Who Runs the Economy?: Control and Influence in British Economic Policy William Keegan and R. Pennant-Rea London: Maurice Temple Smith, 1979, pp. 235
Who Runs the Economy?: Control and Influence in British Economic Policy William Keegan and R. Pennant-Rea London: Maurice Temple Smith, 1979, pp. 235
复制标题
谁运行经济？：英国经济政策的控制和影响 William Keegan 和 R. Pennant-Rea 伦敦：Maurice Temple Smith，1979 年，第 235 页
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1980
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Campbell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Campbell
这六篇历史论文阅读引人入胜，有些确实挑战了十九世纪英国阶级和政治的传统“真理”。约翰·加拉德（John Garrard）在总结数据时踩了旧的地面，这些数据证实了直到世纪的最后25年，中产阶级几乎被排除在英国国家政治竞技场之外。但他对英国贵族的政治复杂性使他们能够在不再主导经济后继续统治的论点持怀疑态度。相反，他记录了中产阶级成员非常广泛地参与地方政府，并相当令人信服地认为，鉴于当时普遍存在的非常大的地方自治权，这确实很好地满足了他们的利益和愿望。诺西特和弗雷泽的论文讨论了诺西特所谓的“定义之争”，这对于澄清文献中的歧义是必要的，而弗雷泽则认为这些根本不是歧义，而是19世纪英国真实的城市世界：大批不属于“无产阶级”或“资产阶级”的人，不能以任何有意义的方式被称为“中产阶级”。现在，从某种意义上说，这些都是“内部”的论战与复仇。然而，这里也有一些至关重要的问题，可能会改变我们对英国的概念，马克思用英国作为他的《资本论》的模型。当代的一些论文也很值得阅读;虽然集中在英国，他们也提出了非常重要的问题，以了解阶级相关的政治行动在“自由资本主义民主国家”的其他地方。贾里巧妙地探讨了“中产阶级左派”的假定意义，并对任何基于社会学的关于中产阶级政治未来的确定性持怀疑态度。在其他许多论文中，拉林斯面对的是较小的小冲突：面对其他地方越来越多的证据，他重申了英国社会和政治中手工/非手工二分法的持续突出性，这是上层和下层白领工人之间的分裂，在“先进的工业社会”中变得最重要。莱林斯给我们上的课很简单，但非常有益：“历史和社会因素......应当提醒人们注意，在试图使类似的理论适用于非常不同的国家背景时可能遇到的困难。“帕里对白领工人，特别是高度组织化的职业强调经济个人主义和以人为本的流动愿望提出了质疑。这就掩盖了在白领职业中可能越来越普遍的根深蒂固的集体行动模式。在一篇简短的评论中不可能对这样一批异质的论文集作出公正的评价。除了为学术研究提供有价值的见解外，许多论文值得认真考虑，作为高级本科生或研究生水平的政治史/政治科学/政治社会学课程的指定阅读材料。
The six historical essays make for engrossing reading and some do challenge conventional "verities" about class and politics in nineteenth-century Britain. John Garrard treads old ground when he summarizes the data confirming the near-exclusion of the middle class from the national British political arena until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. But he is skeptical of the thesis that the political sophistication of the British aristocracy enabled them to continue governing long after they had ceased to dominate the economy. Instead, he documents the very extensive participation of members of the middle class in local government and argues, rather convincingly, that, given the very substantial local autonomy prevailing at the time, this did serve their interests and aspirations rather well. The papers by Nossiter and Fraser are taken up with what the former refers to as "definitional wrangles" that are necessary to clear up ambiguities in the literature, while the latter retorts that these are not ambiguities at all, but rather the real urban world in nineteenth-century England: large masses of people who did not fit into the "proletariat" or the "bourgeoisie," and could not in any meaningful way be called "middle class." Now, in one sense, these are "in-house" polemics with a vengeance. However, there are also vital issues here that may change our conception of the England that Marx used as his model for Capital. Some of the contemporary papers are also well worth reading; while focussed on Britain, they also raise issues of great importance for understanding class-related political action in "liberal-capitalist democracies" elsewhere. Jary deftly probes the putative significance of the "middle class left" and remains skeptical about any sociologically-based certitude regarding the political future of the middle classes. Railings confronts what were lesser skirmishes in many of the other papers: he reaffirms the continuing salience of the manual/nonmanual dichotomy in British society and politics in the face of mounting evidence elsewhere that it is the cleavage between upper and lower white-collar workers that has become most significant in "advanced industrial society." The lesson Railings imparts is simple, yet highly salutary: "history and social factors... should alert one to the difficulties likely to be encountered in trying to make similar theories applicable in very different national contexts." Parry calls into question the emphasis on economic individualism and person-centred mobility aspirations among white-collar workers, particularly highly organized professions. This has served to obscure deeply embedded patterns of collective action which may become more and more endemic in white-collar occupations. It is impossible in a short review to do justice to such a heterogeneous collection of papers. In addition to providing valuable insights for scholarly research, many of the papers deserve serious consideration as assigned readings in political history/political science/political sociology courses at advanced undergraduate or graduate levels.