Article contents
Conditions of Dependence
Working-Class Quiescence in Lancaster in the Twentieth Century*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008
Summary
This paper examines a town in northwest England and a particular set of conditions that inhibited the growth of working-class politics during the twentieth century. The paradox of class politics in Lancaster is that despite a proletarian population, the labour movement locally remained extremely weak. Ironically, it was only upon the deindustrialisation of the town in the later 1960s that labour showed any collective strength. Explanation of quiescence in terms of paternalism and deference is rejected. Rather an account is given in terms of powerlessness. Local structural conditions rendered Lancaster workers so highly dependent that resistance to political domination was precluded.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1990
References
1 E.g. Urry, J., “Deindustrialisation, Households and Politics”, in Murgatroyd, L. et al. (eds), Localities, Class and Gender (London, 1985), pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
2 E.g. Howell, D., British Workers and the Independent Labour Party 1886–1906 (Manchester, 1983)Google Scholar; Massey, D., Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of Production (London, 1984)Google Scholar; Savage, M., The Dynamics of Working Class Politics (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar, and Wainwright, H., Labour: a Tale of Two Parties (London, 1987), pp. 94–161.Google Scholar
3 Among recent works, Hearn, F., Domination, Legitimation and Resistance: the Incorporation of the 19th Century English Working Class (Westport, 1978)Google Scholar; Burgess, K., The Challenge of Labour: Shaping British Society 1850–1930 (London, 1980)Google Scholar; Hobsbawm, E., “The Forward March of Labour Halted”, in Jacques, M. (ed.), The Forward March of Labour Halted?(London, 1978), pp. 1–19Google Scholar; Hinton, J., Labour and Socialism: a History of the British Labour Movement, 1867–1974 (Brighton, 1983)Google Scholar; Cronin, J., Labour and Society in Britain 1918–1979 (Batsford, 1984)Google Scholar, and Price, R., Labour in British Society: an Interpretative History (London, 1986).Google Scholar
4 E.g. Nordlinger, E., The Working Class Tory (London, 1965)Google Scholar; McKenzie, R. and Silver, A., Angels in Marble (London, 1967).Google Scholar
5 Gaventa, J., Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (Oxford, 1980).Google Scholar
6 Felling, H., Social Geography of British Elections 1886–1910 (London, 1967), p. 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Todd, N., “A History of Labour in Lancaster and Barrow-in-Furness c. 1890–1920” (unpublished MPhil. Thesis, University of Lancaster, 1976).Google Scholar
8 Todd, , “A History of Labour in Lancaster”, p. 62.Google Scholar
9 Todd, , A History of Labour in Lancaster, pp. 120–127.Google Scholar
10 Lancaster Guardian, 11 11 1911.Google Scholar
11 Todd, , A History of Labour in Lancaster, p. 127.Google Scholar
12 See Mark-Lawson, J., Savage, M. and Warde, A., “Women and Local Politics: Struggles over Welfare, 1918–1939”, in Murgatroyd, L. et al. (eds), Localities, Class and Gender (London, 1985), pp. 195–215.Google Scholar
13 See Mark-Lawson, et al. , “Women and Local Politics”, pp. 199–201.Google Scholar
14 Lancaster Guardian Supplement, 24 03 1933, p. 5.Google Scholar
15 See Cullingworth, J. B., Housing in Transition: a Case Study in the City of Lancaster, 1958–1962 (London, 1962), pp. 20–34.Google Scholar
16 Lancaster Observer, 3 02 1933.Google Scholar
17 Savage, , The Dynamics of Working Class Politics, pp. 20–38.Google Scholar
18 Lancaster Guardian, 2 09 1938.Google Scholar
19 Piepe, A.et al., “The Location of the Proletarian and Deferential Worker”, Sociology, 3 (1969), pp. 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Martin, R. and Fryer, R. H., Redundancy and Paternalist Capitalism: a Study in the Sociology of Work (London, 1973).Google Scholar
21 Moser, C. A. and Scott, W., British Towns: a Statistical Survey of Social and Economic Differences (Edinburgh, 1961).Google Scholar
22 Lancaster Guardian, 14 07 1939.Google Scholar
23 Ibid.
24 See Mark-Lawson, J. and Warde, A., “Industrial Restructuring and the Transformation of a Local Political Environment: A Case Study of Lancaster”, Lancaster Regionalism Group Working Paper No. 33 (University of Lancaster, 1987).Google Scholar
25 Savage, M., “Understanding Political Alignments in Contemporary Britain: Do Localities Matter?”, Political Geography Quarterly, 6 (1987), pp. 53–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Piepe, et al. , “The Location of the Proletarian and Deferential Worker”.Google Scholar
26 This, to some extent, reflects the fact that the Conservatives on occasion have declined to contest one or two seats in Skerton Central, whereas Labour declined to contest but one.
27 See Murgatroyd, L., “Deindustrialisation in Lancaster”, Lancaster Regionalism Group Working Paper No. 1 (University of Lancaster, 1981)Google Scholar; Bagguley, P., Mark-Lawson, J., Shapiro, D., Urry, J., Walby, S. and Warde, A., Restructuring: Place, Class and Gender (London, 1990).Google Scholar
28 Lockwood, D., “Sources of Variation in Working-Class Images of Society”, Sociological Review, 14 (1966), pp. 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 See Martin, and Fryer, , Redundancy and Paternalist Capitalism, pp. 26–47Google Scholar; Gooderson, P., “The Social History of Lancaster 1780–1914” (unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Lancaster, 1975), p. 370Google Scholar; Myall, A. E., Changes in Social Control in Lancaster 1913–38(unpublished MA Thesis, University of Lancaster, 1976), pp. 6–15.Google Scholar
30 Martin, and Fryer, , Redundancy and Paternalist Capitalism, p. 26.Google Scholar
31 Ibid., p. 32.
32 Ibid., p.34.
33 Urry, J., “Paternalism, Management and Localities”, Lancaster Regionalism Group Working Paper No. 2 (University of Lancaster, 1980).Google Scholar
34 Norris, G., “Industrial Paternalism, Capitalism and Local Labour Markets”, Sociology, 12 (1978), pp. 469–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Urry, , “Paternalism, Management and Localities”, pp. 18–22.Google Scholar
35 Joyce, P., Work, Society and Politics: the Culture of the Factory in Later Victorian England (Brighton, 1980), pp. 331–340Google Scholar; Price, , Labour in British Society, pp. 93–94.Google Scholar
36 E.g. Littler, C., “A Comparative Analysis of Managerial Structures and Strategies”, in Gospel, H. and Littler, C. (eds), Managerial Strategies and Industrial Relations: a Historical and Comparative Study (London, 1983).Google Scholar
37 Melling, J., “Employers, Industrial Housing and the Evolution of Company Welfare Policies in Britain's Heavy Industry: West Scotland 1870–1920”, International Review of Social History, XXVI (1981), pp. 255–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Norris, , “Industrial Paternalism, Capitalism and Local Labour Markets”.Google Scholar
39 Joyce, , Work, Society and Politics, is an exception.Google Scholar
40 Newby, H., The Deferential Worker (Harmondsworth, 1979), pp. 414–440.Google Scholar
41 Lockwood, , “Sources of Variation in Working-Class Images of Society”, pp. 252–255.Google Scholar
42 E.g. Roberts, K. et al. , The Fragmentary Class Structure (London, 1977), pp. 44–49.Google Scholar
43 Newby, , The Deferential Worker, p. 414.Google Scholar
44 Lukes, S., Power: a Radical View (London, 1974), p. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 Gaventa, , Power and Powerlessness.Google Scholar
46 See Burawoy, M., The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes under Capitalism and Socialism (London, 1985), pp. 209–252.Google Scholar
47 Gaventa, , Power and Powerlessness, p. 89.Google Scholar
48 Savage, , The Dynamics of Working Class Politics, p. 5.Google Scholar
49 Cornish, S., “Powerlessness in Peripheral Regions: the Case of the Non-Militant Miner”, in Rees, G. et al. (eds), Political Action and Social Identity: Class, Locality and Ideology (London, 1985), pp. 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Ibid., p. 53.
51 For a theoretical elaboration of these concepts and their interrelationships, see Warde, A., “Industrial Restructuring, Local Politics and the Reproduction of Labour Power: Some Theoretical Issues”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6 (1988), pp. 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52 See also Warde, A., “Industrial Discipline: Factory Regime and Politics in Lancaster”, Work, Employment and Society, 3 (1989), pp. 49–64.Google Scholar
53 Todd, , A History of Labour in Lancaster, pp. 165–166.Google Scholar
54 See Warde, , “Industrial Discipline: Factory Regime and Politics in Lancaster”, p. 57.Google Scholar
55 Storeys Leavers' Book, 1897–1907.
56 Littler, C. R., “The Bureaucratisation of the Shop-Floor: the Development of Modern Work Systems”, 2 vols (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, London School of Economics, 1980).Google Scholar
57 See Warde, A., “Changes in the Occupational Structure of Lancaster 1901–1951”, Lancaster Regionalism Group Working Paper No.4 (University of Lancaster, 1982), pp. 43–51.Google Scholar
58 Ibid., p. 43.
59 See Mark-Lawson, J., “Women, Welfare and Urban Politics: a Comparative Analysis of Luton and Nelson 1917–34” (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Lancaster University, 1988)Google Scholar; Savage, , The Dynamics of Working Class Politics, pp. 171–179.Google Scholar
60 Employer interview.
61 Employer interviews.
62 See Mark-Lawson, and Warde, , “Industrial Restructuring and the Transformation of a Local Political Environment”, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
63 Offe, C. and Wiesenthal, H., “Two Logics of Collective Action: Theoretical Notes on Social Class and Organisational Form”, Political Power and Social Theory, 1 (1980), pp. 67–115.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by