{"title":"一个激进的调查,被驯服了:1855年的塞瓦斯托波尔委员会","authors":"James Strong","doi":"10.1080/23337486.2023.2268962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In January 1855, the British House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to investigate the parlous state of the British army then encamped before Sebastopol. Originally a radical project driven by the Radical MP John Arthur Roebuck, the Sebastopol Committee wound up tamer than its origins implied. At its outset, it collapsed a government, and prompted anguished complaints from traditionalists that it was overthrowing the constitution. Yet in choosing to work through a Select Committee – a long-established form, albeit one not previously used to investigate an ongoing military operation – Roebuck made a calculated gamble that did not entirely pay off. Sacrificing control over his Committee’s composition to secure wide parliamentary approval and thereby legitimacy, he wound up unable to influence its conclusions in his preferred direction. Instead, his more ‘establishment’ colleagues declined to censure individuals, refused even to consider the government’s wider strategic approach, and produced a set of recommendations almost identical to what the government was doing anyway. The effect was to neuter Roebuck’s radical inquiry. In the end, the fact that the Sebastopol Committee happened matters more than anything it did, or anything it found.","PeriodicalId":37527,"journal":{"name":"Critical Military Studies","volume":"81 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A radical inquiry, tamed: the Sebastopol Committee of 1855\",\"authors\":\"James Strong\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23337486.2023.2268962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In January 1855, the British House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to investigate the parlous state of the British army then encamped before Sebastopol. Originally a radical project driven by the Radical MP John Arthur Roebuck, the Sebastopol Committee wound up tamer than its origins implied. At its outset, it collapsed a government, and prompted anguished complaints from traditionalists that it was overthrowing the constitution. Yet in choosing to work through a Select Committee – a long-established form, albeit one not previously used to investigate an ongoing military operation – Roebuck made a calculated gamble that did not entirely pay off. Sacrificing control over his Committee’s composition to secure wide parliamentary approval and thereby legitimacy, he wound up unable to influence its conclusions in his preferred direction. Instead, his more ‘establishment’ colleagues declined to censure individuals, refused even to consider the government’s wider strategic approach, and produced a set of recommendations almost identical to what the government was doing anyway. The effect was to neuter Roebuck’s radical inquiry. In the end, the fact that the Sebastopol Committee happened matters more than anything it did, or anything it found.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Military Studies\",\"volume\":\"81 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Military Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2023.2268962\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Military Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2023.2268962","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
A radical inquiry, tamed: the Sebastopol Committee of 1855
In January 1855, the British House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to investigate the parlous state of the British army then encamped before Sebastopol. Originally a radical project driven by the Radical MP John Arthur Roebuck, the Sebastopol Committee wound up tamer than its origins implied. At its outset, it collapsed a government, and prompted anguished complaints from traditionalists that it was overthrowing the constitution. Yet in choosing to work through a Select Committee – a long-established form, albeit one not previously used to investigate an ongoing military operation – Roebuck made a calculated gamble that did not entirely pay off. Sacrificing control over his Committee’s composition to secure wide parliamentary approval and thereby legitimacy, he wound up unable to influence its conclusions in his preferred direction. Instead, his more ‘establishment’ colleagues declined to censure individuals, refused even to consider the government’s wider strategic approach, and produced a set of recommendations almost identical to what the government was doing anyway. The effect was to neuter Roebuck’s radical inquiry. In the end, the fact that the Sebastopol Committee happened matters more than anything it did, or anything it found.
期刊介绍:
Critical Military Studies provides a rigorous, innovative platform for interdisciplinary debate on the operation of military power. It encourages the interrogation and destabilization of often taken-for-granted categories related to the military, militarism and militarization. It especially welcomes original thinking on contradictions and tensions central to the ways in which military institutions and military power work, how such tensions are reproduced within different societies and geopolitical arenas, and within and beyond academic discourse. Contributions on experiences of militarization among groups and individuals, and in hitherto underexplored, perhaps even seemingly ‘non-military’ settings are also encouraged. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to double-blind peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees. The Journal also includes a non-peer reviewed section, Encounters, showcasing multidisciplinary forms of critique such as film and photography, and engaging with policy debates and activism.