Profit and Loss: Institutional Labour in England, 1913-2004

这项拟议研究的目的将是：*调查从1913年《智力缺陷法》通过到1948年NHS成立的1913年，在英格兰和威尔士的机构和殖民地中，病人或囚犯劳动的使用、程度和重要性。*调查和确定1948年后机构活动和生产方法的变化，直到2004年最初的布里斯托尔工业治疗组织关闭。*通过这一双管齐下的分析，重新思考残疾是如何在专业和公众的想象中构成的，从而填补现有历史学中的一个重大空白。至少100年来，有学习困难的人在没有工资或养老金的机构、医院、职业中心和殖民地工作，如果没有他们的劳动，这些机构就不会生存。事实上，伍德委员会(1929)曾主张形成自给自足的“殖民地”，以满足所有智力缺陷群体的需求，无论其年龄或残疾程度如何。这些机构的设计是为了依靠病人的劳动才能生存--大规模、无限期的监禁代价高昂。精神缺陷本身是无法治愈的。这一事实本身可能在某种程度上解释了自19世纪初以来出版的疯狂和禁闭历史中缺乏探索的原因。精神缺陷通常不会给医生提供理论和实验的机会，从而取得胜利。没有人能找到治疗精神缺陷的化学疗法、外科疗法，甚至是基于疗法的疗法，后来的行为矫正疗法引起了争议，而且可能比镇静疗法更昂贵。学习障碍者、智障者、智力缺陷者、低能者和白痴的历史可能很难找到。他们被埋葬在我们努力理解、评估和记录我们随着时间推移处理疯狂的方式的重压之下--Scull(2015)断言这种情况是完全不同于[文明]的，与之格格不入。福柯(1964)让我们注意到病人在精神错乱中的局外人地位--这个词源于拉丁语，delirare，意思是偏离，被错乱，字面意思是‘偏离犁沟’。他对“他者”理论的探索也与精神疾病和智力残疾的构建和医学化的概念产生了共鸣，这是一种对特定的、被认为是较弱的群体施加和维持权力的手段。如果从时间上看，精神病患者被认为是“他者”，那么白痴、低能者或智力缺陷者又该如何归类呢？坦率地说，一些评论员几乎没有提到他们--他们是一个神秘的、无法治愈的“失败者”。我们详细探讨了精神病院和被关在其中的精神病患者的历史。我们需要意识到，直到20世纪初，英国的白痴、低能者和疯子通常都会共享住宿和治疗，因为缺乏法律义务来识别和区分他们。事实上，备受争议的额叶切开术“不推荐用于治愈或治疗智力或发育障碍”(凯特·克利福德·拉森，2015)，直到20世纪40年代末，美国医院一直在使用额叶切开术治疗“弱智”患者，直到20世纪40年代末的“S”。然而，历史上对学习障碍患者的病情和经历的具体检查很少。丹·古德利(Dan Goodley，2001)谈到了“缺席的文学”。1987年，瑞安和托马斯指出，“智障人士仍然对历史视而不见，就像他们对其他人的生活一样。他们拥有的历史与其说是他们自己的，不如说是其他人的历史，无论是支持他们的还是反对他们的。”三十多年过去了，我们距离处理这一疏漏还有很长的路要走。

The aims of this proposed study will be:* To investigate the use, extent and importance of patient, or inmate, labour in English and Welsh institutions and colonies, from 1913, the year the Mental Deficiency Act was passed, to 1948, the year of the establishment of the NHS.* To investigate and identify the changes in institutional activity and production methods after 1948, up to 2004, when the original Bristol-based Industrial Therapy Organisation closed.* To rethink, through this two-pronged analysis, how disability was constructed in the professional and public imagination, and thus to fill a significant gap in the existing historiography.For at least 100 years, people with Learning Difficulties worked, without wages or pensions, in institutions, hospitals, occupation centres and colonies which would not have survived without their labour. Indeed, The Wood Committee (1929) had advocated the formation of self-sufficient 'colonies' that would cater for all groups of mental defective, regardless of age or level of disability. These institutions were designed to rely on patient labour for their very survival - large-scale, indefinite confinement was costly. Mental deficiency was not, in itself, curable. This fact alone might go some way to account for its lack of exploration in the published histories of madness and confinement, from the early nineteenth century. Mental deficiency did not generally offer the physician the opportunity to theorise, experiment and so to triumph. Nobody was going to find a chemical, surgical or even therapy-based cure for mental deficiency, and later behaviour modification therapy was controversial and could be more expensive than sedation treatments. The histories of the Learning Disabled, the retarded, the mentally defective, the imbecile and the idiot can be difficult to find. They are buried beneath the weight of our endeavours to understand, evaluate and document the ways we have dealt, through time, with madness - a condition which Scull(2015) asserts to be 'something wholly outside [civilisation] and alien to it.' Foucault (1964) draws us to note the outsider status of the patient in their delirium - a word derived from the Latin, delirare, meaning to deviate, be deranged, literally 'to deviate from the furrow'. His exploration of the theory of 'othering' as a means to exert and maintain power over a particular, deemed to be weaker, group also resonates with the concepts of construction and medicalisation of both mental illness and intellectual disability. If the mentally ill are considered to be 'other' through time, where does that place the idiot, imbecile or mental defective? Frankly, some commentators barely give them a passing mention - they are a mysterious, incurable 'also-ran'. The history of the mental institution and the mentally ill confined therein has been explored at length. We need to be aware that the idiot, the imbecile and the mad in England generally shared accommodation and treatments until the early 20th century, given a lack of legal imperative to identify and separate them. Indeed, the highly controversial surgical procedure of frontal lobotomy, 'not recommended for curing or treating intellectual or developmental disabilities' (Kate Clifford Larson, 2015) was used in American hospitals for 'feeble minded' patients into the late 1940's. However, the specific examination of the condition and experiences of Learning Disabled people throughout history is scant. Dan Goodley (2001) speaks of 'absent literature' and in 1987, Ryan and Thomas noted that, 'Mentally handicapped people are still as hidden from history as they are from the rest of life. What history they do have is not so much theirs as the history of others acting either on their behalf or against them.' Over thirty years later, we are still some considerable way from dealing with that omission.