. Two friends in Canada spent a year working towards buying only food. For the first three months they learned how to live without buying electrical goods, clothes or things for the house. For the next stage, they gave up services, for example haircuts, eating out at restaurants or buying petrol for their cars. In one year, they’d saved $55,000.
The changes they made meant two fewer cars on the roads, a reduction in plastic and paper packaging and a positive impact on the environment from all the energy saved. If everyone followed a similar plan, the results would be impressive. But even if you can’t manage a full year without going shopping, you can participate in the anti-consumerist movement by refusing to buy things you don’t need. Buy Nothing groups send a clear message to companies that people are no longer willing to accept the environmental and human cost of overconsumption.
source: learnenglish.britishcouncil.org
Read the sentences below and determine whether they are true ( T ) or false ( F ), according to structure and grammar use.
( ) The verbs worn and thrown (1st paragraph of the text) has its infinitive form as wear and throw.
( ) The underlined words in the text: nothing, anything and, everyone are examples of relative pronouns.
( ) The singular form of the following words from the text clothes and goods are, respectively cloth and good.
( ) The following sentence from the text: “Fast fashion goes out of fashion as quickly as it came in …” (3rd paragraph of the text). The words in bold are being used to compare things that are equal in some way.
( ) The negative form of the sentence “In one year, they’d saved $55,000.” (5th paragraph of the text), is “In one year, they hadn’t saved $55,000.”
Select the option that presents the correct sequence from top to bottom.
Text
Reading skill will help you to improve your understanding of the language and build your vocabulary.
Read the text below carefully.
Social media, magazines and shop windows bombard people daily with things to buy, and British consumers are buying more clothes and shoes than ever before. Online shopping means it is easy for customers to buy without thinking, while major brands offer such cheap clothes that they can be treated like disposable items – worn two or three times and then thrown away
In Britain, the average person spends more than £1,000 on new clothes a year, which is around four per cent of their income. That might not sound like much, but that figure hides two far more worrying trends for society and for the environment. First, a lot of that consumer spending is via credit cards. British people currently owe approximately £670 per adult to credit card companies. That’s 66 per cent of the average wardrobe budget. Also, not only are people spending money they don’t have, they’re using it to buy things they don’t need. Britain throws away 300,000 tons of clothing a year, most of which goes into landfill sites.
People might not realize they are part of the disposable clothing problem because they donate their unwanted clothes to charities. But charity shops can’t sell all those unwanted clothes. Fast fashion goes out of fashion as quickly as it came in and is often too poor quality to recycle; people don’t want to buy it second-hand. Huge quantities end up being thrown away, and a lot of clothes that charities can’t sell are sent abroad, causing even more economic and environmental problems.
However, a different trend is springing up in opposition to consumerism – the ‘buy nothing’ trend. The idea originated in Canada in the early 1990s and then moved to the US, where it became a rejection of the overspending and overconsumption of Black Friday and Cyber Monday during Thanksgiving weekend. On Buy Nothing Day people organize various types of protests and cut up their credit cards. Throughout the year, Buy Nothing groups organize the exchange and repair of items they already own.
The trend has now reached influencers on social media who usually share posts of clothing and make- -up that they recommend for people to buy. Some YouTube stars now encourage their viewers not to buy anything at all for periods as long as a year. Two friends in Canada spent a year working towards buying only food. For the first three months they learned how to live without buying electrical goods, clothes or things for the house. For the next stage, they gave up services, for example haircuts, eating out at restaurants or buying petrol for their cars. In one year, they’d saved $55,000.
The changes they made meant two fewer cars on the roads, a reduction in plastic and paper packaging and a positive impact on the environment from all the energy saved. If everyone followed a similar plan, the results would be impressive. But even if you can’t manage a full year without going shopping, you can participate in the anti-consumerist movement by refusing to buy things you don’t need. Buy Nothing groups send a clear message to companies that people are no longer willing to accept the environmental and human cost of overconsumption.
source: learnenglish.britishcouncil.org
Read the sentences below and determine whether they are true ( T ) or false ( F ) based onto the text.
( ) The reason people buy clothes is to throw them away.
( ) If everyone followed the tips mentioned in the text, the environment would benefit.
( ) After reading the text we can infer that it is worrying that people spend money on things they do not need.
( ) The amount the average Briton owes on credit cards is one third of the amount they spend on clothes each year.
Select the option that presents the correct sequence from top to bottom.
Text
Reading skill will help you to improve your understanding of the language and build your vocabulary.
Read the text below carefully.
Social media, magazines and shop windows bombard people daily with things to buy, and British consumers are buying more clothes and shoes than ever before. Online shopping means it is easy for customers to buy without thinking, while major brands offer such cheap clothes that they can be treated like disposable items – worn two or three times and then thrown away
In Britain, the average person spends more than £1,000 on new clothes a year, which is around four per cent of their income. That might not sound like much, but that figure hides two far more worrying trends for society and for the environment. First, a lot of that consumer spending is via credit cards. British people currently owe approximately £670 per adult to credit card companies. That’s 66 per cent of the average wardrobe budget. Also, not only are people spending money they don’t have, they’re using it to buy things they don’t need. Britain throws away 300,000 tons of clothing a year, most of which goes into landfill sites.
People might not realize they are part of the disposable clothing problem because they donate their unwanted clothes to charities. But charity shops can’t sell all those unwanted clothes. Fast fashion goes out of fashion as quickly as it came in and is often too poor quality to recycle; people don’t want to buy it second-hand. Huge quantities end up being thrown away, and a lot of clothes that charities can’t sell are sent abroad, causing even more economic and environmental problems.
However, a different trend is springing up in opposition to consumerism – the ‘buy nothing’ trend. The idea originated in Canada in the early 1990s and then moved to the US, where it became a rejection of the overspending and overconsumption of Black Friday and Cyber Monday during Thanksgiving weekend. On Buy Nothing Day people organize various types of protests and cut up their credit cards. Throughout the year, Buy Nothing groups organize the exchange and repair of items they already own.
The trend has now reached influencers on social media who usually share posts of clothing and make- -up that they recommend for people to buy. Some YouTube stars now encourage their viewers not to buy anything at all for periods as long as a year. Two friends in Canada spent a year working towards buying only food. For the first three months they learned how to live without buying electrical goods, clothes or things for the house. For the next stage, they gave up services, for example haircuts, eating out at restaurants or buying petrol for their cars. In one year, they’d saved $55,000.
The changes they made meant two fewer cars on the roads, a reduction in plastic and paper packaging and a positive impact on the environment from all the energy saved. If everyone followed a similar plan, the results would be impressive. But even if you can’t manage a full year without going shopping, you can participate in the anti-consumerist movement by refusing to buy things you don’t need. Buy Nothing groups send a clear message to companies that people are no longer willing to accept the environmental and human cost of overconsumption.
source: learnenglish.britishcouncil.org
Match the words (from the text) in column 1 with the correct definitions in column 2.
Column 1 Words
1. disposable
2. overspending
3. a landfill site
4. consumerism
5. to bombard
Column 2 Definitions
( ) a place where rubbish is buried under the ground.
( ) to appear.
( ) the act of spending more money than you should.
( ) the practice of buying and owning lots of products.
( ) designed to be thrown away after use.
Select the option that presents the correct sequence from top to bottom.
The Role of Women in the Industrial Revolution
The first half of the 19th century was a time of great change. Industrialization brought new opportunities for employment, changing ideas of work, and economic cycles of boom and bust. During this period, women's roles changed dramatically. Industrialization redefined the role of women in the home, at the same time opening new opportunities for them as industrial wage earners.
Pre-Industrial America and Women's Worth
In pre-industrial America, the household was the center of production. Most families lived on farms where everyone worked to produce goods in order to survive. Within this context, the status of men and women was relatively equal. Men were the heads of households, but the role of women as caretakers and producers of goods, such as food and clothing, was equally important. With the first stages of industrialization, these patterns changed.
Increasingly, men began working outside of the home. Rather than selling goods they had produced, these workers sold their time to factory owners, who, in turn, sold the mass-produced goods. Men dominated this new realm of work. They made money - not goods - to provide for the family. Material success − how much money one could make and what they could buy with it − became a measure of a person's worth.
Industrial Capitalism and the Changing Role of Women
Women were not paid for work in the home. With the availability of manufactured goods, a woman's role as producer within the home was reduced. The household, and the women who made it a home, took on new meaning. The new role of women was to transform the home into a haven for the men who faced daily pressures and dangers in the work place.
At the same time, women were morally responsible for raising dutiful children, preferably sons. By the mid-19th century, popular media depicted the "True Woman" as one who could competently manage a household, tend to the needs of husband and children, and create a pleasant and morally pure environment.
Farming in the Age of Factories
As the popularity of factory work grew, many questioned the wisdom of moving away from the land. Those who remained in agriculture were forced to concentrate on livestock or cash crops that could be sold to national markets. By the 1840s, cash crops from farms west of Albany dominated the market. Small New England farms were devastated. Large families, failed crops, and little cash income threatened family stability. Such factors may have influenced many women's decisions to go to Lowell. Their departure meant one fewer mouth to feed, and the potential of supporting the family with cash wages.
Lowell, Massachusetts: The Experiment on the Merrimack
The idea of a city like Lowell began with a wealthy Boston merchant, Francis Cabot Lowell. In 1812, Lowell returned from England with the design for a power loom firmly etched in his mind. A year later, he and mechanic Paul Moody built a working power loom. These looms wove cotton threads into cloth, creating a marketplace of machine-produced goods and offering consumers the ease of purchasing something that had previously been a time-consuming, by-hand process.
Lowell envisioned an entire community involved in textile production. With the help of a group of investors, he built a textile mill on the Charles River in Waltham, Massachusetts. By 1817, the factory was an economic success, and the investors began looking to expand beyond the limited power of the Charles River. Lowell died that year, but his colleagues forged ahead. They found the ideal site at the Pawtucket Falls, where the Merrimack River drops more than 30 feet.
In 1821, the investors purchased farmland around the falls, and the first mills opened in 1823. During the next 25 years, they built additional mills and an intricate system of canals that supplied water power to the mills. By 1843, Lowell was the largest industrial center in the United States.
Women at Work: Lowell's Early Labor
The city's investors hired corporate recruiters to enlist young women from rural New England to work in the mills. Their reasoning was two-fold: women were apt to stay in the city only a few years before leaving to become wives and mothers, thus preventing the establishment of a permanent working class; and women were less expensive and more easily controlled than men.
Every woman had her own reasons for seeking factory work. Life was very difficult on a subsistence farm in New England − large families resulting in minimal (if any) inheritances, failing crops from unpredictable weather, and young men leaving in search of a better life (reducing marriage prospects).
One can only imagine how these "country girls" felt as they made their way into the city. In that instant, they saw what the majority of people in their hometown had never seen: massive brick factories; rows of streets lined with shops, taverns, and boardinghouses; crowds of well-dressed young people; and a mind-altering noise of the mills.
Considering the text above, judge the following excerpt:
The Role of Women in the Industrial Revolution | Tsongas Industrial History Center | UMass Lowell (uml.edu)
The Role of Women in the Industrial Revolution
The first half of the 19th century was a time of great change. Industrialization brought new opportunities for employment, changing ideas of work, and economic cycles of boom and bust. During this period, women's roles changed dramatically. Industrialization redefined the role of women in the home, at the same time opening new opportunities for them as industrial wage earners.
Pre-Industrial America and Women's Worth
In pre-industrial America, the household was the center of production. Most families lived on farms where everyone worked to produce goods in order to survive. Within this context, the status of men and women was relatively equal. Men were the heads of households, but the role of women as caretakers and producers of goods, such as food and clothing, was equally important. With the first stages of industrialization, these patterns changed.
Increasingly, men began working outside of the home. Rather than selling goods they had produced, these workers sold their time to factory owners, who, in turn, sold the mass-produced goods. Men dominated this new realm of work. They made money - not goods - to provide for the family. Material success − how much money one could make and what they could buy with it − became a measure of a person's worth.
Industrial Capitalism and the Changing Role of Women
Women were not paid for work in the home. With the availability of manufactured goods, a woman's role as producer within the home was reduced. The household, and the women who made it a home, took on new meaning. The new role of women was to transform the home into a haven for the men who faced daily pressures and dangers in the work place.
At the same time, women were morally responsible for raising dutiful children, preferably sons. By the mid-19th century, popular media depicted the "True Woman" as one who could competently manage a household, tend to the needs of husband and children, and create a pleasant and morally pure environment.
Farming in the Age of Factories
As the popularity of factory work grew, many questioned the wisdom of moving away from the land. Those who remained in agriculture were forced to concentrate on livestock or cash crops that could be sold to national markets. By the 1840s, cash crops from farms west of Albany dominated the market. Small New England farms were devastated. Large families, failed crops, and little cash income threatened family stability. Such factors may have influenced many women's decisions to go to Lowell. Their departure meant one fewer mouth to feed, and the potential of supporting the family with cash wages.
Lowell, Massachusetts: The Experiment on the Merrimack
The idea of a city like Lowell began with a wealthy Boston merchant, Francis Cabot Lowell. In 1812, Lowell returned from England with the design for a power loom firmly etched in his mind. A year later, he and mechanic Paul Moody built a working power loom. These looms wove cotton threads into cloth, creating a marketplace of machine-produced goods and offering consumers the ease of purchasing something that had previously been a time-consuming, by-hand process.
Lowell envisioned an entire community involved in textile production. With the help of a group of investors, he built a textile mill on the Charles River in Waltham, Massachusetts. By 1817, the factory was an economic success, and the investors began looking to expand beyond the limited power of the Charles River. Lowell died that year, but his colleagues forged ahead. They found the ideal site at the Pawtucket Falls, where the Merrimack River drops more than 30 feet.
In 1821, the investors purchased farmland around the falls, and the first mills opened in 1823. During the next 25 years, they built additional mills and an intricate system of canals that supplied water power to the mills. By 1843, Lowell was the largest industrial center in the United States.
Women at Work: Lowell's Early Labor
The city's investors hired corporate recruiters to enlist young women from rural New England to work in the mills. Their reasoning was two-fold: women were apt to stay in the city only a few years before leaving to become wives and mothers, thus preventing the establishment of a permanent working class; and women were less expensive and more easily controlled than men.
Every woman had her own reasons for seeking factory work. Life was very difficult on a subsistence farm in New England − large families resulting in minimal (if any) inheritances, failing crops from unpredictable weather, and young men leaving in search of a better life (reducing marriage prospects).
One can only imagine how these "country girls" felt as they made their way into the city. In that instant, they saw what the majority of people in their hometown had never seen: massive brick factories; rows of streets lined with shops, taverns, and boardinghouses; crowds of well-dressed young people; and a mind-altering noise of the mills.
Considering the text above, judge the following excerpt:
The Role of Women in the Industrial Revolution | Tsongas Industrial History Center | UMass Lowell (uml.edu)
Conheça nossos planos