信任与不信任:1600-1850年英国及其帝国的腐败

IF 0.5 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Ben Gilding
{"title":"信任与不信任:1600-1850年英国及其帝国的腐败","authors":"Ben Gilding","doi":"10.1080/14780038.2023.2189413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"sovereignty’ (p. 165); Hubbard suggests that whilst at sea, the Company still needed to foster positive relations with its sailors (p. 176) – for which nationhood was a tool (p. 203). The most pertinent part of the chapter, however, is the establishment of non-English actors as ‘critical observers’ (p. 242) as Hubbard explores how, for the sake of trade and indeed safety, English seafarers engaged in ‘performing Englishness’ (p. 206). ‘Sailors and the State’ acts as the book’s de facto conclusion, discussing how England’s state ‘did indeed value its seafaring subjects’ (p. 241), developing a mutually beneficial relationship. At its core, this is a discussion of naval manning, and fostering ‘nurseries’ of sailors (p. 250). Hubbard uses the lenient courts to represent the state, drawing on work by G.F. Steckley for the purpose. As an illustration of the ‘vexed transition from a freewheeling, predatory mode [. . .] to a more disciplined commercial and colonial orientation’ (p. 276), Englishmen at Sea is remarkably successful. There are some gaps; for example, little attention is paid to the subsets of identity which may be contained within that of the English seafarer. A brief nod in Chapter 7 to differing experiences of ‘deep-sea sailors’ (p. 252) and ‘coastal fishermen’ (p. 268) shows that this does not entirely escape Hubbard’s notice, but the nuances of maritime labour and cultures are sacrificed in favour of a more homogenised English seafaring identity. This extends to terminology, with role terms like ‘sailor’, ‘mariner’, and ‘seaman’ used near-interchangeably. An exploration of different labour roles within this broader, nascent seafaring ‘Englishness’ would be of benefit – but overall, Hubbard’s thorough research, strong emphasis on social history, and eye for the historical experience gives strong foundation for the work’s broader arguments regarding national identity.","PeriodicalId":45240,"journal":{"name":"Cultural & Social History","volume":"20 1","pages":"291 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trust & Distrust: Corruption in Office in Britain and its Empire 1600-1850\",\"authors\":\"Ben Gilding\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14780038.2023.2189413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"sovereignty’ (p. 165); Hubbard suggests that whilst at sea, the Company still needed to foster positive relations with its sailors (p. 176) – for which nationhood was a tool (p. 203). The most pertinent part of the chapter, however, is the establishment of non-English actors as ‘critical observers’ (p. 242) as Hubbard explores how, for the sake of trade and indeed safety, English seafarers engaged in ‘performing Englishness’ (p. 206). ‘Sailors and the State’ acts as the book’s de facto conclusion, discussing how England’s state ‘did indeed value its seafaring subjects’ (p. 241), developing a mutually beneficial relationship. At its core, this is a discussion of naval manning, and fostering ‘nurseries’ of sailors (p. 250). Hubbard uses the lenient courts to represent the state, drawing on work by G.F. Steckley for the purpose. As an illustration of the ‘vexed transition from a freewheeling, predatory mode [. . .] to a more disciplined commercial and colonial orientation’ (p. 276), Englishmen at Sea is remarkably successful. There are some gaps; for example, little attention is paid to the subsets of identity which may be contained within that of the English seafarer. A brief nod in Chapter 7 to differing experiences of ‘deep-sea sailors’ (p. 252) and ‘coastal fishermen’ (p. 268) shows that this does not entirely escape Hubbard’s notice, but the nuances of maritime labour and cultures are sacrificed in favour of a more homogenised English seafaring identity. This extends to terminology, with role terms like ‘sailor’, ‘mariner’, and ‘seaman’ used near-interchangeably. An exploration of different labour roles within this broader, nascent seafaring ‘Englishness’ would be of benefit – but overall, Hubbard’s thorough research, strong emphasis on social history, and eye for the historical experience gives strong foundation for the work’s broader arguments regarding national identity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cultural & Social History\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"291 - 293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cultural & Social History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2023.2189413\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cultural & Social History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14780038.2023.2189413","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

主权’(第165页);Hubbard认为,在海上,公司仍然需要与水手建立积极的关系(第176页)——国家地位是一种工具(第203页)。然而,本章最相关的部分是将非英国行为者确立为“批判性观察者”(第242页),哈伯德探讨了为了贸易和安全,英国海员如何从事“表演英语”(第206页)《水手与国家》作为本书事实上的结论,讨论了英国国家如何“确实重视其航海科目”(第241页),发展了互利关系。其核心是关于海军人员配备和培养水手“托儿所”的讨论(第250页)。哈伯德利用宽大的法院来代表国家,并为此借鉴了G.F.Steckley的工作。作为“从自由、掠夺模式[…]到更严格的商业和殖民取向的艰难转变”(第276页)的例证,《海上英国人》取得了显著的成功。存在一些差距;例如,很少注意可能包含在英国海员的身份中的身份子集。在第7章中,对“深海水手”(第252页)和“沿海渔民”(第268页)的不同经历进行了简短的点头,表明这并没有完全逃过哈伯德的注意,但为了更同质化的英国航海身份,牺牲了海上劳动和文化的细微差别。这延伸到术语,“水手”、“水手”和“海员”等角色术语几乎可以互换使用。在这种更广泛、新生的航海“英国性”中探索不同的劳工角色将是有益的——但总的来说,哈伯德的深入研究、对社会历史的高度重视以及对历史经验的关注为这部作品关于国家认同的更广泛论点奠定了坚实的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trust & Distrust: Corruption in Office in Britain and its Empire 1600-1850
sovereignty’ (p. 165); Hubbard suggests that whilst at sea, the Company still needed to foster positive relations with its sailors (p. 176) – for which nationhood was a tool (p. 203). The most pertinent part of the chapter, however, is the establishment of non-English actors as ‘critical observers’ (p. 242) as Hubbard explores how, for the sake of trade and indeed safety, English seafarers engaged in ‘performing Englishness’ (p. 206). ‘Sailors and the State’ acts as the book’s de facto conclusion, discussing how England’s state ‘did indeed value its seafaring subjects’ (p. 241), developing a mutually beneficial relationship. At its core, this is a discussion of naval manning, and fostering ‘nurseries’ of sailors (p. 250). Hubbard uses the lenient courts to represent the state, drawing on work by G.F. Steckley for the purpose. As an illustration of the ‘vexed transition from a freewheeling, predatory mode [. . .] to a more disciplined commercial and colonial orientation’ (p. 276), Englishmen at Sea is remarkably successful. There are some gaps; for example, little attention is paid to the subsets of identity which may be contained within that of the English seafarer. A brief nod in Chapter 7 to differing experiences of ‘deep-sea sailors’ (p. 252) and ‘coastal fishermen’ (p. 268) shows that this does not entirely escape Hubbard’s notice, but the nuances of maritime labour and cultures are sacrificed in favour of a more homogenised English seafaring identity. This extends to terminology, with role terms like ‘sailor’, ‘mariner’, and ‘seaman’ used near-interchangeably. An exploration of different labour roles within this broader, nascent seafaring ‘Englishness’ would be of benefit – but overall, Hubbard’s thorough research, strong emphasis on social history, and eye for the historical experience gives strong foundation for the work’s broader arguments regarding national identity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Cultural & Social History is published on behalf of the Social History Society (SHS). Members receive the journal as part of their membership package. To join the Society, please download an application form on the Society"s website and follow the instructions provided.
×
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