The Women’s Liberation Movement in Scotland
The Women’s Liberation Movement in Scotland
复制标题
苏格兰妇女解放运动
DOI：
10.1080/03071022.2015.1080028
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
B. Lockyer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Lockyer
主义和自相残杀的冲突，到20世纪70年代初成为纽约租户运动的特征。最后，根据证据表明，到20世纪70年代中期，这场运动被国家所吸收，例如，租户管理合作社赋予租户作为房东的权力，而不是租户。戈尔德的书写得很好，风格通俗易懂，但反映了高水平的学术努力。这本书是丰富的细节，借鉴了一系列的主要来源，包括采访租户活动家和档案文件。它还包含几张令人回味的照片，描绘了活动家及其运动。这本书给人留下的一个深刻印象是，它成功地捕捉了当时美国的更大图景，当时发生了许多事件-大萧条，新政，第二次世界大战，麦卡锡主义和冷战，种族隔离和冲突，越南-而不影响这本书的重点。从这个意义上说，作者成功地描述和分析了一个利基主题，同时将后者置于更广泛的历史社会经济和政治事件网络中。我觉得，这本书确实有几个方面让读者猜测。例如，戈尔德没有参考其他历史学家在该学科领域的工作。这很可能只是反映了一个事实，即主题-租户行动主义-不是一个很好的研究领域（见I。D.科尔，“从历史中隐藏？《住房研究：英国社会住房的永恒现状和案例》，《住房研究》，21，2（2006），283-95）。如果是这样的话，那么黄金似乎开辟了学术，历史文献的新天地。如果不是，那么人们想知道这本书在哪里适合租户行动主义的社会历史。此外，戈尔德对有争议的公民身份概念的处理本可以更加突出和批判，因为它对作者的论文至关重要。虽然认识到这本书是一部社会历史的作品，而不是社会科学，它本来会更好地服务于一个更广泛的和批判性的讨论的概念公民早期。尽管这两个警告，然而，这本书确实作出了宝贵的贡献，社会历史领域。它对住房、城市研究、政治和社会学的学生也有相当大的价值。
ism and internecine conflict that came to characterize the tenant movement in New York by the early 1970s. It concludes by considering the legacy of post-war tenant activists, in the light of evidence to suggest that, by the mid-1970s, the movement was being co-opted by the state, with tenant management co-operatives, for example, empowering tenants as landlords, not as tenants. Gold’s book is well written, with a highly accessible style that, nevertheless, reflects a high level of scholarly endeavour. The book is rich in detail, drawing upon a range of primary sources, including interviews with tenant activists and archive documentation. It also contains several evocative photographs, depicting activists and their campaigns. A strong impression made by the book is the sense in which it manages to capture the bigger picture of the United States at the time when many of the events documented take place – the Depression, the New Deal, the Second World War, McCarthyism and the Cold War, racial segregation and conflict, Vietnam – without compromising the focus of the book. In this sense, the author succeeds in describing and analysing a niche subject, while situating the latter in the wider web of historical socio-economic and political events. There are a couple of respects in which the book does, I feel, leave the reader guessing. For example, Gold makes no reference to the work of other historians in the subject area. It is quite possible that this simply reflects the fact that the subject matter – tenant activism – is not a well-researched area (see I. D. Cole, ‘Hidden from history? Housing studies, the perpetual present and the case of social housing in Britain’, Housing Studies, 21, 2 (2006), 283–95). If so, then Gold appears to break new ground in scholarly, historical literature. If not, then one wonders where this book fits into the social history of tenant activism. Furthermore, Gold’s treatment of the contested concept of citizenship could have been somewhat more prominent and critical, given its centrality to the author’s thesis. While recognizing that the book is a work of social history, rather than social science, it would have been better served by a more extensive and critical discussion of the concept of citizenship early on. Notwithstanding these two caveats, however, the book does make a valuable contribution to the field of social history. It is also of considerable value to students of housing, urban studies, politics and sociology.