(notes from Lascelles' chapter on charity in Victorian England, edited by G M Young)
"Influence and friends" were necessary for many people if they were to access help from charity - beneficiaries had to compete for the interest of subscribers. For instance, admission to charity hospitals were through letters obtained from subscribers. This suggests that good social capital (linking social capital?) was important prerequisite of any help and any transfer of resources from rich to poor. Did this reinforce the way that charity primarily helped the "respectable" poor rather than the lowest "underclass"? Did it also encourage linking social capital and a strategy where those who might be poor would seek to develop relationships with those who had more power and money? This could also have had positive benefits for those who were successful, beyond simply the ability to access resources from charity in times of need. It could also have led to other opportunities (eg employment opportunities) and adoption of behaviours which could have longer-term benefits. The need to present narratives and arguments as part of the competition for support would also surely have led to some internalisation of those narratives, which again could have reinforced certain behaviours. (did Jewish charity on this model play a role in the embouregoisement of Jews in London in the first part of the nineteenth century?)
Lascelles also discussed motives for charity, generally having a benevolent view of Victorian benevolence, saying that a genuine desire to improve the condition of the poor was stronger motive than fear of rising discontent, and quoting the fact that benevolence continued strongly after the fear of revolution had passed and with a rise in state welfare support. He also claims that "there can be no doubt that the poor had to rely more on charity than on public funds", which Susannah Morris would probably disagree with (see her paper at VAHS seminar on charitable resources compared to the Poor Law.
Sunday 17 December 2006
Saturday 9 December 2006
Patronage and charity
(Notes and ideas from JM Bourne's Patronage and Society in Nineteenth Century England)
The relationship between patronage and charity/poor relief was close. For instance, the New Poor Law opened up new opportunities for patronage associated with the appointment of national and local officers. Presumably this would also be true of appointments as officers of charities.
For the elite, particuarly the landed class, patronage was a "reward, an obligation and a butress" of their position. But was this true for elites within immigrant communities at this time? Did they follow the pattern of the indigenous elite or were their patronage networks and obligations different? For instance was it informed by different religious beliefs and a less secure position in society compared to the English elite?
In a rapidly changing society which seemed in danger of falling into an "anarchy of competitive individualism", patronage helped mitigate the danger of social conflict. However, patronage networks tended not to extend as far as the working class and the poor were more reliant on the Poor Law or charity. Was this also true for immigrant communities? Did closer ties and identification with each other as fellow Jews, Irish or Germans mean that there was a stronger sense of obligation on the part of the elite?
Patronage has been accused of being a form of social control built on power dependency. But Bourne rejects the extent of this by pointing out that "the pursuit of patronage was not a central working class concern" although it was more true of the middle class where it helped establish a "common area of shared valued which would not otherwise exist". Using this argument, you could also argue that patronage networks played a role in the the making of the English Middle Class, alongside charity and other associational movements (so that middle class identity is more of a cultural/associational construct rather than defined through economic relationships). Bourne also says that "far from seeking to perpetuate a socially hostile environment many patrons were at the centre of the struggle to ameliorate it through legislative enactment, educational improvement and philanthropy".
But charities for immigrant groups (and other social structures) were means by which help could be accessed and could be seen as forms of patronage (Bourne doesn't really regard charity as a form of patronage being more interested in more individually based forms, although the rise of voting charities where donors would have a direct say in who received help can surely be seen as a form of such patronage). Given that immigrant communities were smaller and where class divisions were affected by ethnic identifications, were immigrant charities more clearly part of patronage networks?
The relationship between patronage and charity/poor relief was close. For instance, the New Poor Law opened up new opportunities for patronage associated with the appointment of national and local officers. Presumably this would also be true of appointments as officers of charities.
For the elite, particuarly the landed class, patronage was a "reward, an obligation and a butress" of their position. But was this true for elites within immigrant communities at this time? Did they follow the pattern of the indigenous elite or were their patronage networks and obligations different? For instance was it informed by different religious beliefs and a less secure position in society compared to the English elite?
In a rapidly changing society which seemed in danger of falling into an "anarchy of competitive individualism", patronage helped mitigate the danger of social conflict. However, patronage networks tended not to extend as far as the working class and the poor were more reliant on the Poor Law or charity. Was this also true for immigrant communities? Did closer ties and identification with each other as fellow Jews, Irish or Germans mean that there was a stronger sense of obligation on the part of the elite?
Patronage has been accused of being a form of social control built on power dependency. But Bourne rejects the extent of this by pointing out that "the pursuit of patronage was not a central working class concern" although it was more true of the middle class where it helped establish a "common area of shared valued which would not otherwise exist". Using this argument, you could also argue that patronage networks played a role in the the making of the English Middle Class, alongside charity and other associational movements (so that middle class identity is more of a cultural/associational construct rather than defined through economic relationships). Bourne also says that "far from seeking to perpetuate a socially hostile environment many patrons were at the centre of the struggle to ameliorate it through legislative enactment, educational improvement and philanthropy".
But charities for immigrant groups (and other social structures) were means by which help could be accessed and could be seen as forms of patronage (Bourne doesn't really regard charity as a form of patronage being more interested in more individually based forms, although the rise of voting charities where donors would have a direct say in who received help can surely be seen as a form of such patronage). Given that immigrant communities were smaller and where class divisions were affected by ethnic identifications, were immigrant charities more clearly part of patronage networks?
Friday 8 December 2006
Social or moral entrepreneurs
I'm currently reading Making English Morals by MJD Roberts, which has some interesting points about the moral reform associations of the early nineteenth century which have parallels with today. One of them is about "moral entrepreneurs" of this period (in this case the campaigning magistrate Patrick Colquhoun) who had "a vested interest in creating a market for his own expertise". Which sounds quite a lot like some of today's social entrepreneurs beloved of many politicians.
There's also some good points about the crossover between more direct charities and wider moral reform organisations in developing a middle class consciousness and the desire to "nudge" the urban working class to take on middle class values of domesticity (see Tony Blair on parenting), deferred gratification (see the Tory "tosser within" ad) and prudent foresight (see Labour Minister James Purnell).
There's also some good points about the crossover between more direct charities and wider moral reform organisations in developing a middle class consciousness and the desire to "nudge" the urban working class to take on middle class values of domesticity (see Tony Blair on parenting), deferred gratification (see the Tory "tosser within" ad) and prudent foresight (see Labour Minister James Purnell).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)