|
USING THE MATERIALS OF
HISTORY: SOME SOCIOLOGICAL
SPECULATIONS ON EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY ARTISANAL DISCOURSE.
Paul Sutton
'To fulfil their tasks, or even to
state them well, social scientists
must use the materials of history'
(C.W Mills The Sociological
Imagination 1970)
'...historiography itself is fiction
for it results from a selection of
facts coherently organised, leaving
forgotten or committing to oblivion
many other facts which, had they been
taken into consideration, would have
given a different shape to the same
history' (Preface to Saramago's
The History of the Siege of Lisbon
1996).
Introduction: standing at the
intersection reading history
sociologically.
As C.W. Mills (1970: 159) argues, the
sociological imagination explores the
problem of history and its
'intersection' within social
structures. To stand at this
intersection and endeavour to read
history sociologically is a difficult
task.
Through a sociological re-reading of
the historian John Rule's (1987)
seminal essay `The property of skill
in the age of manufacture' I will
attempt to give a 'different shape' to
the materials of history. The concept
of the `property in skill' has become
common currency in historical
discourse (1) and though useful also
limits the sociological imagination.
My aim, then, is to make a different
'selection of facts', to organise and
use them in a specifically
sociological fashion in order to
explore the intersection of history
and social structure. Using an
unashamedly idiosyncratic reading of
Foucault's Archaeology of
Knowledge I will show that using
the concept `skill' to describe the
form of property artisans claimed they
possessed in their labour is not
necessarily the only, nor necessarily
the most fruitful, conceptualisation.
Reading History Theoretically
I intend to sociologically re-shape
the historiography of artisanal
discourse through the 'beneficence' of
a theoretical synthesis of critical
realist and Foucaultian theory which
will allow me to 'see' (Woodiwiss
1990a: 5), artisanal discourse in a
different way. By critical realism I
mean an ontological and
epistemological approach which assumes
that it is possible to produce
transitive knowledge of the
intransitive real structures or
generative mechanisms which constitute
social reality. However, such an
approach also assumes that it is
impossible to guarantee finally the
truth claims of such knowledge as
anything other than transitory. All
knowledge is constituted through
particular descriptions, which are
always `to a greater or lesser extent
theoretically determined' and which
are `not neutral reflections of a
given world' (Bhaskar 1978 cited by
Outhwaite 1987:39). It is the
transitive nature of historiographical
discourse which makes them a
'fiction'.
From Foucault I take a concept of
discourse as a form of social
practice, language and language like,
which is both constituted by and
constitutes social reality. Discourses
emerge from `discursive formations'
(Foucault 1972) which are theorised as
real, that is, as existing outside of
any thought about or knowledge of
them. Social-historical reality is
knowable, nonetheless, through
theoretically generated descriptions
which are `made to refer', or are
accepted as referring to, social
reality (Woodiwiss 1990a: 5). This
ontological assumption distinguishes
critical realism from the anti-realism
or anti-foundationalism of
post-modernist theorists (2).
Using Foucault in a realist fashion I
theorise discursive formations as the
socio-historically specific conditions
which make it possible for discourses
to emerge. Such conditions have both
discursive and non-discursive
dimensions. The discursive dimensions
consist of configurations of
linguistic concepts, strategies and
usages, often taken for granted, which
make it possible to legitimately say
and think certain things but not
others. The non-discursive dimensions
of discursive formations consist of
institutions, and spatial contexts
which also enable and constrain
thought, speech, writing and social
interaction. Discursive formations,
then, are specific configurations of
discursive and non-discursive
conditions which together constitute
social structures, which together make
it possible or impossible to think,
speak or act in particular ways.
For me, reading history sociologically
requires the use of social theory.
Using theory enables the exploration
of the intersection of history and
social structures (discursive
formations). It makes possible a
different fictioning of the history of
eighteenth century artisan labour in
which the concept of skill is not
synonymous with the concept of a
`property in the trade'. The concept
of 'property in the trade' can be
fruitfully made to refer to the way in
which eighteenth century artisan's
viewed themselves and their work.
Property in the trade denotes the
trade as property, but as property
conceived as a use right: a
constellation of certain rights,
privileges, and duties (Hohfeld 1919)
owned by the individual artisan by
virtue of having served an
apprenticeship and/or by being a
member of a reputable trade society.
What made it possible for artisans to
think of their trade in this way was
the configuration of non-discursive
and discursive conditions or social
structures which formed late
eighteenth and early nineteenth
century small commodity production.
The Structure of Small Commodity
Production: Skill, Wages and Labour
Power.
In England during the period 1750-1825
manufacturing activity took place
predominantly in small workshops,
using hand technology (Prothero
1979:24). Most trades were not highly
mechanised, but in some trades, such
as clock making, there was an
elaborate division of labour. As Rule
argues, the burgeoning market for
ready made rather than bespoke
consumer goods, and the practices of
`monopolistic middlemen' who were not
`masters' of a trade and who
considered the customary relations of
production inconvenient and
unprofitable, were transforming the
organisation of production (Rule 1985:
50,24).
For example, in the tailoring,
shoemaking and cabinet making trades
production was re-oriented toward
standardised consumer goods, and in
the building trades through general
contracting the autonomy of the
artisan became eroded.
This uneven process of trade
reorganisation engendered several
hybrid forms of production which
combined elements of classic small
commodity production oriented toward
the bespoke market, with elements of
emergent petty-capitalist production
oriented toward the mass market. The
specific form such production took
largely depended upon the nature of
the trade involved which in turn was
determined by the materials, tools and
production techniques used. Within
these diverse forms of production,
engendered by the transformation of
the relations of ownership and control
of the means of production, journeymen
and small masters continued to
articulate a discourse which emerged
from the social relations they
believed prevailed within earlier
forms of small commodity production
(Woodiwiss 1990b).
That such a discourse may have been
founded upon a nostalgic and indeed
`phantasmatic representation'
(Foucault 1972:68) of the past in no
way precluded artisans from continuing
to insist that the arts and mysteries
of the trade were used to the mutual
benefit of both master and journeyman.
The social relations of production
were not thought of as based upon a`
property in skill' but rather upon the
conception of the arts and mysteries
of the trade as a form of corporate
property which entailed specific
rights and duties.
Skill
In eighteenth century artisanal
discourse the term 'skill' does not
seem to have been widely used.
Artisans described their labour as
their art, mystery, ability or simply
as their trade (3). The art, mystery
or trade was the property of an
individual artisan by virtue of
acquiring trade knowledge and ability
through having been `brought up in' or
`bred to the trade', that is, ideally
serving an apprenticeship or its
equivalent or in reality being a
member of a reputable trade body or
society. Being `bred to the trade'
entitled individual artisans to `use'
a particular trade, that is, claim
exclusive use rights of the `property
in the trade', however, the property
belonged to the trade body as a whole.
An artisan therefore could claim use
rights of a trade but only in so far
as he was an acknowledged member of a
trade body as use rights were the
common property of particular trade
bodies in particular locales. The
trade body was the condition of the
possibility and existence of this
property. The individual and the
corporate dimensions of the trade as a
property were therefore inseparable.
'Skill' then may be too
individualistic a concept to describe
the form of property artisans claimed
they possessed in their labour (4).
This concept emerged from a series of
different social structures which
emerged and displaced those which made
possible the concept of property in
the trade. Indeed, skill may be more
profitably seen as emerging from the
configuration of discursive and
non-discursive conditions prevailing
later in the nineteenth century when
the re-organisation of the handicraft
trades - the detailed division of
labour, direct rather than indirect
control over the labour process by
employers, particularly the increasing
number who were `adventurers not bred
to the trade' - had operated to make
the social relations which formed the
framework of hybrid small commodity
production untenable.
Wages
A more fruitful conception of
property in artisanal discourse can be
created through linking Marx's concept
of labour power and the specificities
of the labour process within
eighteenth century hybrid small
commodity production. Certainly, many
artisans in eighteenth century England
no longer made an entire product - be
it a shoe, a jacket or a watch -
neither did they sell that product
directly to the consumer. But neither
did they simply sell their labour
power for a `wage'(5). They were not
therefore simply `wage earning craft
workers" (Rule 1987:104). Although the
term `wage' was used in the eighteenth
century, it was used in diverse and
changing ways but within a particular
chains of signifiers which endowed it
with a meaning which was different
from that which it was later to
acquire (6). At this time the
relations of small commodity
production were articulated in
artisanal discourse not as wage
relations, but as relations wherein
labour was exchanged for a `fair'
`rate' or `price'. This involved more
than a money wage. It was related to
the cost of `the Necessaries of Life',
local customary standards of payment
and notions of justice and equity.
Furthermore, integral to the rate or
price were certain rights and
liberties; it entitled artisans to an
independence within the labour
process, that is, to work at their own
pace without external supervision, and
it entitled artisans to receive the
respect and prestige due to
independent producers (Hobsbawm
1968:348).
The small workshops of eighteenth
century England were an important
`surface of emergence' (Foucault
1972:41) of artisanal discourse. In
these workshops the social relations
of production which both enabled and
constrained both journeymen and
masters were hierarchical, but were
not simply wage relations. As
suggested above, artisans claimed the
fair rate or price for the work done
which was circumscribed by a
constellation of rights and privileges
which applied differentially to both
master and man. Even though these
rights had been progressively whittled
away in the eighteenth century
artisans continued to articulate their
position within the idiom of rights.
Artisans who had been `bred to the
trade', provided disciplined labour,
and thereby had certain `claims'
vis-à-vis those who employed
their services. These included the
right to enforce a `legal' term of
seven years on all apprentices so that
every journeymen would become a
`Legal' or `regular-bred Artisan'; the
privilege to limit the number of
apprentices bound at any one time so
that the trade would not become
overstocked and therefore the price of
their labour was kept high; the claim
that the property in the trade could
be transferred to sons or near
relatives as an inheritance, that is,
the `power' to transfer the patrimony
of apprenticeship; the `liberty' to
exercise control over the speed and
rhythm of working practices; the
`privilege' of regulating the quality
of their manufactures by customary
standards not those imposed from
without; the privilege of withdrawing
their labour if customary rates and
working conditions were not honoured;
and the power to prosecute `illegal'
masters who did not posses the
property in the trade and therefore
had no right to exercise it.
Correlatively it was the artisans'
duty to assist in the training of
apprentices, to ensure work was
completed in the agreed time and to
the agreed standard (Broadside 20.31,
1813; Broadside 20.32, 1814).
In sum, in the organisation of the
labour process within the workshop
enabled artisans to think and act as
if the trade had a constellation of
corporate rights, powers, privileges
and duties. Different trades were able
to place greater or lesser emphasis on
different aspects of this
constellation of overlapping and
mutually reinforcing rights depending
upon the local conditions and problems
that confronted them (7).
Labour Power
As I have suggested the term `wage'
was generated by later forms of
capitalist discursive and
non-discursive practices, and connotes
a market in labour power. In
eighteenth century England handicraft
trades remained, to a large extent,
structured by the relations of hybrid
small commodity production in which a
service rather than labour power was
exchanged. In Rule's historiography
the complex conditions constituting
the exchange of artisanal labour in
the various forms of small commodity
production are not firmly
distinguished from the conditions
necessary for the existence of labour
power. Labour power is labour expended
`in the interest of and under the
direction of the purchaser, in
exchange for a sum of money, the wage'
(Bottomore 1988:265). Artisanal
labour, however, was exchanged upon
the condition that artisans had a
right to direct the labour process and
that their labour was expended in the
mutual interest of both master and
journeyman. Furthermore, it was
exchanged upon the expectation that
employing masters had a patriarchal
duty to keep their journeymen in work
when trade was slow rather than
`turning them off' when expedient (8).
The concept of labour power also
presupposes that the individual seller
is free to dispose of their labour
without constraint and free from the
ownership of, or access to, the means
of production.
Labour power therefore refers to
conditions of production in which `all
limitations on the right of people to
dispose of their own labour power in
exchange' have been dissolved and in
which labourers have become separated
from the means of production, `so that
they cannot produce and sell the
product of their labour' but must sell
their labour power (Bottomore
1988:266). Eighteenth century hybrid
small commodity production was not
free from such limitations.
Constraints existed, for example, in
the Statute of Artificers and in local
bye-laws and in the customs and usages
of the trade. The means of production
were also accessible to artisans
through the ownership of tools and the
exercise of certain rights and duties
concerning the materials used in the
production process (9).
As Marx suggests in the Grundrisse,
in hybrid small commodity production
there exists an `artisan-like' social
division of labour in which the
labourer no longer makes and sells an
entire commodity. In this form of
production the labourer, nonetheless,
owns both the instruments and the
ability to manipulate those
instruments, with which commodities
are made. The raw materials used in
the production process, therefore, are
`mediated as the craftsman's'
property, mediated through his craft
work, through his property in the
instrument' (Marx 1973:499). Property
in the instrument gives the
labourer-owner an `independence'
residing in the `identity between the
property in the instrument and
property in the conditions of
production' (Marx 1973:500).
Property in the trade was framed by
rights and obligations. It could not
be alienated as labour power.
Eighteenth century artisans were
"interpellated" (Althusser 1971) by a
discourse in which the labourer's
property in the trade involved a
property in the production process.
The employer did not purchase labour
power. Artisans, therefore, sold a
service under determinate conditions,
not their generalised capacity to
labour. The formal subjection of
artisans had not yet become real
subjection; capital had not yet taken
up the position of dominant `authority
of delimitation' (Foucault 1972:41-2)
in the labour process, had not yet
redefined the corporate property in
the trade as a more individualised and
restricted property in skill. That
authority had yet to become
institutionalised in a specifically
capitalist mode of production in which
the `formal subjection' had been
replaced by the `real subjection of
labour to capital' (Marx 1946:518).
Formal and Real Subjection of Labour
Stedman Jones (1983:12) is undoubtedly
right to assert that this distinction
between the real and formal subjection
of labour is of especial pertinence in
the comprehension of the labour
process in the period 1790-1850.
However, my social-historical analysis
of the concept of property in the
trade leads me to entertain certain
reservations concerning the assertion
that prior to 1850 industrial conflict
was `not about ownership but about
control' (Steadman-Jones 1983:13). In
the uneven, piecemeal series of trade
specific conflicts over the position
of the artisan within the labour
process in the eighteenth century
(Dobson 1980), industrial conflict,
particularly as manifested in the
discursive dimension of sociality, can
plausibly be seen as concerning
relations of possession not of control
of the means of production.
Perhaps this can best be clarified by
the explication of the `sociological
typology of ownership' developed by K.
Jones (1982). Jones (1982:76-78)
argues that the concept of ownership
is comprised of the articulation of
three elements; possession, control
and title. Relations of possession
refer to `the strategies and
calculations' which constitute `the
use, or actual operation' of the
production process regardless of who
is the actual `agent of possession'.
Whereas control refers to `the power
of disposal of the means of
production'. Finally, title refers to
those relations which govern finance,
debt and share holding.
Locating `property in the trade'
within this sociological typology
allows one to see eighteenth century
artisans not as concerned with
securing a general power of control
over the means of production or wider
economic relations of title, but
rather with power over its `specific
direction'. That is, antithetical
relations of `actual possession' were
claimed both by artisans and employers
(Jones 1982:77).
If, as Stedman Jones (1983:22, 101)
argues, the language borne discursive
dimension of sociality regulates the
way in which interests and experiences
are formed then artisans were
discursively interpellated in such a
way that trade disputes were
experienced as concerning their actual
ownership of the means of production,
that is, artisans' possession of the
right to direct the production process
by virtue of their corporate ownership
of property in the trade. The
conception of the trade as a form of
corporate property enabled artisans to
attempt to resist the `New Discipline'
(Hammonds 1966:30-47): that
disciplinary system emerging, in part,
from particular readings of texts such
as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations
(1776) (10).
Eventually the corporate conception of
the property in the trade, with its
object of the restitution of the old
discipline of small commodity
production, would be displaced by the
concept of skill in the discourse of
trade unionism, which had the object
of limiting the power effects of the
new discipline of the capitalist mode
of production. Artisanal discourse of
the eighteenth century, however, can
be seen as continuing to be shaped by
the concept of the property in the
trade and its rights, privileges and
liberties. In such discourse the right
to the ownership of the commodities
produced was not claimed, rather
artisans claimed a right to a `proper
subsistence' and the right to direct
the production process.
Artisans were not therefore completely
separated from the means of
production, not yet completely
alienated from their creative powers.
For although the technical ability
possessed by some artisans in the
common trades, such as tailoring and
shoemaking, may have been relatively
modest, the discourse of the trade
interpellated tailors and shoemakers
as independent producers, as owners of
a very real property in their labour.
Possession of this property defined
the boundary between the `respectable
artisan' and the casual worker,
general labourer and especially the
`foreigner, that is, any one not `bred
to the trade' or belonging to a local
trade body. Indeed many artisans
positioned themselves alongside
shopkeepers, dealers and professional
men rather than the bulk of the
labouring poor (Prothero 1979:26).
Although, as Rule argues, artisans did
not conceive skill as an individual
property right but as a collective
right, his usage of the concepts of
skill and labour power gives a
particular shape to artisanal history.
Such concepts can be made to refer
more fruitfully to the mode of
production which emerged in England at
a later time. Indeed, the historical
materials used by Rule to substantiate
his conception of skill as a form of
property can be re-used in order to
give a different shape to the same
history
Re-Reading Historical Documents
Following Foucault's (1972:7)
injunction I have re-read the
historical `documents' cited by Rule
and tried to re-shape them into
`monuments' to the past. That is, I
have tried to re-read these historical
monuments in a sociological way which
fictions a different meaning and which
elucidates the social structures which
were the condition of their emergence.
To substantiate the claim that
artisans thought of their skill as a
form of property Rule (1987:105) cites
some text from the artisanal journal The
Gorgon. The text is from an
article concerning the London printers
dispute of 1818. This dispute was
about the increasing number of
apprentices taken on by employers. The
printers considered that employers
were transgressing their right to
limit the number of apprentices so
that the trade would not become
`overstocked`. This article
articulates the printers' claim that
... every workman who has served an
apprenticeship of seven years, and
who, of course during that time has
never received the full remuneration
for his labour, has acquired a property
in his trade, for which he has
paid the full price; ... (The
Gorgon Nov. 28th 1818:221,
emphasis added) (11).
Regulating the number of apprentices
was a right bequeathed by the
corporate possession of the `property
in the trade' which the printers
believed gave them control over this
dimension of the production process.
The printers were not going to submit
to the reduction of the `value of this
property' through the transgression of
this dimension of their exclusive use
rights. Rule (1987:105-6) also cites
text from the `Report from the
Committee on the Petitions of
Watchmakers of Coventry & C.' of
1817 in which the watchmakers describe
their various `arts and trade' as a
`property'. The Report investigated
the great distress in the watch making
trade in London and Coventry caused by
the commercial slump of 1817 and the
"Coventry system" of taking on
numerous apprentices which were
improperly trained. The watchmakers
claimed that:
By the laws and institution of
apprenticeship, the regular bred
artisan, whether master or servant,
that acquired a property in
and lawfully become possessed of and
rightly entitled unto the exclusive
use of the several arts, manufactures
or trades, to which they have been
apprenticed or brought up
respectively... (`Report From the
Committee on the Petitions of the
Watchmakers of Coventry & C.',
1817, British Sessional Papers
Vol.VI: 333 emphasis added -
subsequently referred to as
Report)(12). Employers were flagrantly
transgressing the artisan's rights,
yet the `regular bred artisan' was not
receiving `the substantial protection
of the legislature' that their
property, like that of the `possessors
of any other descriptions of property'
entitled them to. It is significant
that the artisans refer to their
property in `exclusive use' rights of
their arts or trades not their
property in watch making skills.
The third text deployed by Rule is
from a letter drafted in 1823 by the
Manchester hand loom weavers which
states:
The Weaver's Qualifications may be
considered as his property and
support. It is as real property to him
as Buildings and Lands are to others.
Like them his qualification cost time,
application and Money. There is
no point of view (except visible and
tangible) wherein they differ. And
when Buildings are removed, or Land
engrossed for Roads, Streets and
Canals, the proprietors are paid for
them. Then, if two dependencies, of
exactly equal value to the proprietors
are sacrificed for convenience; does
not equity require, that while one is
remunerated, the other ought not to be
totally neglected? (Public Records
Office (subsequently PRO) H.0. 40.
18:3. Letter from the Committee of
the Manchester Weavers) . The
letter, from which this text is
extracted, was written in response to
employers lowering the price of the
hand-weavers' labour, ostensibly to
make English cloth more competitive in
foreign markets (13).
This text is significant as it
explicitly articulates, through a
succession of concepts -
qualifications, property and equity -
that the qualification of the artisan,
the ability to perform a trade, was a
real form of property, and that the
reorganisation of small commodity
production was robbing the weavers of
this corporate property, rendering
them unable to support themselves and
their families. Such a transformation
of the labour process threatened to
emasculate the weaver by placing him
`entirely in the power of his
Employer' (PRO. H.0. 40. 18:1). To the
weavers their `Qualifications' were a
real form of property which had rights
extending beyond the labour process
which the employer had a duty to
respect. The concept of
`Qualifications' in this text is in no
way synonymous with the concept of
skill.
Thus the printers, clock makers and
weavers were interpellated by a
discourse of common use rights. They
claimed an exclusive and inalienable
right to use their trade. The trade,
it would seem, was not so much a skill
but a collective use right, a
corporate property with a
constellation of rights and privileges
which extended beyond the point of
production.
Conclusion
As Rule (1987:104) argues,
understanding the way in which
artisans' conceived their `hidden form
of property' is difficult because
until the end of the eighteenth
century their concepts were largely
assumed and unarticulated remaining
`implicit' in the ownership of
particular tools, collective forms of
association, customary practices, and
in attitudes toward `foreigners'. Yet,
as I have argued, an explicit
theorisation of the intersection of
history and social structure makes it
possible to re-think the ways in which
eighteenth century artisans thought
about their trade as a form of
corporate property.
The process of re-thinking was
achieved making the synthesis of
critical realist, Foucaultian and
Marxian theory refer to
extra-theoretical reality. This has
enabled me to re-read historical
documents referring to eighteenth
century small commodity production as
discourses with historically specific
conditions of existence.
Conceptualising historical documents
as a set of discourses, which emerge
from particular social structures or
discursive formations which possess
both discursive and non-discursive
dimensions, I have attempted to
re-shape John Rule's essay in labour
history in such a way that `the trade'
is seen as a form of corporate
property within artisanal discourse.
How common this distinctive rhetoric
of the property in the trade was
within eighteenth century English
artisanal discourse is of course
problematic. The signifier 'artisan'
referred to a small minority of
eighteenth century workers, mostly
urban and male and different trades
had different commitment to and power
to use the discourse concerning the
property in the trade. Standing at the
intersection of history and social
structure is a difficult and
speculative intellectual exercise yet
it is, nonetheless both a necessary
and a fruitful one.
Footnotes
(1) On the `currency' of concepts
within historical discourses see G.
Wickham (1990) `The Currency of
History for Sociology' in S. Kendrich
et al.
(2) Whilst I acknowledge the veracity
of the statement that the term
post-modernism encompasses `an
incredibly heterogeneous range of
contemporary movements and
manifestations, phenomena extremely
difficult to bring under a single
head' (Eley & Nield 1995:363), I
think it fair to say that all
post-modernisms in some way encompass
an anti-foundationalism and are
therefore variants of idealism and
relativism. Whilst I agree with Curry
(1993), that caricaturing those
adopting a post-modernist position as
crude idealists and relativists is
unhelpful, postmodernisms, however
nuanced, are inescapably idealist and
relativist.
(3) In Samuel Johnson A Dictionary
of the English Language Vols.I
& II (1785, 6th edition
unpaginated) there is no entry for the
term skill. However, the text uses the
term in the definition of Art:
`Artfulness; skill; dexterity'. Art is
also defined as `The power of doing
something not taught by nature and
instinct' and as simply `A trade'.
Mystery is defined as `A trade; a
calling'. Significantly the term Breed
is defined as `To educate; to form by
education' and Breeding as
`qualifications', `manners' and
`knowledge of ceremony'. Johnson was
not unfamiliar with trade and
tradesmen as Mathias (1979:295-317)
demonstrates.
(4) An alternative critique of the
idea of artisanal skill can be found
in Ranciere (1983) and Sonenscher
(1989). These authors argue that
artisanal trade skills were often both
limited and similar and that artisans
mystified their work as a strategy
designed to exclude other workers. See
also C. Behagg (1990:124-5), who
argues that English artisans,
particularly between 1820-30,
`consciously fostered' the
`impenetrability of the workplace' in
order to exclude all outsiders from
gaining any control over their
culture.
(5) CF Sonenscher(1989:23) on the
`bewildering variety' of ways in which
the French artisans of the glazing
trade were paid: `... by the day, the
month, with meals or without meals, by
the piece, or by combinations of all
these modes of payment.'
(6) Even if such independence was
often phantasmatic it was,
nevertheless, a `formative element'
(Foucault 1972: 68) of the discourse
of the trade. On artisanal `fantasies
of independence ' see Joyce (1994:32).
(7) Artisans also believed that their
rights were guarantied by custom
enshrined in common law, and in the
case of apprenticeship by the statute
law of 5 Elizabeth c.4, the Statute of
Artificers of 1653 see Derry (1931).
(8) With reference to West Riding wool
manufacture in the eighteenth century
Smail, (1987: 54) described the
position of the artisan within the
labour process as one in which he
`worked with, not for, his master' and
in which `during slack times he was
likely to be kept on for as long as
the master could manage.' Smail
(1987:54) calls this `the artisanal
wage relationship'. This is, however,
a misleading description. A. Randall,
(1992) quite correctly criticises
Smail's simplistic operationalisation
of the concept of discourse. Smail
unfortunately fails to deploy the kind
of rigorous and nuanced concept of
discourse which Foucault's work
displays. However, Randall's criticism
is ultimately marred by reductionism.
Randall (1990:204) asserts that
discourse arises `directly out of a
real economic system'. Although
related to the economic and political
dimensions, the discursive dimension
of sociality is, I would argue, a
relatively autonomous dimension of
sociality. This dimension is equally
real but has an indirect relationship
of polymorphous correlation to the
economic system.
(9) For example, in the tailoring
trade journeymen claimed the right to
dispose of off-cuts of cloth `cabbage'
but often had a duty to provide the
`trimmings' - buttons, braid etc., in
the production of garments. Cabbage
also became `...a synonym for the
craftsman's income' (Linebaugh 1991:
245-6). The publication of printed
patterns for cutting cloth and precise
directions for their use reduced the
possibilities for appropriating waste
(Linebaugh 1991:439.
(10) On the `openness' of Smith's
texts see Brown (1994:54) who issues a
salutary warning not to insert the
`conventional wisdoms of
twentieth-century economic thinking'
into Smith's eighteenth century
discourse of natural liberty.
(11) On the Gorgon see
Thompson (1984:118-121). Thompson
argues that its editors, John Wade and
Francis Place, formulated a radical
political economy which mixed elements
from Smith's Wealth of Nations
(1776) and David Ricardo's Principles
of Political Economy and Taxation
(1817) (and I would add liberal
sprinklings of Benthamite
utilitarianism). How representative the
Gorgon was of metropolitan
artisanal opinion is contentious.
Calhoun (1982:250), argues that The
Gorgon `was not a typical
representative of London artisan
opinion', rather it articulated
opinions more akin to the new
industrial workers such as the
Manchester Cotton Spinners.
(12) This passage is virtually
identical to one contained in the Draft
of A Petition to the House of
Commons on the Statute of
Apprentices 5 Eliz Cap 4
(Goldsmith's Collection, UL. Ms. 755
fol. 179) written during what would
later become known as the
Apprenticeship Campaign 1813-14. On
this Campaign see T. K.
Derry(1931:67-87) and Prothero
(1979:51-61).
(13) The Weavers wages had been
reduced in 1815, 1816 and 1817, (
Pinchbeck 1930:172 note 5). On the
mythology of the independent handloom
weavers see The Autobiography of
Samuel Bamford Volume 1 Early Days
(ed) W. Chaloner (1967:119-125), and
Joyce (1994: Part 1. )
References
Abrams, P. (1982) Historical
Sociology, Shepton Mallett: Open
Books.
Althusser, L.(1970) For Marx,
New York: Vintage Books.
Althusser, L. (1971) `Ideology and
Ideological State Apparatuses (notes
towards an Investigation)' in Lenin,
Philosophy and other essays, New
York: Monthly Review Press.
British Parliamentary Papers (1817)
`Report From the Committee on the
Petitions of the Watchmakers of
Coventry & C.', 1817, British
Sessional Papers Vol.VI.
Bottomore, T. et al (eds) A
Dictionary of Marxist Thought,
London: Blackwell
Behagg, C. (1990) Politics and
Production in the Early Nineteenth
Century, London: Routledge
Brown, V. (1994) Adam Smith's
Discourse: Canonicity, Commerce and
Conscience, London:Routledge
Calhoun, C. (1982) The Question of
Class Struggle. Social foundations
of Popular Radicalism during the
Industrial Revolution, London:
Blackwell.
Castoriadis, C. (1984) Crossroads
in the Labyrinth, Brighton:
Harvester.
Castoriadis, C. (1987) The
Imaginary Institution of Society,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Curry, P. (1993)`Towards a
post-Marxist social history: Thompson,
Clark and beyond', in A. Wilson (ed),
Rethinking Social History. English
Society 1570-1920 and its
Interpretation, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Derry, T.K. (1931) `The repeal of the
apprenticeship clauses of the Statute
of Artificers', Economic History
Review, 3 (1): 67-87.
Dobson, C.R. (1980) Masters and
Journeymen. A Prehistory of
Industrial relations 1717-1800,
London: Croom Helm.
Eley, G. and Nield, K. (1995)
`Starting over: the present, the
post-modern and the moment of social
history', Socal History, 20
(3): 355-364.
Foucault, M. (1972) The
Archaeology of Knowledge trans.
A.M. Sheridan Smith. London Routledge.
Guildhall Library, (1813) `Statute of
5. Elizabeth', Broadside
20.31.
Guildhall Library, (1814) `Prospectus
Of An Association To Ammend An Act Of
The 5th Elizabeth',Broadside
20.32.
Hammond, B. & Hammond, J.L. (1966)
The Town Labourer 1760-1832,
London: Longmans.
Hohfeld,W. N. (1919) Fundamental
Legal Conceptions As Applied In
Judicial Reasoning, London: Yale
University Press.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1968) Labouring
Men. Studies in the History of
Labour, London: Wiednefield
& Nicholson
Jones, K. (1982) Law and Economy.
The Legal Regulation of Corporate
Capital, London: Academic Press.
Johnson, S. (1785, 6th Edition) A
Dictionary of the English Language
Vols.I & II. London.
Joyce, P.(1995) `The end of social
history?', Social History, 20(3):
73-91.
Linebaugh, P. (1991) The London
Hanged. Crime And Civil Society In
the Eighteenth Century, London:
Allen Lane.
Marx, K. (1946) Capital: A
Critical Analysis of Capitalist
Production. Vol. 1, trans S.
Moore and E. Aveling. London: Allen
and Unwin.
Marx, K. (1973) Grundrisse.
Foundations of the Critique of
Political Economy, trans. M.
Nicolaus. London: Allen and Lane.
Mathias, P. (1979) The
Transformation Of England,
London: Metheun. Outhwaite, W. (1987)
New Philosophies of Social Science.
Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical
Theory, London: Macmillan.
Pichbeck, I. (1930) Women Workers
and the Industrial Revolution
1750-1850, London: Routledge.
Prothero,I. (1979) Artisans &
Politics in Early Nineteenth-Century
London, Folkstone: Dawson.
Public Records Office (1823)
Letter from the Committee of the
Manchester Weavers. H.0. 40. 18.
Ranciere, J. (1983) `The Myth of the
Artisan. Critical Reflections on a
Category of Social history', International
Labor and Working Class History,
(1983) XXIV, 1-16.
Randall, A. (1992)`New languages or
old? Labour, capital and discourse in
the Industrial revolution', Social
History, 5(2):195-216.
Rule, J. (1985) "Artisan attides: a
comparitive survey of skilled labor
and proletarianisation before 1848",
Bulletin of the Society for the
Study of Labour History,
50:22-31.
Rule, J. (1987)`The property in skill
in the period of manufacture", in P.
Joyce (ed.) The Historical Meanings
of Work, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Saramago, J. (1996) The History of
the Siege of Lisbon, London:
Harvill Press.
Smail, J. (1987) `New languages for
labour and capital: the transformation
of discourse in the early years of the
Industrial Revolution', Social
History, 12(1): 49-71.
Sonenscher, M. (1989) Work And
Wages. Natural law, politics and the
eighteenth-century French trades,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steadman-Jones, G. (1983) Languages
of Class: Studies in English
Working-Class History 1832-1982.
Cambridge: University Press.
The Gorgon (1818) Nov. 28th.
Thompson, N. W. (1984) The
People's Science. The popular
political economy of exploitation
and crisis 1816-34, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wickham, G. (1990) `The Currency of
History for Sociology' in S. Kendrich
et al (eds) Interpreting the Past,
Understanding the Present.
London: Macmillan.
Woodiwiss, A. (1990a) Social
Theory After Postmodernism:
Rethinking Production, Law and
Class. London: Pluto Press.
Woodiwiss, A. (1990b) Rights v.
Conspiracy: A Sociological Essay on
the History of American Labour Law.
Oxford: Berg.
|