Disability in Industrial Britain: A Cultural and Literary History of Impairment in the Coal Industry, 1880–1948

IF 0.3 Q4 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Jim Phillips
{"title":"Disability in Industrial Britain: A Cultural and Literary History of Impairment in the Coal Industry, 1880–1948","authors":"Jim Phillips","doi":"10.1215/15476715-10581391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ten percent of male workers in the United Kingdom were employed in the coal industry in 1914. Coal's economic and employment prevalence came at immense human cost. No industry was more dangerous or injurious to the health of its workers. Major pit disasters arising from explosions and fires drew public attention, but more damaging were the everyday attrition effects of roof falls and the dust-ridden environment underground. Coalfield women shared the industry's physical toll. While barred from work underground in Britain after the 1840s, their experience of childbirth and domestic labor in extremely arduous conditions was debilitating. Their daily shift, called the darg in Scotland, involved cleaning and drying their menfolk's pit clothes, heating water for baths, and preparing meals. Where mining sons lived in the parental home and worked different shifts from their fathers, mothers’ dargs could last from 4 a.m. to 11 p.m.The authors of Disability in Britain examine the impact of such exhausting life and labor. Their first key insight, from disability studies, is profound. Impairment and disability are not synonymous: impairment is physical; disability is social. Miners acquired impairments through workplace accidents and diseases. They were then disabled by obstacles erected by employers and medical professionals along with welfare policy makers and administrators. The authors’ second key insight is that miners were a highly organized “patient” group that exerted agency on two broad fronts: campaigning for a safer working environment to minimize impairment; and resisting disability on the terms defined by employers and policy makers. Miners across the United Kingdom won two major legislative victories in 1946–47. Clement Attlee's reforming Labour government passed the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, which provided statutory and comprehensive compensation for workers denied employment owing to impairment, and nationalized coal, which led to safer employment through stronger union voice.Disability in Industrial Britain is a major outcome of the Leverhulme Trust–funded Disability and Industrial Society project, where twelve researchers from seven UK universities engaged in comparative cultural histories of the coalfields from 1780 to 1914. Kirsti Bohata is a professor of English at Swansea University, where Alexandra Jones undertook a PhD thesis and Mike Mantin worked as a research fellow. Steve Thompson is a senior lecturer in history and Welsh history at Aberystwyth University. The interdisciplinary strengths of this research team shaped the broad range of sources they analyzed in this book, focusing on the coalfield territories of South Wales, Durham, and Scotland. The team drew empirical evidence from records of welfare policy makers and administrators, employers, the courts where compensation claims were contested, and trade unions. These documents, alongside newspaper reports, are integrated with extensive readings from creative literature on mining, from middle-class authorial accounts in the nineteenth century that dwelt on tragedy and individual redemption, to assertive working-class writers who highlighted collective injustice in the twentieth century.Industrial changes from the late nineteenth century onward aggravated historical problems underground. Mechanization in a privately owned industry where firms competed for domestic and overseas markets led to accidents and illnesses. Coal industry employment was highly varied, however, and here was the social model of disability in action. When demand for mining labor was high, in periods of economic expansion, and in both the First and Second World War, impaired miners were redeployed. But when markets contracted, in the early 1920s and 1930s, these men were the first to be made redundant, employers often mobilizing bogus safety arguments against their retention. This is a highly significant finding, providing a historical parallel with the hidden unemployment of coalfield deindustrialization identified in the 1990s by Christina Beatty and Steve Fothergill. In this later period, redundant workers who would have remained economically active had coal jobs still been available were reclassified by doctors and welfare administrators as “permanently sick.”The theme of collective agency is showcased in the authors’ examination of the medical and welfare systems. Impaired miners resisted their “medicalization” and impoverishment. Organized labor was involved in the design of medical services and treatment. In the 1920s employers were compelled by mining unions to finance the Miners’ Welfare Fund, coordinated by the UK government, which provided pit baths and various rehabilitation and convalescence facilities. Compensation awards were meager and often contested. Impaired miners seeking compensation were subjected to medical inspection by company doctors who frequently disputed work-related causation and the extent of injury or illness. Determined union activism was required to demonstrate employer liability in local courts of law. The authors also examine the social relations of disability in households and communities. Isolation was a common experience for the impaired, with constraints on work and social interaction. The masculine breadwinner ideal was compromised, but impaired miners often found other roles, in jobs outside mining and in domestic caregiving and labor performance, confounding gender stereotypes, while union activism on compensation enabled their contribution to household income.The authors end their detailed analysis with an extended discussion of working-class coalfields literature, in which disability is shown to have been a core feature. Short-story writers, novelists, and poets demonstrated how people were disabled by mining under capitalist relations of production. Nonliterary scholars may query the value added in this stand-alone chapter. The material might usefully have been incorporated in the preceding discussions of work, medical treatment, compensation, social relations, and political activism. In explicitly focusing on working-class authors and the voices of the impaired, however, the authors emphatically reinforce this exceptional book's central contribution to our understanding of coalfield history. Disability was a social construct, and as such it was resisted by miners in South Wales, Durham, and Scotland from the 1880s to the 1940s.","PeriodicalId":43329,"journal":{"name":"Labor-Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"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/10.1215/15476715-10581391","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

Ten percent of male workers in the United Kingdom were employed in the coal industry in 1914. Coal's economic and employment prevalence came at immense human cost. No industry was more dangerous or injurious to the health of its workers. Major pit disasters arising from explosions and fires drew public attention, but more damaging were the everyday attrition effects of roof falls and the dust-ridden environment underground. Coalfield women shared the industry's physical toll. While barred from work underground in Britain after the 1840s, their experience of childbirth and domestic labor in extremely arduous conditions was debilitating. Their daily shift, called the darg in Scotland, involved cleaning and drying their menfolk's pit clothes, heating water for baths, and preparing meals. Where mining sons lived in the parental home and worked different shifts from their fathers, mothers’ dargs could last from 4 a.m. to 11 p.m.The authors of Disability in Britain examine the impact of such exhausting life and labor. Their first key insight, from disability studies, is profound. Impairment and disability are not synonymous: impairment is physical; disability is social. Miners acquired impairments through workplace accidents and diseases. They were then disabled by obstacles erected by employers and medical professionals along with welfare policy makers and administrators. The authors’ second key insight is that miners were a highly organized “patient” group that exerted agency on two broad fronts: campaigning for a safer working environment to minimize impairment; and resisting disability on the terms defined by employers and policy makers. Miners across the United Kingdom won two major legislative victories in 1946–47. Clement Attlee's reforming Labour government passed the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, which provided statutory and comprehensive compensation for workers denied employment owing to impairment, and nationalized coal, which led to safer employment through stronger union voice.Disability in Industrial Britain is a major outcome of the Leverhulme Trust–funded Disability and Industrial Society project, where twelve researchers from seven UK universities engaged in comparative cultural histories of the coalfields from 1780 to 1914. Kirsti Bohata is a professor of English at Swansea University, where Alexandra Jones undertook a PhD thesis and Mike Mantin worked as a research fellow. Steve Thompson is a senior lecturer in history and Welsh history at Aberystwyth University. The interdisciplinary strengths of this research team shaped the broad range of sources they analyzed in this book, focusing on the coalfield territories of South Wales, Durham, and Scotland. The team drew empirical evidence from records of welfare policy makers and administrators, employers, the courts where compensation claims were contested, and trade unions. These documents, alongside newspaper reports, are integrated with extensive readings from creative literature on mining, from middle-class authorial accounts in the nineteenth century that dwelt on tragedy and individual redemption, to assertive working-class writers who highlighted collective injustice in the twentieth century.Industrial changes from the late nineteenth century onward aggravated historical problems underground. Mechanization in a privately owned industry where firms competed for domestic and overseas markets led to accidents and illnesses. Coal industry employment was highly varied, however, and here was the social model of disability in action. When demand for mining labor was high, in periods of economic expansion, and in both the First and Second World War, impaired miners were redeployed. But when markets contracted, in the early 1920s and 1930s, these men were the first to be made redundant, employers often mobilizing bogus safety arguments against their retention. This is a highly significant finding, providing a historical parallel with the hidden unemployment of coalfield deindustrialization identified in the 1990s by Christina Beatty and Steve Fothergill. In this later period, redundant workers who would have remained economically active had coal jobs still been available were reclassified by doctors and welfare administrators as “permanently sick.”The theme of collective agency is showcased in the authors’ examination of the medical and welfare systems. Impaired miners resisted their “medicalization” and impoverishment. Organized labor was involved in the design of medical services and treatment. In the 1920s employers were compelled by mining unions to finance the Miners’ Welfare Fund, coordinated by the UK government, which provided pit baths and various rehabilitation and convalescence facilities. Compensation awards were meager and often contested. Impaired miners seeking compensation were subjected to medical inspection by company doctors who frequently disputed work-related causation and the extent of injury or illness. Determined union activism was required to demonstrate employer liability in local courts of law. The authors also examine the social relations of disability in households and communities. Isolation was a common experience for the impaired, with constraints on work and social interaction. The masculine breadwinner ideal was compromised, but impaired miners often found other roles, in jobs outside mining and in domestic caregiving and labor performance, confounding gender stereotypes, while union activism on compensation enabled their contribution to household income.The authors end their detailed analysis with an extended discussion of working-class coalfields literature, in which disability is shown to have been a core feature. Short-story writers, novelists, and poets demonstrated how people were disabled by mining under capitalist relations of production. Nonliterary scholars may query the value added in this stand-alone chapter. The material might usefully have been incorporated in the preceding discussions of work, medical treatment, compensation, social relations, and political activism. In explicitly focusing on working-class authors and the voices of the impaired, however, the authors emphatically reinforce this exceptional book's central contribution to our understanding of coalfield history. Disability was a social construct, and as such it was resisted by miners in South Wales, Durham, and Scotland from the 1880s to the 1940s.
《英国工业中的残疾:1880-1948年煤炭工业中残疾的文化和文学史》
1914年,英国有10%的男性工人受雇于煤炭行业。煤炭在经济和就业方面的普及付出了巨大的人力成本。没有哪个行业比这更危险,对工人的健康更有害。由爆炸和火灾引起的重大矿坑灾害引起了公众的关注,但更具有破坏性的是屋顶倒塌的日常磨损效应和地下布满灰尘的环境。煤田妇女分担了该行业的体力负担。19世纪40年代后,她们被禁止在英国从事地下工作,但在极端艰苦的条件下分娩和家务劳动的经历使她们身心俱疲。她们每天的工作,在苏格兰被称为“达格”,包括清洗和晾晒男人的浴衣,加热洗澡的水,准备饭菜。矿工儿子们住在父母家里,与父亲轮班,母亲的工作时间可能从早上4点持续到晚上11点。《英国的残疾》一书的作者研究了这种令人筋疲力尽的生活和劳动的影响。他们从残疾研究中得出的第一个关键见解是深刻的。损伤和残疾不是同义词:损伤是身体上的;残疾是社会性的。矿工因工作场所事故和疾病而致残。然后,他们被雇主和医疗专业人员以及福利政策制定者和行政人员设置的障碍所残疾。作者的第二个关键见解是,矿工是一个高度组织化的“耐心”群体,他们在两个广泛的战线上发挥作用:争取更安全的工作环境,以尽量减少损害;并按照雇主和政策制定者的定义抵制残疾。全英国的矿工在1946-47年间赢得了两次重大的立法胜利。克莱门特·艾德礼(Clement Attlee)的改革工党政府通过了《国民保险(工业伤害)法》(National Insurance (Industrial damage) Act),为因损伤而被拒绝就业的工人提供法定和全面的赔偿,并将煤炭国有化,通过更强大的工会声音,实现了更安全的就业。《工业英国的残疾》是Leverhulme信托基金资助的残疾和工业社会项目的主要成果,来自英国七所大学的12名研究人员从事1780年至1914年煤田文化历史的比较研究。基尔斯蒂·博哈塔是斯旺西大学的英语教授,亚历山德拉·琼斯曾在斯旺西大学完成博士论文,迈克·曼廷曾在斯旺西大学担任研究员。史蒂夫·汤普森是阿伯里斯特威斯大学历史和威尔士历史高级讲师。这个研究团队的跨学科优势塑造了他们在本书中分析的广泛来源,重点是南威尔士,达勒姆和苏格兰的煤田地区。该团队从福利政策制定者和行政人员、雇主、赔偿要求有争议的法院和工会的记录中提取了经验证据。这些文件,连同报纸报道,与广泛的阅读结合在一起,从关于采矿的创造性文学,从19世纪中产阶级作者对悲剧和个人救赎的描述,到20世纪强调集体不公正的自信的工人阶级作家。19世纪末以来的工业变革加剧了地下的历史问题。在一个私营行业中,企业争夺国内和海外市场的机械化导致了事故和疾病。然而,煤炭行业的就业情况千差万别,这就是残疾的社会模式。在经济扩张时期,以及在第一次和第二次世界大战期间,对采矿劳动力的需求很高时,受损的矿工被重新部署。但在20世纪20年代和30年代初,当市场收缩时,这些人是第一批被裁掉的人,雇主们经常用虚假的安全理由来反对保留他们。这是一个非常重要的发现,与克里斯蒂娜·比蒂(Christina Beatty)和史蒂夫·福瑟吉尔(Steve Fothergill)在20世纪90年代发现的煤田去工业化隐性失业的历史相似之处。在这一后期,如果煤炭行业的工作机会仍然存在,那些本可以在经济上保持活跃的多余工人被医生和福利管理人员重新归类为“永久性疾病”。集体代理的主题在作者对医疗和福利制度的考察中得到展示。受伤的矿工抵制他们的“医疗化”和贫困。有组织的劳工参与了医疗服务和治疗的设计。20世纪20年代,矿业工会迫使雇主为矿工福利基金提供资金,该基金由英国政府协调,提供矿坑浴和各种康复和康复设施。赔偿金很少,而且经常有争议。寻求赔偿的受伤矿工受到公司医生的医疗检查,这些医生经常对与工作有关的因果关系和受伤或疾病的程度提出异议。 坚定的工会行动主义被要求在当地法院证明雇主的责任。作者还研究了家庭和社区中残疾的社会关系。孤立是残疾人的共同经历,工作和社会交往受到限制。男性养家糊口的理想受到了损害,但受损矿工经常找到其他角色,从事采矿以外的工作,照顾家庭和劳动表现,打破了性别刻板印象,而工会在补偿方面的积极行动使他们能够为家庭收入做出贡献。作者以对工人阶级煤田文学的扩展讨论结束了他们的详细分析,其中残疾被证明是一个核心特征。短篇小说作家、小说家和诗人展示了在资本主义生产关系下,人们是如何因采矿而残疾的。非文学学者可能会质疑这一独立章节的附加价值。这些材料本可以有效地纳入前面关于工作、医疗、补偿、社会关系和政治活动的讨论中。然而,在明确关注工人阶级作家和受损者的声音时,作者强调了这本杰出的书对我们理解煤田历史的核心贡献。残疾是一种社会建构,因此,从19世纪80年代到40年代,南威尔士、达勒姆和苏格兰的矿工都反对残疾。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信