Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T10:25:10.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Class in Urban History. A Review Article

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

James A. Gillespie*
Affiliation:
Monash University

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright   Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Melbourne University Press, 1978.

2 See Gray, R. Q., The Labour Aristocracy in Victorian Edinburgh (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar and Crossick, G., An Artisan Elite in Victorian Society (London, 1978)Google Scholar. The most significant criticisms have come from Moorhouse, H. F., “The Marxist Theory of the Labour Aristocracy”, Social History, vol. 3, 1978, 6182CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Reid, A.Politics and Economics in the formation of the British working class: A response to H. F. Moorhouse”, Social History, vol. 3, 1978, 347361CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gray has recently published a modified defence of the concept; Gray, R. Q., The Aristocracy of Labour in Nineteenth Century Britain, c. 1850–1914 (London, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Wright, Thomas, The Great Unwashed (London, 1868).Google Scholar

4 New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979.

5 Among recent histories of British cities, Wohl, A., The Eternal Slum (London, 1977)Google Scholar, and the work of the late Dyos, H. J. are good examples of this tendency; see also “Urban History and Local History”, History Workshop 8, (Autumn) 1979, iv–vGoogle Scholar. On the other side of the Atlantic the study of social mobility has given work a similiarly ameliorist direction, see Henretta's, James critique, “The Study of Social Mobility: Ideological Assumptions and Conceptual Bias”, Labor History Spring, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar