In this blog, the second in a series of posts looking at sites of historical interest in Portsmouth, Dr Rob James, Senior Lecturer in History, discusses the changing uses of the city’s cinema buildings. Rob specialises in researching society’s leisure activities and teaches a number of units on film and the cinema, including, as part of the Problems and Perspectives unit, ‘History at the Movies’ in the first year, ‘The Way to the Stars: Film and cinema-going in Britain, c. 1900-c. 2000’ option in the second year, and a Special Subject on ‘Cinema-going in Wartime Britain, 1939-1945’ in the third year.
Going to the cinema was an important leisure pastime in Britain during the first half of the twentieth century. Millions of the country’s citizens flocked to the cinema on a weekly basis, leading one prominent historian to refer to the activity as the ‘social habit of the age’. [1]
In order to respond to the growing number of people going to the cinema, thousands of new venues were built across the country. On top of this, many existing buildings were converted into cinema halls. Here in Portsmouth, for example, a tobacco factory located in Queens Street, Portsea was modified, opening as the Queens Cinema in 1914 with enough space to accommodate over 500 patrons. [2] What was once a site of labour, became a site for relaxation.
Queens Cinema, Portsea
By the start of the Second World War there were 29 cinemas located across the town. Many of these were plush ‘picture palaces’, constructed as part of the boom period of cinema building in the 1920s and 30s, such as the Odeon and Regent (later Gaumont) cinemas in London Road, North End, the Plaza (later Gaumont) at Bradford Junction, Fratton, the Tivoli, in Copnor Road, Copnor, and the Palace in Commercial Street (now Guildhall Walk).
Many of these buildings have long been lost. Not, as may be assumed, to enemy bombing during the war (only one cinema – the Princes Theatre in Lake Road – was completely demolished in the Blitz), but to the bulldozer after the Council began its post-war reconstruction programme. [3]
Bomb damage to the Princes Theatre, Lake Road
A good number of buildings survived the bulldozers, though. The Odeon in North End still stands, as does the Plaza/Gaumont in Fratton, and the Palace in Guildhall Walk. They are no longer cinemas, however, but serve other purposes. The Odeon is now a Sainsbury’s Local store, the Plaza/Gaumont was turned into a Bingo hall in the 1990s, and then became a mosque, while the Palace is now a nightclub – the Astoria – and a popular haunt for our students!
Odeon cinema, North EndThe former Odeon cinema, now a Sainsbury’s Local supermarketPlaza/Gaumont cinema, Bradford JunctionThe former Plaza/Gaumont cinema, now Portsmouth Tami MosqueThe Palace cinema, Commercial Street (now Guildhall Walk)The former Palace cinema, now the Astoria nightclub
The changing uses of buildings is a fascinating history to uncover. As society’s leisure activities alter as the years go by, certain pastimes fall out of favour while others replace them, so the purposes of the buildings in which these activities took place changes too.
Some buildings become redundant and are lost to the cityscape forever. But many remain; they just serve a different purpose. So the next time you are in the Astoria strutting your stuff, think about the generations of people before you who have whiled away their leisure hours in that space in the past. Think, too, about what may become of that venue in the future. Will other generations use the space for different purposes?
Notes
[1] Cited in Jeffrey Richards, The Age of the Dream Palace: Cinema and Society in Britain 1930-1939, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984), p. 11.
[2] Robert James, ‘Cinema-going in a Port Town, 1914-1951: Film Booking patterns at the Queens Cinema, Portsmouth’, Urban History, 40.2, 2013, pp. 315-335, p. 317.
Ian Atkins, a second year History student at the University of Portsmouth, wrote the following blog entry on his experience of doing a work placement at the National Museum of the Royal Navy Library for the Public History Placement Unit. The unit is co-ordinated by Dr Melanie Bassett, Research Assistant for Port Towns and Urban Cultures and Part Time Lecturer in History.
The Public History Placement unit, a vital part of any university career, is an option that is available to Second Year Students in the School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies. Encompassing a wide and varied variability of placements the option aims to give an insight into the types of careers that are available to the deserving History graduate. Skills learnt in this unit allow for opportunity into a wide area of Public History, which as described by Faye Sayer ‘is the work by historians to associate the past with the present and communicate such to the public’, in a way that is understood and managed by those who do not possess a professional qualification. [1] This is not to diminish the importance of the past, nor is it too dumb down the past, it is a way of integrating everyone in their collective history. The use of public history allows for further understanding of collective memory, a function that academics are at lengths to stress binds us all, as we have lived through the experiences and are able to learn from them. [2]
I undertook a placement that was based at the National Museum of the Royal Navy Library. A collections library based at the Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth. The library holds extensive collections showcasing treasures of over 350 years of seafaring history, focusing on exclusive collections of Horatio, Lord Nelson, service records, personal accounts and many other collections that have a relation to the sea and the way the British Navy dominated the oceans. [3] A museum of this type has a dedicated team of professional historians and volunteers, who ‘make a positive and lasting impact contributing to the industry [and] their support is vital to releasing the creative energies of the hard-pressed professional’. [4] The volunteers and staff are, as suggested, a vital part of allowing the public to fully engage with the museum and its artefacts.
When envisioning working in a place such as the NMRN, or indeed any institution, local or national, there has to be consideration of the way that that institution understands its sense of place. There has to be understanding that it is relevant, how that even after 600 years museums are still one of the most active tourist attractions available to the public. [5] With such a varied history themselves, the museum ultimately becomes part of the artefacts that they display. There has been, as of 1992, rapid growth and ‘change within the museum industry, throwing the previous assumptions of museums into disarray’. [6] This is where a unit dedicated to Public History is essential. It is a way of understanding those changes and the necessity to, as anniversaries come and go, understand the collective past. History is something that connects us all, a state we cannot escape from, if we don’t learn about it we will never learn from it. [7] It is for this reason why a placement unit is important, and why more students should take advantage of it. The work may be time consuming, and sometimes not what is always expected, but nonetheless it is stimulating and it is always interesting to be able to handle and read documents and artefacts, many over 200 years old.
The Placement allowed for skills that will be beneficial to an industry that is so fast paced that there is very little time to give full and professional training; an industry very much built on ‘on the job training’, and voluntary work is a vital component to the smooth running of such. [8] Collections management is a role that all those looking for a career in Public History should be prepared to do; it is the role most accessible in this industry. It also allows for interrelation with historical documents and artefacts that can only ever normally be viewed by appointment or behind glass. Public history is very dominated by government intervention. Progressive governments have ideas on how and what should be taught as part of the nation’s history. The addition or omission of certain facts, objects or other form in museums is testament to this. A public history placement allows for both hands-on experience in a museum or other industry, but in-class experience is also invaluable to the understanding of what is available within this field.
The unit is one that comes highly recommended, if either you have experience in working in the industry or work experience in general. This unit will give you strong and lasting insights into the roles that are available to you as a graduate. History is a complex and fulfilling degree to hold, it is a course that shows you have the skills to work independently, to spec, and within time limits. The Public History industry is made up of multi-facet levels within an organisation, to be counted and noticed in this industry you must demonstrate experience, the placement will give you the skills which can be used to further this experience. It is also an industry that can, at times, be quite demanding. There are a lot of things to do within the organisation and not nearly enough time to do them. The placement will allow you to be able to see this first hand. University is a bubble, one where you are naturally helped along at every stage, the work place is far more different and to gain this experience whilst still having that safety net of university is invaluable. The placement may also allow for continued involvement with your chosen industry which, as already explained, will not only lead to a long lasting relationship for yourself, but for the university as a whole. It is therefore noted this unit and its subsequent placement are both rewarding and thought provoking.
Notes
[1] Faye Sayer, Public History: A Practical Guide. (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 22.
[2] John Tosh, The Pursuit of History 6th ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015), 259.
[3] National Museum of the Royal Navy. “Home Page.” http://www.nmrn-portsmouth.org.uk/, last accessed 16 May 2018.
[4] Sinclair Goddard, and Stephanie McIvor, Museum Volunteers: Good Practice in the Management of Volunteers. (London: Routledge, 2005), 1.
[5] Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. (London: Routledge, 1992), i.
[6] Hooper-Greenhill, Museums, 1.
[7] Big Think. “”Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.” Really?” http://bigthink.com/the-proverbial-skeptic/those-who-do-not-learn-history-doomed-to-repeat-it-really, last accessed 16 May 2018.
[8] The Historical Association. “Careers in History.” http://www.history.org.uk/student/resource/2914/careers-in-history, last accessed 2 January 2018.
Aimee Campbell, a second year History student at the University of Portsmouth, wrote the following blog entry on the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe for the Introduction to Historical Research Unit. Aimee discusses the process in which memorials gain meaning and serve as sites where past atrocities can be commemorated. The unit is co-ordinated by Dr Maria Cannon, Lecturer in Early Modern History at Portsmouth.
Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe
Heritage presents the past through a memorialised fashion; compromising of tangible memorials, rituals and ceremony. Heritage and memory can be political in certain historical contexts and conditions. [1] In this blog I shall explore whether the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin is successful as a site of remembrance with reference to the historiography surrounding debates on what makes a suitable memorial. As Sharon Macdonald has noted, “Heritage is deployed to show that the collective identity in question […] has not just been formed in the very recent past but somewhere further back”. [2] In the case of this memorial, for example, it is commemorating the Jews targeted by the Nazis, but this is a collective identity which was established far back in the past.
On the 12 May 2005 the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, designed by Peter Eisenman, was unveiled in Berlin, Germany. It consisted of an array of 2,711 rectangular stelae in varying heights, as well as an underground Information Centre presenting an exhibition about the Holocaust. [3] Henry W. Pickford argues that the memorial aligns itself with the idea of counter-monuments which, as suggested by Eisenman, refers to the fact that the horror of the Holocaust means that it could not be represented by traditional means. [4] Pickford displays this view because the site does not have any signage that indicates it is a memorial for the Jews murdered as part of the National Socialist regime. Geoffrey Cubitt writes that there is a desire to associate the idea of history with the idea of memory, thus suggesting that perhaps the only reason for the existence of memorials is for society to have something tangible which they can attach the past to or the suffering of a group with. [5] Therefore, the lack of anything signifying the purpose of the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe raises questions as to the effectiveness of it as a memorial. However, Bridget Sion argues that the lack of a focal point acts to reflect how the perpetrators and victims were everywhere and cannot be pinpointed to an exact spot. [6] Walking through the memorial is supposed to be a disconcerting experience with uneven pathways and a feeling of isolation. The design also muffles the outside sound of traffic, creating an eerie atmosphere that only adds to the discomfort of the memorial. [7]
A key element to the memory aspect of the memorial is the underground Information Centre, the addition of which situates the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in between representational and non-representational forms of memorial design. [8] Without the Information Centre it would almost be too easy for people to walk through the stelae and have no idea of their significance to the many Jews who fell victim to the Nazi regime. The Centre fulfils the idea that memorials must accord moral recognition of the victims of the past and stress the need for society to process their past collective experiences; without the Centre Eisenman’s design would not be sufficient as a site of memorial. [9] This raises the suggestion that perhaps a heritage site dedicated to memory is only useful if its purpose is fully understood by those who visit, otherwise it is an injustice being done to those to whom a memorial is being set up to commemorate. After all, as stated by Sion, the core mission of memorials is commemoration. [10] It is also worth noting, as Sion suggests, that “memorials depend for their success on sensitivity to their immediate and ramified contexts” [11]. In the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe the sensitivity and emotion felt by visitors is more commonly felt in the Information Centre than when walking through the actual site. Another element that needs considering with this specific memorial is ‘dark tourism’, when people specifically travel to places that are associated with death and suffering. Germany is the second most visited country behind Poland when it comes to the Holocaust, and, within its first year of being unveiled, the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe became a tourist magnet. [12] The very fact that the memorial is to commemorate an aspect of the Holocaust is exactly what draws people to it, highlighting how the purpose of a memorial is more for the present-day audience than those it is supposed to be commemorating. [13] Although the memorial was designed and commissioned with the intention of memorialising specifically the Jews who were victims of National Socialism, it has proved to be a place people can visit and share their grief, as well as pay their respects. As Joy Sather-Wagstaff argues, heritage is shared by groups of people as its foundations lie in collective memory, so a memorial is only efficient if it can unite a group of people in one common thought. [14] One of Eisenman’s intentions with this memorial was to have no sense of nostalgia or memory of the past, only the living memory of individual experience upon visiting the site. [15]
In conclusion, the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is an interesting case when considering the process of heritage and memorialisation. Eisenman’s memorial is a “self-reflective contemporary artwork and historically referential monument”. [16] Traditionally, monuments are geared towards the production and extension of knowledge and the awareness of such as part of social memory. [17] However, if someone was to visit the memorial and not the Information Centre they would come away potentially feeling moved by their experience but their understanding of the Jewish experience would not be advanced. Alternatively, it is not always essential for a monument to be a source of knowledge. It can sometimes just be a place to deposit memory and thought. [18] Despite its abstract nature, then, the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is effective because it combines both a simple and passive structure with the informative and moving Information Centre, which work together and complete one another to fulfil the embodiment of a memorial.
Notes
[1] Joy Sather-Wagstaff, “Heritage and Memory”, in Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research, ed. Emma Waterton and Steve Watson (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 191.
[2] Sharon Macdonald, “Undesirable Heritage: Fascist Material Culture and Historical Consciousness in Nuremberg”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12, no.1 (2006), 10.
[3] Bridget Sion, “Affective Memory, Ineffective Functionality: Experiencing Berlin’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe”, in Memorialization in Germany Since 1945, ed. William John Niven and Chloe E. M. Paver (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 243.
[4] Henry W. Pickford, “Dialectical Reflections on Peter Eisenman’s Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe”, Architectural Theory Review, 17, no.2-3 (2012), 424.
[5] Geoffrey Cubitt, History and Memory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013), 30.
[6] Sion, “Affective Memory”, 243.
[7] Sion, “Affective Memory”, 246.
[8] Pickford, “Dialectical Reflections”, 421.
[9] Cubitt, History and Memory, 51.
[10] Sion, “Affective Memory”, 251.
[11] Sion, “Affective Memory”, 251.
[12] Sion, “Affective Memory”, 247-248.
[13] Henry W. Pickford, “Dialectical Reflections”, 426.
[14] Joy Sather-Wagstaff, “Heritage and Memory”, 192.
[15] Sion, “Affective Memory”, 247.
[16] Sion, “Affective Memory”, 249.
[17] Geoffrey Cubitt, History and Memory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013), 26.
Dr Rob James, Senior Lecturer in History, recently worked with a local community group, Portsdown U3A, on a Heritage Lottery Funded project that sought to find out the impact of the Battle of Jutland on the people of Portsmouth and the local area. With the help of research assistant and PhD student John Bolt, and a team of Online Course Developers at the University, Dr James created an online map using the data collected by members or Portsdown U3A. One of the most interesting findings made by the U3A when conducting their research was that one celebrated V.C. holder – Commander Loftus William Jones – was born in Portsmouth, not Petersfield, as had been originally claimed.
Historical ‘facts’ are always open to question. This has never been more evident than in the research uncovered by Portsdown U3A, a local community group based just off Portsea Island. Members of Portsdown U3A, keen historians of the Battle of Jutland – the most famous sea battle to take place during the First World War – had always believed that Commander Loftus William Jones, who served on the destroyer H.M.S. Shark during the battle, had been born in the leafy market town of Petersfield, Hampshire. They had very little reason to doubt this. The town had long-celebrated ‘their’ war hero. Loftus William Jones’ parents, Admiral Loftus Francis Jones and Gertrude (née Gray), called Petersfield ‘home’ and it was long-believed that this was the town where Commander Jones was born. Documentary evidence supported this. The UK’s official public record, The Gazette, recorded that Jones was born in the town on 13 November 1879. The UK Victoria Cross Medals 1857-2007website similarly documented Petersfield as his place of birth. In 2014, The Telegraph repeated the claim, and as recently as 2016 a biography of the Commander was published carrying the title Commander Loftus William Jones: Petersfield’s Only VC. A brief internet search undertaken while writing this blog still throws up a series of entries claiming Petersfield as the town in which Commander Jones was born.
Commander Loftus William Jones
However, research by members of the Portsdown branch of the U3A has uncovered startling new evidence: that Commander Jones was not born in Petersfield as originally believed, but in Southsea, Portsmouth! While undertaking their research into the casualties of the Battle of Jutland who had been born in Portsmouth, one of the Portsdown U3A researchers decided to look into the life of Commander Jones because he had been awarded a posthumous V.C. It was while doing this research that they went through the census from 1881-1911 and found a record showing that Commander Jones was born in Southsea. Astonished to discover this, the U3A researcher investigated further at the Portsmouth History Centre. Here they discovered that a ‘Loftus William Jones’ had been baptised at St Jude’s Church in Southsea on 7 December 1879, and that his parents were Captain Loftus Francis Jones RN and Gertrude Jones, residing in Southsea. Finally, they managed to uncover a copy of Jones’ Birth Certificate at Portsmouth Register Office, and this demonstrated without doubt that he was born in Portsmouth on 13 November 1879. [1] A long-believed ‘fact’ had been shown to be a falsehood!
It is no surprise that the life (and death) of Commander Jones has garnered such interest. He had an illustrious career in the Royal Navy. He was educated at Eastman’s Royal Naval Academy in Fareham, near Portsmouth, and rapidly rose through the ranks. On 30th June 1914 he was promoted to Commander, and from October of that year he was appointed as Commander of the destroyer HMS Shark. Later that year HMS Shark led a flotilla of four ships along the east coast of England against a number of German light cruisers and destroyers. This action culminated in the Scarborough Raid in December 1914, for which the work of Commander Jones was commended by the Admiral of the Fleet, David Beatty. [2]
On 31st May 1916 Commander Jones led HMS Shark at the Battle of Jutland. The ship came under heavy enemy bombardment in the battle, and shells hit the bridge and main engines, causing major damage. Commander Jones was wounded but attempted to carry on despite facing significant enemy fire. After the Shark was struck by a shell Commander Jones lost most of one of his legs but continued to command the vessel by giving orders to his gun’s crew. Finally, a torpedo struck the Shark and the ship rapidly sank. There were only six survivors. Commander Jones was not one of them. Despite being helped onto a raft by two of his crew, his injuries were too severe and he died, along with 7 other officers and 79 men. [3]
Commander Jones was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross, the highest award of the honours system in the UK, because of his brave actions. It is no wonder Petersfield wanted to claim him as one of its own. However, thanks to the diligent work of the Portsdown U3A the birthplace of Commander Jones can be settled once and for all, and the community group can rightfully state that ‘Portsmouth has another V.C.’! [4]
Notes
[1] ‘The Battle of Jutland: Don’t believe everything you read’, The Battle of Jutland Exhibition, Exhibition panels produced by the Portsdown U3A Jutland Research Project 2016-2017.
[4] ‘Battle of Jutland: Don’t believe everything you read’.
The online map and full details of the project undertaken by Portsdown U3A and Dr James is available to view on the Port Towns and Urban Cultures website http://porttowns.port.ac.uk/.
In June, four members of the history team at Portsmouth participated in a series of field trips, presentations, and workshops with academics from Kobe University in Japan. In this blog, one of the founding members of the Port Towns and Urban Cultures research group, Dr Rob James, who is a senior lecturer in history, discusses the visit and what potential future opportunities the collaboration promises.
As part of our goal to extend links with other institutions worldwide, four members of the University’s Port Towns and Urban Cultures (PTUC) project, Dr Mel Bassett, Professor Brad Beaven, Dr Karl Bell and Dr Rob James, travelled to Kobe, Japan in late-June to meet scholars from the Port Cities Research Centre (PCRC) at Kobe University. The aim of the visit was to both collaborate on port city research and explore research interests between Portsmouth’s and Kobe’s academic communities. Both universities have strong research interests in history, literature, sociology, politics, education and languages, and during the visit we realized that there were great opportunities for working together.
The PTUC crew at the ‘Intersecting Port Cities’ workshop
On the first day of the visit members from PTUC and PCRC gave presentations on their various research areas at the Intersecting Port Cities. Kobe and Portsmouth. Their History and Potentialities workshop. This provided a chance for each of us to familiarize ourselves with both groups’ research interests and start to think about ways we could develop future collaborations. While both Kobe and Portsmouth are port cities, they are very different in terms of their history and social composition. Portsmouth is a city with deep naval roots, but Kobe’s port is more industrial, with strong commercial links to large manufacturers such as Kawasaki. Due to its broader industrial base, Kobe is a wealthier city, but we learned that pockets of deprivation still existed, particularly in areas with a strong immigrant community. Despite these economic and social differences between the ports, both operated (and still do) as contact zones in which people from differing cultures meet and mix. Both are waterfront cities at the intersection of maritime and urban space, offering the chance of cultural exchange that both reinforces and challenges local, national and international boundaries. The comparative histories of Kobe and Portsmouth discussed in these workshops thus helped us hone our methodologies and understanding of port cities in general.
Rob James presenting at the ‘Intersecting Port Cities’ workshop
Although these research workshops focused on a comparative analysis of port cities, it became clear from our discussions that there was the potential to work together on themes such as citizenship, ethnicity, ‘race’, education, translation and cultural transmission between East and West. All of these areas could involve academics from a range of disciplines at each university, and plans have been put into place to link researchers from both universities’ various faculties. For example, Rob James’ research into the cinema culture of ports links well with the work being conducted by postdoctoral researchers at Kobe University, so plans are afoot to work on collaborative projects in which the cinema cultures of Kobe and Portsmouth are compared and contrasted. After this thought-provoking workshop we were treated to dinner on the Luminous Kobe II pleasure cruiser, and while we sailed around the city’s harbour, eating an array of delicious food from sushi to Kobe beef, our PCRC partners continued to share fascinating stories about the development of the port of Kobe and its rich industrial, economic and social-cultural histories.
During the following days we engaged in a variety of trips to areas of historical interest, such as Kobe’s theatre district and ‘foreign quarter’, the Kobe Centre for Overseas Migration and Cultural Interaction, and the Kobe Planet Film Archive. These visits allowed us to see how identities in Kobe have been shaped and negotiated, especially through the city’s economic migration and its industries’ working communities. The visits also gave us a fascinating insight into how the city has changed over time, particularly the ways in which the ebbs and flows of the economy have affected the city’s cultural development. Indeed, while walking around the city, it became clear to us that the mapping project we have established at Portsmouth (that tracks the development of its ‘sailortown’ culture) could also be rolled out in Kobe. Such a task would enable the diverse and multilayered heritage of Kobe to be captured and shared with anyone interested in understanding the port’s history. As well as being taken on these very informative trips covering the city’s history, we were also introduced to the various outreach activities with which PCRC’s members are involved, including the Kobe Foreigners Friendship Centre and Takatori Community Centre, where we were told about the ways in which minority communities have been given a ‘voice’ in the broader Kobe community. We also visited Kobe City Archive and were introduced to many archival sources, including newspapers and trade directories, that showed us what a wealth of material there is available for us to use to enable us to further explore the port’s history while working collaboratively with academics at Kobe University.
Kobe theatre district
In fact, many opportunities for collaboration were discussed across the four days of the workshops, and it was at the final workshop session where both research groups put forward areas where we had identified real prospects for working together in the future. There was very clear potential to develop interdisciplinary projects that will showcase the research of both of our centres on the international stage. We also recognized opportunities to submit large funding bids to research councils that would allow us to fuse PTUC’s European port town network with the Asian consortium of universities, and thus help us to further explore the relationship between urban and maritime societies. In addition, we made initial plans for an international conference to be held jointly by the two centres, with plans for publications arising from the papers presented. We are also aiming to start a collaborative research project on Japanese culture and the West.
Kobe port from aboard the pleasure cruiser ‘Kobe Luminous II’
Overall, our visit to Kobe helped us to establish strong links with Asia, and particularly Japan, allowing us to solidify the port towns’ methodology while also establishing collaborative ways that the University of Portsmouth’s PTUC group could work with its new partner. Indeed, in discussions with our Kobe University colleagues, we have also identified opportunities for exchanges for both academics and students between the two institutions. We’ll keep you posted with future developments!
PTUC would like to thank the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation, an organization that aims to support closer links between the UK and Japan, for its generous financial contribution to this trip.
Brad Beaven, Karl Bell, and Rob James are founding members of PTUC. Their edited collection Port Towns and Urban Cultures: International Histories of the Waterfront, c. 1700-2000 is available to purchase from Palgrave MacMillan http://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137483157
In this blog Dr Mike Esbester, senior lecturer in history, tackles a question that has long been discussed by historians and reveals how, if used carefully, the past can sometimes provide illumination for the present. Mike’s research focuses on nineteenth- and twentieth-century Britain, particularly on the cultural history of safety, risk and accident prevention, and on the history of mobility.
It’s not an original question, and historians have been wrestling with it for years. Is it possible to learn from the past, given circumstances and context change and no two situations are ever precisely the same? Do we risk hollowing historical study out by trying to ‘apply’ it to the present? Must the past be ‘useful’?
These are all issues which have become increasingly pressing in recent years, as attempts have been made to apply metrics to the arts, humanities and social sciences which are, it might be argued, constructed around and better applied to the hard sciences. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that debate, it’s clear that in some form ideas about measuring the impact of our work is here to stay. The idea of impact itself doesn’t simply equate to ‘monetising the past’, of course, and it is taking the discipline into some interesting areas – though this isn’t new, as historians have been engaging with diverse audiences for many years, changing views and enhancing society in a huge range of ways. It does mean that we’re now being rather more careful about recording these impacts.
One place where all of these aspects are tied together is in some of my research into the history of health and safety. I’ve recently been co-principal investigator on a project called ‘The Changing Legitimacy of Health and Safety at Work, 1960-2015’, funded by a practice-based organisation, the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH). One of the key things they were interested in was understanding how we’ve ended up today ridiculing ‘elf n safety gone mad’ when, fundamentally, no one truly objects to the idea that we should try to ensure people (at work and beyond) remain free from injury or ill-health. It was also important to IOSH that the project, which was jointly run with Professor Paul Almond at the University of Reading, should produce recommendations to try to influence future policy and practice.
To be clear – no-one’s talking about somehow ‘predicting’ the future. But it is worth exploring how the past is useful in understanding the present and how this might help to shape the future.
It was a fascinating project – you can find our final report here – and I’ll be writing more about it in the future. But for now I wanted to say a little about what we’ve done to reach professional and policy audiences – and to address any concerns they might have about why the past should be relevant to them.
In addition to the report, which was made freely available by IOSH and promoted amongst its nearly 40,000 members, we’ve given presentations at health and safety events and written for various publications speaking to the health and safety profession. One of the recent spin-offs was a ‘webinar’, aimed at IOSH members, giving an overview of some of the key aspects and recommendations of the project – as well as continuing our dialogue with current practitioners.
As you can imagine, this was a rather different kettle of fish to your standard academic written text or presentation. We had to boil down two years’ work to around 45 minutes, making sure it was accessible (though not dumbed-down) – and we tried to provide some positive steps that the participants could take back into their diverse workplaces and apply.
We had around 100 participants with us for the webinar, and the Q and A following was lively – sufficiently so that we continued for 15 minutes beyond our allotted hour, and produced a written document responding to the questions we still didn’t have time to answer. The webinar is now available on IOSH’s YouTube channel.
How was it received? According to the post-event feedback, 98% of people felt the content was either good or excellent, which I think is pretty successful – and allays any concerns I might have had about making my ‘pitch’ that the past was indeed relevant to current practitioners. Now we want them to go and give our recommendations a try!
And what about those questions we started with, about learning from the past and applying it? Provided we retain the scope to explore the past for its own sake, I don’t see any harm in looking to see where it might provide illumination for the present – delicately done, of course. The past doesn’t have to be ‘useful’, but if there are aspects we can see that are relevant to current debates, surely it makes sense that we try to have that conversation and see where it might lead?
