Theories of the People
In his book, Visions of the People, Industrial England and the Question of Class, 1848-1914, Patrick Joyce endeavors to problematize the received wisdom that a working-class consciousness was the primary source of social identity and cultural expression for the British working people before the First World War. Joyce argues that scholars must look at other social and cultural factors in the lives of laborers to truly understand how they perceived their positions within the British social order. While not discarding the concept of ‘class consciousness’ as a possible source of popular identity, Joyce proposes scholars also consider a plurality of other factors, such as currents of populism, ideas of ‘the people’, regional and community ties, political discourse and popular culture. Joyce argues for his thesis by examining these factors, while paying particular attention to language and, in the selected chapters, the reflections of public sentiment found in the rhetoric and origins of political organizations.
Joyce’s decision to consider factors other then class while investigating British laborers’ understanding of their own social identity and the roots of their feelings of solidarity departs from previously unchallenged Marxist historical interpretations in which class plays a central role. Renowned historian E.P. Thompson argues that class consciousness in England was “made” by 1830, and Eric Hobsbawm portrays class as the “major cultural and political expression” that organized capitalist societies and developed alongside of industrialization.(1)Joyce’s nuanced, multi-layered approach adds complexity to ‘stagiest’ Marxist historiography and builds on, instead of rebutting, both Thompson’s and Hobsbawm’s interpretations.
Joyce looks primarily at the laboring people of Lancashire, a population “not unrepresentative” of England, yet manageable in size, with a developed industry, an active political community and a distinctive culture.(20) In order to prove the plurality of sources of social identity available to ‘the people’, Joyce offers the term ‘populism’, a concept pre-dating and different from ‘class’, yet luckily, just as handy. The inclusive universality of populism distinguishes it from the exclusive, recent, indistinct and uneven appearance of ‘class consciousness,’ yet it also has political implications. (11) By mapping the connections between populism, Chartism, radicalism, Liberalism and Socialism, Joyce illustrates that the political consciousness central to all these movements was not necessarily galvanized by ‘class consciousness’, but instead inspired by ‘populism’.
Unfortunately, Joyce’s argument remains highly theoretical throughout the book, contributing few ‘visions’ of the people he seems so determined to reveal. His methodology is tantalizing, his evidence compelling, yet his promises remain unfulfilled. By using iconic figures such as Gladstone to illustrate alternative sources of social identity, Joyce neglects the people themselves, and leaves the hidden transcripts of human perceptions unread. His concern with theory, language and politics obscure the ‘experience’ of ‘the people’ and leave those who are curious frustrated and unsatisfied. His rhetorical style is argumentative and defensive and, ultimately, intangible.
