{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025278810408921933, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017843866171003718, 'mean_word_length': 5.502415458937198, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Britain's "Manifest Industrial Destiny": The Culture of High Technology and Industrial Performance in the Twentieth Century

Wiener and Bamett have attracted the lion's share of critical attention. Both authors share the common assumption that British society, from the late nineteenth century, has never come to terms with the values of "industrialism" despite its evident desire to enjoy the fruits of economic growth. While Wiener refers to the subversion of an original ethos of ongoing industrial progress at the hands of the aristocracy and liberal intelligentsia after 1850, Barnett castigates the post-1940 architects of the welfare state for preempting a vigorous postwar program of industrial modernizations in favor of social service expenditures. Needless to say, both theses have been subject to severe criticism, not least on account of their highly selective use of evidence and unsubstantiated generalizations [Coleman, 1987; Collins and Robbins, 1990; Harris, 1991]. More to the point, they have been challenged on their own terms by scholars who deny not only that cultural conservatism underwrote competitive failings [Rubinstein, 1995], but also that the British state (defined in the broadest sense) was anti-industrial and therefore opposed to technological advance. In the latter context, the most striking invocation of a