|
|
|
UK-Australian Labour History Conference, Manchester, 16-18 July 2003
Paul Pickering
| Held at the adjacent campuses of Manchester University and Manchester Metropolitan University in weather more like an Australian summer than is usual for Manchester (even in summer), this Conference brought together well known practitioners of 'labour history' in Australia and Britain, some 'early career researchers' and, most encouragingly, some graduate students. Ostensibly it might appear as if the Conference was a by-product of what is nowadays often referred to as 'the new British history', an interest in the trans-national history of the British world beyond the British Isles. The fact that the model here was actually the Australia-Canada Labour History Conference held in 1996 is indicative of the extent to which 'labour history', in Australia at least, has been at the forefront in terms of engaging with emerging forms of inquiry. |
1
|
|
The Conference was very successful (apparently more successful, at a comparable stage, than the Canada-Australia exchange) in opening up numerous comparative and trans-national issues, as well as identifying some important differences. One of the convenors, Greg Patmore, opened the proceedings with a thoughtful discussion of the pros and cons of comparative history, which was also useful in setting the agenda for subsequent sessions. Across three parallel 'strands' the papers ranged far and wide: from detailed discussions of the contents of various labour archives (by Sigrid McCausland, Alan Bell, and Janette Martin) to searching examinations of 'Browderism' (by Stuart Macintyre and Kevin Morgan). Other papers explored labour historiography, trade unions, friendly societies, co-operatives, Chartism, monarchy, gender, race, and the influence of Henry George (a much neglected subject). Amidst many excellent papers (including the ground-breaking discussion of George's impact by Tony Taylor), two contributions stood out for this observer, both from the session on gender. |
2
|
|
The first was a superb examination by Bruce Scates of the general strike of 1890. Scates persuasively argued that contested notions of manliness were central to shaping the course of the strike and to framing its discourse. In the 'class war' of 1890 (all students of Australian labour history will be familiar with this concept), gender was as important – even more important – than class. Scates is a highly skilled presenter and his paper was delivered to great effect. In the process he provided eloquent testimony to the vitality of 'labour history' in Australia. |
3
|
|
Equally impressive was the paper by Karen Hunt. The opening part of this paper was a stinging critique of labour history practitioners in Britain for their collective inattention to gender. Given that the charge appears to have been based solely on an analysis of the contents of the journal of the British Society for Labour History, Hunt's case was overstated. What is true of Labour History Review (of which Hunt herself was a recent editor) is surely not necessarily true of the discipline in general. |
4
|
|
The second, and more substantial part of Hunt's paper was both compelling and convincing. Here Hunt told the story of Dora Montefiore, an Australian suffragist, feminist and socialist, in London. At one and the same time this story not only vividly illustrated the importance of trans-national history, but also the extent to which the colonial-dominion experience could contribute to debate in Britain. This is the history of the British world where ideas and individuals move in both directions between metropole and periphery. It is a model worthy of emulation. |
5
|
|
Taken together the papers given at the Conference ought to form the basis of an important book. The challenge for the editors, Neville Kirk and Greg Patmore, will be to provide a coherent framework while allowing ample scope for differences to be aired rather than resolved. |
6
|
|
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|