London's Working-Class Youth and the Making of Post-Victorian Britain, 1958–1971

IF 0.3 Q4 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Labor-Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1215/15476715-10581433
Mark Doyle
{"title":"London's Working-Class Youth and the Making of Post-Victorian Britain, 1958–1971","authors":"Mark Doyle","doi":"10.1215/15476715-10581433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is an ambitious, heavily researched, frustratingly undercooked book. Its purpose is to examine the extent to which the much-mythologized youth culture of sixties London was truly new. Did it signal the final death of Victorian Britain, or was it a slightly reconfigured version of older cultural formations? Setting up a dichotomy between historians who emphasize the period's continuities and those who, aligning with prevailing popular memory, emphasize change, Fuhg splits the difference, arguing that the 1960s were “a liminal period in which both the continuity of and dissociation from Victorian Britain were tangible . . . the old and new under the umbrella of the future” (7). It is a claim that is hard to refute. All ages, after all, are ages of transition. Nevertheless, unpicking the old from the new is a legitimate task for the historian, and this, in essence, is what Fuhg sets out to do.Fuhg's method is to peer beneath the breezy generalizations of contemporary commentators and the lofty claims of academic researchers by conducting a fine-grained analysis of everyday teenage life in London's urban spaces. Most historians would do this via one or several detailed case studies, but Fuhg's approach is more synthetic—or, perhaps more accurately, composite. Through prodigious research, principally in popular media, social science publications, and local government reports, he ranges freely across London's neighborhoods and entertainment districts, constructing a variegated picture of the thirteen-year period between 1958 and 1971 through the eyes of contemporaries and historians. The strongest parts of the book are those that explore how changes in the built environment facilitated cultural changes and the formation of youth subcultures. Coffee bars, suburbs, seaside resorts, council houses, youth clubs, and other locales allowed teenagers—newly affluent and mobile—to imagine a future that drew from, but wasn't limited by, Britain's past. While elements of Victorian culture such as class divisions, gender norms, imperial mindsets (especially racism), and outdoor associational life came under pressure in such venues, they didn't disappear. Thus, for example, Fuhg challenges the conventional wisdom that slum clearance, suburbanization, and the rise of television created a hopelessly fragmented and privatized working-class culture. Though he is not the first to say this (Mark Clapson, for one, has been making similar arguments since the 1990s), this careful attention to the lived experience of individuals and nicely evokes London's youth cultures in all their richness and gradations.Unfortunately, the book's insights are too often buried in a confusing mass of data that the author fails to guide us through. Each chapter is so filled with contemporary commentary and reminiscences—one chapter has over seven hundred endnotes—that reading them is a bit like trying to drink from a firehose. Often this data is contradictory, and sometimes it is factually incorrect. The historian's task is not only to collect such material but also to shape it into a narrative or interpretive framework that can help us draw meaning from it. Too often, Fuhg neglects to do this.An example of contradictory data that needs expert adjudication is that having to do with race relations. On the one hand, Fuhg deserves praise for the way he weaves the experiences of nonwhite migrant and migrant-descended youths into most of the chapters, instead of setting them apart as a separate topic. On the other hand, it is difficult to know how to make sense of much of the data he presents. Writing of Soho nightclubs, he notes that some clubs became “contact zones” bringing together youth of different races. He then quotes people who say that these clubs fostered good relations between Black and white youth (356). These positive assessments are followed by several pages of contradictory evidence about color bars and racial tensions in nightclubs, and these, in turn, are followed by assertions that white skinheads and mods often got along quite well. All of these things can be true, but it requires some authorial guidance to explain how they can be true. In this case, as in many others, such guidance is lacking.At times, Fuhg is admirably skeptical of his sources, particularly when they are academic researchers, but when dealing with the popular press he can be curiously credulous. This leads to some unfortunate errors, as when he cites a 1968 NME article to the effect that the Monkees were “at least half British”—they were, in fact, exactly one-quarter British (214). Elsewhere, he claims that after the 1970s “the Beatles hid behind Latin-American combos on stage, in an effort to reduce their own visibility,” which is erroneous on two counts: first, because the Beatles broke up in 1970, and, second, because they never performed with such combos (229).Many errors are of a compositional nature. Hardly a page goes by without a distracting typographical or grammatical error. Some of this may stem from the fact that the author is a German speaker writing in English, in which case the failure is an editorial one, that is, a failure by the publisher to help the author produce the best text possible. In a book retailing for $150, one expects, at a minimum, that facts will be correct and prose will be competently edited—particularly if, as is often the case with such titles, the goal is to have it adopted as a text for university courses.Alas, I can't recommend this book for such a purpose. Certain chapters, particularly those on space and place, will prove useful to scholars looking to ground their understanding of postwar British youth culture in the built environment (although the absence of maps is an unfortunate oversight). But most other topics have been handled more effectively by others, including the series editors of Palgrave's History of Subcultures and Popular Music, of which this book forms a part. Robust editorial intervention might have molded this into a more focused, accurate, and readable book. It is a shame that a historian of such energy and promise should be so ill served by a publisher that seems more interested in producing expensive content for libraries and databases than in producing superior scholarship.","PeriodicalId":43329,"journal":{"name":"Labor-Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor-Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-10581433","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is an ambitious, heavily researched, frustratingly undercooked book. Its purpose is to examine the extent to which the much-mythologized youth culture of sixties London was truly new. Did it signal the final death of Victorian Britain, or was it a slightly reconfigured version of older cultural formations? Setting up a dichotomy between historians who emphasize the period's continuities and those who, aligning with prevailing popular memory, emphasize change, Fuhg splits the difference, arguing that the 1960s were “a liminal period in which both the continuity of and dissociation from Victorian Britain were tangible . . . the old and new under the umbrella of the future” (7). It is a claim that is hard to refute. All ages, after all, are ages of transition. Nevertheless, unpicking the old from the new is a legitimate task for the historian, and this, in essence, is what Fuhg sets out to do.Fuhg's method is to peer beneath the breezy generalizations of contemporary commentators and the lofty claims of academic researchers by conducting a fine-grained analysis of everyday teenage life in London's urban spaces. Most historians would do this via one or several detailed case studies, but Fuhg's approach is more synthetic—or, perhaps more accurately, composite. Through prodigious research, principally in popular media, social science publications, and local government reports, he ranges freely across London's neighborhoods and entertainment districts, constructing a variegated picture of the thirteen-year period between 1958 and 1971 through the eyes of contemporaries and historians. The strongest parts of the book are those that explore how changes in the built environment facilitated cultural changes and the formation of youth subcultures. Coffee bars, suburbs, seaside resorts, council houses, youth clubs, and other locales allowed teenagers—newly affluent and mobile—to imagine a future that drew from, but wasn't limited by, Britain's past. While elements of Victorian culture such as class divisions, gender norms, imperial mindsets (especially racism), and outdoor associational life came under pressure in such venues, they didn't disappear. Thus, for example, Fuhg challenges the conventional wisdom that slum clearance, suburbanization, and the rise of television created a hopelessly fragmented and privatized working-class culture. Though he is not the first to say this (Mark Clapson, for one, has been making similar arguments since the 1990s), this careful attention to the lived experience of individuals and nicely evokes London's youth cultures in all their richness and gradations.Unfortunately, the book's insights are too often buried in a confusing mass of data that the author fails to guide us through. Each chapter is so filled with contemporary commentary and reminiscences—one chapter has over seven hundred endnotes—that reading them is a bit like trying to drink from a firehose. Often this data is contradictory, and sometimes it is factually incorrect. The historian's task is not only to collect such material but also to shape it into a narrative or interpretive framework that can help us draw meaning from it. Too often, Fuhg neglects to do this.An example of contradictory data that needs expert adjudication is that having to do with race relations. On the one hand, Fuhg deserves praise for the way he weaves the experiences of nonwhite migrant and migrant-descended youths into most of the chapters, instead of setting them apart as a separate topic. On the other hand, it is difficult to know how to make sense of much of the data he presents. Writing of Soho nightclubs, he notes that some clubs became “contact zones” bringing together youth of different races. He then quotes people who say that these clubs fostered good relations between Black and white youth (356). These positive assessments are followed by several pages of contradictory evidence about color bars and racial tensions in nightclubs, and these, in turn, are followed by assertions that white skinheads and mods often got along quite well. All of these things can be true, but it requires some authorial guidance to explain how they can be true. In this case, as in many others, such guidance is lacking.At times, Fuhg is admirably skeptical of his sources, particularly when they are academic researchers, but when dealing with the popular press he can be curiously credulous. This leads to some unfortunate errors, as when he cites a 1968 NME article to the effect that the Monkees were “at least half British”—they were, in fact, exactly one-quarter British (214). Elsewhere, he claims that after the 1970s “the Beatles hid behind Latin-American combos on stage, in an effort to reduce their own visibility,” which is erroneous on two counts: first, because the Beatles broke up in 1970, and, second, because they never performed with such combos (229).Many errors are of a compositional nature. Hardly a page goes by without a distracting typographical or grammatical error. Some of this may stem from the fact that the author is a German speaker writing in English, in which case the failure is an editorial one, that is, a failure by the publisher to help the author produce the best text possible. In a book retailing for $150, one expects, at a minimum, that facts will be correct and prose will be competently edited—particularly if, as is often the case with such titles, the goal is to have it adopted as a text for university courses.Alas, I can't recommend this book for such a purpose. Certain chapters, particularly those on space and place, will prove useful to scholars looking to ground their understanding of postwar British youth culture in the built environment (although the absence of maps is an unfortunate oversight). But most other topics have been handled more effectively by others, including the series editors of Palgrave's History of Subcultures and Popular Music, of which this book forms a part. Robust editorial intervention might have molded this into a more focused, accurate, and readable book. It is a shame that a historian of such energy and promise should be so ill served by a publisher that seems more interested in producing expensive content for libraries and databases than in producing superior scholarship.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
伦敦的工人阶级青年与后维多利亚时代英国的形成,1958-1971
几乎没有一页没有令人分心的排版或语法错误。其中一些原因可能是作者是一个说德语的人,用英语写作,在这种情况下,失败是编辑的,也就是说,出版商未能帮助作者写出最好的文本。在一本零售价150美元的书中,人们期望,至少,事实是正确的,文笔是有能力编辑的——特别是如果它的目标是作为大学课程的教材,这是此类标题经常出现的情况。唉,我不能出于这种目的推荐这本书。某些章节,特别是关于空间和地点的章节,将证明对那些试图在建筑环境中理解战后英国青年文化的学者是有用的(尽管缺少地图是一个不幸的疏忽)。但大多数其他主题已经被其他人更有效地处理了,包括帕尔格雷夫的《亚文化和流行音乐史》的系列编辑,本书是其中的一部分。强有力的编辑干预可能会把这本书塑造成一本更专注、更准确、更可读的书。令人遗憾的是,一位精力充沛、前途无量的历史学家,却受到一家似乎更感兴趣于为图书馆和数据库提供昂贵内容、而非提供卓越学术研究的出版商如此糟糕的服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
期刊最新文献
London's Working-Class Youth and the Making of Post-Victorian Britain, 1958–1971 On Account of Sex: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Making of Gender Equality Law The Shadow of El Centro: A History of Migrant Incarceration and Solidarity Editor's Introduction Tending the Fire
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1