Read on Twitter
The whole of 19th century English politics and governance can be seen through the contemporary framework of 'nuisance and annoyance'. Everything.
I've been taken with this idea since I read it in David Churchill's work on Leeds and municipal governance.
I've been taken with this idea since I read it in David Churchill's work on Leeds and municipal governance.
Perhaps we should reframe how English politicians in parliament and in local government saw the citizens they ruled.
It wasn't about revolution vs stability. That was for the Continent.
It was about the minutiae of being annoyed about nuisances.
It wasn't about revolution vs stability. That was for the Continent.
It was about the minutiae of being annoyed about nuisances.
I'm seeing this in language about how to plan out the colonies as well. More at stake there, but still seen as nuisances that needed to be tidied up.
I keep getting sidetracked by debates by local councils on issues like litter, sewage, protruding awnings on pavements, etc.
On the one hand it's good old Leicester school of urban history stuff on municipal reform in the 19th century.
But I'm thinking it represents much more
On the one hand it's good old Leicester school of urban history stuff on municipal reform in the 19th century.
But I'm thinking it represents much more
why England in particular saw governance so differently from other nations. & why continental revolutions never really caught on here.
Class is about being annoyed by small infractions of others. You define yourself against someone being a 'nuisance'
Class is about being annoyed by small infractions of others. You define yourself against someone being a 'nuisance'
Joyce, Stedman Jones et al tried to encapsulate this sense by describing the 1840s as an era of 'liberal governmentality', of the rise of self-governance and urban improvement as a form of class control. I'm not sure this captures what I mean here though.
