Alas! I am a.s. never going to assign Thompson again to students; so what should I do when I find myself running a background process that plots out a course-readings teaching note?...
I'm interested in Thompson's almost-definition of "class." He argues the idea dies as soon as you define it. That strikes me as a great corrective to mechanical Marxism, but still a very unsatisfying way of putting things.
Yes indeed. He should have said that class is a matter of human belief and action which grows out of but is not identical to a set of roles in the division of production and distribution,..
I studied European Economic History; it was my second field of study in grad school at Delaware in the 1970s. And we read Thompson. I thought well of his view of things then and probably still do. I still have the book; perhaps I'll check it out now. Thanks for all this. Tom Thompson [MH from 1996 to 2006]
You are 63. I am 78. I read Thompson in my late twenties, and the book struck me as a pudding in search of a theme. Thompson is searching for, trying to invent, a working class that he can like, rather than the one that existed, one where a simple honest fellow can, after a hard day's work, settle down to Cobbett's Register rather than a racing form or look at page 3 girls, if they still exist. The Orwell quote strikes me as painfully snobbish: he hates "cheap luxuries" because the common people shouldn't have luxuries. They should be reserved for the few. The common people shouldn't get above themselves and should respect their betters.
I have never read Alasdair MacIntyre, but I wonder why a "thinker" who simply veers from far left to far right can be described as a "towering figure in 20th-century philosophy". I am generally a strong Orwell fan, but here at least he seems to have very much in common with the other "thinkers" here: Europeans still longing for a society based on "deference", deference to superior people like themselves instead of vulgar, middle-class capitalists.
IMHO, Macintyre is only a "towering figure" while he is on his trajectory, feels in his heart the power of all perspectives, and expresses his confusion with elegance.
The rather-jejune Human-Face Marxist he started as is not terribly interesting, and neither is the rather-blinkered Thomist he became.
I am always a bit suspicious of the concept of diverse peoples being placed in a monolithic group. Yes, Britain was (and remains) a very class conscious society. Growing up middle class in London, I was very consciouss of how the education system and attitudes to "classes" was instilled and maintained. However, Britain was/is a very culturally diverse place with a large gap in attitudes between different parts of the country, especially the North-South divide. How different wasn't apparent to me until I was at university in London with classmates and friends from around the country. It is only half in jest that Brits retain the conscioussness of class and culture differences between ex-pats even when living in more egalitarian countries like the US.
My sense is that 1960s Britain changed a lot of attitudes, which resulted in greater acceptance of cultural differences within the social classes, as well as the broader social changes, such as interracial partnerships and later gender identity. Working class whites and, say Jamaicans, in post WWII Britain were very different, and I doubt had that much in common, escepially with the explicit racism that was evident at the time, and arguably maintained to this day with the Windrush Scandal perpetrated by a Tory Home Office.
If Thompson was "stuck in the 1940s", I have no idea why anyone would be teaching his material other than as a footnote in history. IDK what you would replace it with, but I do wonder if the whole premise of a "British (English?) working class" (as a group) should even be a thing to be taught, especially in the US. The US is a nation whose people mostly consider themselves as middle class, yet seem to adore the British monarchy and aristocracy, even as they would be looked down upon (most obviously in regard to the previous president's visits whose beahvior was considered boorish and uncultured).
I have Thompson's book. I bought it in the late 70's and have held onto it despite finding it a bit much in my first attempt to read it. But I agree: it's the protest of history against social science, particularism against theory, and so on down the dualities.
The last time I thought about "The Making" was when I read "Hillbilly Elegy" (and, before that, Joan's Williams "White Working Class") J.D. Vance seems subsequently to have surrendered to the Stalinism (now turned Trumpism) that Thompson resisted, but perhaps even Vance's sad story is an illustration of Orwell's point: that we are changed by history even as we attempt to "make" it.
But this points a way out of your dilemma; you can assign "Hillbilly Elegy" instead!
Although Thompson does his best to show revolution was percolating just below the surface, eight men were seen walking around with scythes near Manchester for example, it was really the slow but steady progress of working conditions that won out. Not a chance in million for a revolution in England.
Indeed. I think the big question is this: To what extent did the English working class believe that they were "free-born Englishmen" with rights, and how did that alter social power and the development of politics?
I'm interested in Thompson's almost-definition of "class." He argues the idea dies as soon as you define it. That strikes me as a great corrective to mechanical Marxism, but still a very unsatisfying way of putting things.
Yes indeed. He should have said that class is a matter of human belief and action which grows out of but is not identical to a set of roles in the division of production and distribution,..
Brad
I studied European Economic History; it was my second field of study in grad school at Delaware in the 1970s. And we read Thompson. I thought well of his view of things then and probably still do. I still have the book; perhaps I'll check it out now. Thanks for all this. Tom Thompson [MH from 1996 to 2006]
Did you ever get the chance to check it out again? Yours, Brad DeLong
You are 63. I am 78. I read Thompson in my late twenties, and the book struck me as a pudding in search of a theme. Thompson is searching for, trying to invent, a working class that he can like, rather than the one that existed, one where a simple honest fellow can, after a hard day's work, settle down to Cobbett's Register rather than a racing form or look at page 3 girls, if they still exist. The Orwell quote strikes me as painfully snobbish: he hates "cheap luxuries" because the common people shouldn't have luxuries. They should be reserved for the few. The common people shouldn't get above themselves and should respect their betters.
I have never read Alasdair MacIntyre, but I wonder why a "thinker" who simply veers from far left to far right can be described as a "towering figure in 20th-century philosophy". I am generally a strong Orwell fan, but here at least he seems to have very much in common with the other "thinkers" here: Europeans still longing for a society based on "deference", deference to superior people like themselves instead of vulgar, middle-class capitalists.
IMHO, Macintyre is only a "towering figure" while he is on his trajectory, feels in his heart the power of all perspectives, and expresses his confusion with elegance.
The rather-jejune Human-Face Marxist he started as is not terribly interesting, and neither is the rather-blinkered Thomist he became.
I am always a bit suspicious of the concept of diverse peoples being placed in a monolithic group. Yes, Britain was (and remains) a very class conscious society. Growing up middle class in London, I was very consciouss of how the education system and attitudes to "classes" was instilled and maintained. However, Britain was/is a very culturally diverse place with a large gap in attitudes between different parts of the country, especially the North-South divide. How different wasn't apparent to me until I was at university in London with classmates and friends from around the country. It is only half in jest that Brits retain the conscioussness of class and culture differences between ex-pats even when living in more egalitarian countries like the US.
My sense is that 1960s Britain changed a lot of attitudes, which resulted in greater acceptance of cultural differences within the social classes, as well as the broader social changes, such as interracial partnerships and later gender identity. Working class whites and, say Jamaicans, in post WWII Britain were very different, and I doubt had that much in common, escepially with the explicit racism that was evident at the time, and arguably maintained to this day with the Windrush Scandal perpetrated by a Tory Home Office.
If Thompson was "stuck in the 1940s", I have no idea why anyone would be teaching his material other than as a footnote in history. IDK what you would replace it with, but I do wonder if the whole premise of a "British (English?) working class" (as a group) should even be a thing to be taught, especially in the US. The US is a nation whose people mostly consider themselves as middle class, yet seem to adore the British monarchy and aristocracy, even as they would be looked down upon (most obviously in regard to the previous president's visits whose beahvior was considered boorish and uncultured).
Thanks for this.
I have Thompson's book. I bought it in the late 70's and have held onto it despite finding it a bit much in my first attempt to read it. But I agree: it's the protest of history against social science, particularism against theory, and so on down the dualities.
The last time I thought about "The Making" was when I read "Hillbilly Elegy" (and, before that, Joan's Williams "White Working Class") J.D. Vance seems subsequently to have surrendered to the Stalinism (now turned Trumpism) that Thompson resisted, but perhaps even Vance's sad story is an illustration of Orwell's point: that we are changed by history even as we attempt to "make" it.
But this points a way out of your dilemma; you can assign "Hillbilly Elegy" instead!
That would be a good idea... If only giving J.D. Vance oxygen were not a downside...
Although Thompson does his best to show revolution was percolating just below the surface, eight men were seen walking around with scythes near Manchester for example, it was really the slow but steady progress of working conditions that won out. Not a chance in million for a revolution in England.
Indeed. I think the big question is this: To what extent did the English working class believe that they were "free-born Englishmen" with rights, and how did that alter social power and the development of politics?
Recently, I listened to it on Audible, having read it three times in my life. It was well done.
A propos, I believe.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-09-27/brian-merchants-blood-in-the-machine/