¹ Particularly in Abrams, M. and Rose, R., Must Labour Lose? (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1960).Google Scholar

² See Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F. and Piatt, J., The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), Introduction.Google Scholar

³ For example, Almond, G. A. and Verba, S., The Civic Culture (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963),CrossRefGoogle ScholarRose, R. and Mossawir, H., ‘Ordinary Individuals in Electoral Situa tions’, in Rose, R., ed., Policy Making in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1960),Google ScholarRunciman, W. G., Relative Deprivation and Social Justice (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966),Google ScholarNordlinger, E. A., The Working Class Tories (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1967),Google ScholarMcKenzie, R. and Silver, A., Angels in Marble (London: Heinemann, 1968),Google ScholarGuttsman, W. L., TheBritish Political Elite (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1963),Google ScholarHanham, H. J., Elections and Party Management (London: Longmans, 1959),Google ScholarLee, J. M., Social Leaders and Public Persons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

⁴ Goldthorpe, J. H. and Lockwood, D., ‘Affluence and the British Class Structure’, Socio logical Review, Vol. XI, 2, 1963, pp. 133–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Kavanagh, D., ‘The Deferential English: A Comparative Critique’, Government and Opposition, 05, 1971, pp. 333-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Bagehot, W., The English Constitution, first published 1867; new edition with introduction by Crossman, R. H. S. (London: Fontana, 1963).Google Scholar

⁷ W. G. Runciman, op. cit., E. A. Nordlinger, op. cit., R. McKenzie and A. Silver, op. cit., R. Rose and H. Mossawir, op. cit., Samuel, R., ‘The Deference Voter’, New Left Review, 1960, pp. 2–9,Google ScholarGoldthorpe, J. H. et al. , The Affluent Worker: Political Attitudes and Behaviour (Cambridge University Press, 1968),Google ScholarParkin, F., ‘Working Class Conservatism: A Theory of Political Deviance’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. XVIII, 1967, pp. 280–90,Google ScholarButler, D. E. and Stokes, D. E., Political Change in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1969).Google Scholar

⁸ W. G. Runciman, op. cit., R. McKenzie and A. Silver, op. cit., Martin, R. and Fryer, R. H., Redundancy and Paternalist Capitalism (London: Allen and Unwin, 1973).Google Scholar Also use of the term ‘deference’ by historians often follows this usage (but also that of traditionalism)—for example, Burn, W. L., The Age of Equipoise (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964),Google ScholarHarrison, J. F. C., The Early Victorians, 1832–51 (London: Panther, 1973),Google ScholarBest, G., Mid-Victorian Britain, 1851–75 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971),Google ScholarPerkin, H., The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969),Google ScholarThompson, F. M. L., English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963),Google ScholarThornton, A. P., The Habit of Authority (London: Allen and Unwin, 1966).Google Scholar

⁹ G. A. Almond and S. Verba, op. cit., Eckstein, H., ‘The British Political System’ in Beer, S. H. and Ulam, A., eds., Patterns of Government (New York: Random House, 1965).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Lockwood, D., ‘Source of Variation in Working Class Images of Society’, Sociological Review, Vol. 14, 3, 1966, pp. 249–67;CrossRefGoogle ScholarParkin, F., Class Inequality and Political Order (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1971).Google Scholar

¹¹ Shils, E., ‘Deference’ in Jackson, J. A., ed., Social Stratification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 104–32,Google ScholarTaylor, P. S. and Taylor, R. C., Socioeconomic Status and Residential Differentiation (University of Kent, Centre for Research in the Social Sciences, 1971).Google Scholar

¹² W. G. Runciman, op. cit., R. McKenzie and A. Silver, op. cit., E. A. Nordlinger, op. cit.

¹³ See F. Parkin (1971), op. cit., D. Lockwood, op. cit., Westergaard, J. H., ‘The Rediscovery of the Cash Nexus’, Socialist Register, 1970, pp. 111–38.Google Scholar Also Thompson, E. P., ‘The Peculiarities of the English’, Socialist Register, 1965, pp. 311–62.Google Scholar This list is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive; see also D. Kavanagh, op. cit., and Jessop, R. D., ‘Civility and Traditionalism in English Political Culture’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1,1, 1971, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ D. Kavanagh, op. cit., p. 333, n. 1.

¹⁵ D. Lockwood, op. cit., p. 252.

¹⁶ I have raised the question of the applicability of deference to the understanding of agricultural workers' behaviour in Newby, H., ‘Agricultural Workers in the Class Structure’, Sociological Review, Vol. XX, 3, 1972, pp. 413–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an earlier conceptualization of defer ence which this paper is intended to supersede, see Bell, C. and Newby, H., ‘The Sources of Variation in Agricultural Workers' Images of Society’, Sociological Review, Vol. XXI, 2, 1973.Google Scholar

¹⁷ In the Simmelian sense; see Wolff, K. H., ed., The Sociology of George Simmel (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1950),Google Scholar particularly part one. Also Levine, D. E., ed., George Simmel on In dividuality and Social Forms (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ See Goffman, E., ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanor’, in his Interaction Ritual (Harmondsworth, Penguin University Books, 1972), pp. 47–96.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Lemisch, J., ‘The American Revolution seen from the Bottom Up’, in Bernstein, B. J., ed., Towards a New Post (London: Chatto and Windus, 1970), p. 40, n. 90.Google Scholar

²⁰ Goffman, E., The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (London: Allen Lane. The Penguin Press, 1969).Google Scholar

²¹ W. Bagehot, op. cit., p. 248.

²² See L. Davidoff, ‘Mastered for Life: Servant Wife and Mother in Victorian and Ed wardian Britain’, Journal of Social History, forthcoming.

²³ See, for instance, Hobsbawm, E. J. and Rude, G., Captain Swing (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1970),Google ScholarGroves, R., Sharpen the Sickle (London: Porcupine Press, 1948),Google ScholarArch, J., Autobiography of Joseph Arch (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1967),Google ScholarEveritt, A., The Pattern of Rural Dissent: The Nineteenth Century (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

²⁴ R. McKenzie and A. Silver, op. cit., E. A. Nordlinger, op. cit., R. Samuel, op. cit.

²⁵ R. McKenzie and A. Silver, op. cit.

²⁶ F. Parkin (1971), op. cit., p. 84.

²⁷ See Converse, P. E., ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’ in Apter, D. E., ed., Ideology and Discontent (Glencoe, III.: Free Press, 1964), pp. 206–61,Google ScholarMann, M., ‘The Social Cohesion of Liberal Democracy’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 35, 3, 1970, pp. 423–31, also the papers collected in M. I. A. Bulmer, ed., Working Class Images (London: Routledge and Regan Paul, forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ Elkins, Notably S. M., Slavery (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).Google Scholar

²⁹ Genovese, E. D., In Red and Black (London: Allen Lane. The Penguin Press, 1971), p. 74.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., p. 93.

³¹ E. J. Hobsbawm and G. Rudé, op. cit.

³² R. Groves, op. cit., J. Arch, op. cit., Horn, P., Joseph Arch (Kineton: Roundwood Press, 1971). J. P. D. Dunbabin, ‘“The Revolt of the Field”: The Agricultural Labourer's Move ment in the 1870's’, Past and Present, No. 26, 1963, pp. 68–97 gives a comprehensive list of references.Google Scholar

³³ Lane, T. and Roberts, K., Strike at Pilkingtons (London: Fontana, 1971),Google ScholarWarner, W. L. and Low, J. O., The Modern Factory: The Strike—a Social Analysis (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1947).Google Scholar

³⁴ See C. Bell and H. Newby, op. cit., for an elaborated illustration of the argument.

³⁵ See D. Lockwood, op. cit., pp. 252–3, F. Parkin (1971), op. cit., p. 85, R. McKenzie and A. Silver, op. cit., p. 249.

³⁶ Cf. D. Kavanagh, op. cit., pp. 356–8.

³⁷ Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1964), p. 341.Google Scholar

³⁸ For example, Durkheim, E., The Division of Labour in Society (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1964), pp. 287–91, E. D. Genovese, op. cit., p. 92.Google Scholar

³⁹ M. Weber, op. cit., p. 327.

⁴⁰ Ibid., pp. 124–5.

⁴¹ This is an aspect of Weber's theory of stratification that has not been appreciated by subsequent commentators. This paragraph owes a good deal to an unpublished paper by Michael Mann, ‘Economic Determinism and Structural Change’ (University of Essex, Department of Sociology, 1973).

⁴² M. Weber, op. cit., p. 125 (my emphasis).

⁴³ Weber, M., in Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W., From Max Weber (London: Routledge and KeganPaul, 1948), p. 188.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See E. Shils, op. cit., p. 116.

⁴⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁶ Hence Shils fails to demonstrate the ‘inevitability’ of ambivalence in deference and exactly what are the springs of anti-authoritarianism in society from within his own model; see Ibid., pp. 123–4.

⁴⁷ See, for instance, Homans, G. C., ‘Social Behavior as Exchange’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63, 1957–8, pp. 597–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar and his book Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1961).Google Scholar Also Blau, P. M., ‘Social Integration, Social Rank and Processes of Interaction’, Human Organization, Vol. 12, 4, 1959–60, pp. 152–7:CrossRefGoogle Scholar‘A Theory of Social Integration’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 65,1959–60, pp. 545–56:Google Scholar‘Patterns of Choice in Interpersonal Relations’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, 1962, pp. 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Blau's book, Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York: Wiley, 1964).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ ‘Most relationships among men can be considered under the category of exchange. Exchange is the purest and most concentrated form of all human interactions in which serious interests are at stake … Now every action is properly viewed as a kind of exchange’. G. Simmel, ‘Exchange’ in D. N. Levine, op. cit., p. 43. Furthermore, Simmel argues that the relationship between exchange and interaction is, if anything, the reverse of that outlined by Homans and Blau: ‘Interaction is, to be sure, the broader concept, exchange the narrower one’, ibid., p. 44.

⁴⁹ Simmel in K. H. Wolff, op. cit., p. 261. This misreading seems all the more remarkable for the fact that Homans in an earlier work has exhibited a consummate understanding of exactly this point. In discussing the relationship between lord and vassal in feudal England, he writes as follows: ‘The legal mythology of the Middle Ages likened the grant of land to a tenant by a lord, followed by the render of services and rents to the lord by the tenant, to a simple exchange, as if it were something like a render of money in a market by one man to another in exchange for goods. But the two transactions were not the same. In a market a man gives another man something substantial, money, in exchange for something substantial, goods. In the exchange between lord and man nothing of the sort occurred. Whereas the man ren dered the lord something substantial enough, namely rents and services, the return the lord made, namely the grant of land, was purely verbal. The lord said he granted the land to the tenant. … But in point of fact the tenant's forefathers had usually held and tilled the land for generations. They had been in continuous possession. The larger share of the wealth produced in the society which went to the lord was made up by the rents paid by his tenants and the work they did in tilling his demesne, but they were said to pay these rents, render these services in return for a grant of land which was not real but a fiction …

Yet to suppose that there was not something real involved on the lord's side would be absurd. Let us consider what would happen if a tenant refused to pay his rents and render his services. The lord would declare his land forfeit, grant it to someone else, and eject the holder with force if necessary. And if any large number of tenants joined together in refusing their rents and services, the matter would be treated as rebellion and once more would be put down by armed forces. … In effect a lord said to his men: “If you do not render me rents and services, I shall punish you with force of arms to the utmost extent of my power”’. Homans, G. C., English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century (New York: Russell and Russell, 1960), pp. 341–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See, for example, G. Simmel, ‘Sociability’, in K. H. Wolff, ed., op. cit., particularly pp. 40-4. Also Murphy, R., The Dialectics of Social Life (London: Allen and Unwin, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Beteille, A. (ed.) Social Inequality (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969), p. 13.Google Scholar

⁵² These terms are analogous to the concepts of ‘fission’ and ‘fusion’ used by Dumont in his analysis of the Indian caste system. See Dumont, L., Homo Hierarchies (London: Paladin, 1972), especially Ch. 2.Google Scholar

⁵³ My use of the term tension-management is not to be understood in the functionalist sense, as referring to the integration of sub-systems into the over-arching social system, but as an active strategy by the ruling elite of a society to maintain the stability of the social hierarchy.

⁵⁴ Genovese, E. D., The World the Slaveholders Made (London: Allen Lane. The Penguin Press, 1970), p. 98.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Williams, R., The Country and the City (London: Chatto and Windus, 1973), p. 182.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ M. Weber (1964), op. cit., pp. 346–51. The use of the term ‘paternalism’ suggests that the archetypal location of these modes of control is to be found in the family. Family relationships could be profitably studied in terms of the deferential dialectic.

⁵⁷ M. Weber (1964), op. cit., p. 153.

⁵⁸ A. Livingston, ‘Theory of a Gentleman’, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. VI.

⁵⁹ W. L. Burn, op. cit., pp. 257–9. Its symbol was the duel. Later the carnage was wreaked on those who could not fight back: by the 1840s foxhunting ‘had become an elaborate, ritual istic and exclusive cult. … As a social institution foxhunting was an effective assertion of gentlemanly leadership and the bonds of deference’. J. F. C. Harrison, op. cit., p. 121 et. seq. Also see F. M. L. Thompson, op. cit., pp. 136–50. The metamorphosis of the gentlemanly ethic is described in Coleman, D. C., ‘Gentlemen and Players’, Economic History Review, Vol. XXVI, 1973, pp. 92–116,Google Scholar particularly pp. 96-8. Also Kelso, R., The Doctrine of the English Gentleman in the Sixteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929),Google ScholarBrauer, G. C., The Education of the Gentleman: Theories of Gentlemanly Education in England, 1660–1775 (New York: Bookman, 1959),Google Scholar and Wilkinson, R. H., ‘The Gentlemanly Ideal and the Maintenance of a Political Elite’ in Musgrave, P. W., ed., Sociology, History and Education (London: Methuen, 1970), pp. 126–42.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ J. F. C. Harrison, op. cit., p. 126.

⁶¹ D. C. Coleman, op. cit., p. 98. Also G. Best, op. cit., pp. 245–63, F. M. L. Thompson, op. cit., passim, W. L. Burn, op. cit., pp. 253–67, Davidoff, L., The Best Circles: ‘Society’, Etiquette and the Season (London: Croome Helm, 1973),Google Scholar particularly Ch. 3. For a contemporary account see Perrott, R., The Aristocrats (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968).Google Scholar

⁶² F. M. L. Thompson, op. cit., p. 15.

⁶³ W. L. Burn, op. cit., p. 254; R. Perrott, op. cit.

⁶⁴ G. Best, op. cit., p. 247.

⁶⁵ C. C. Coleman, op. cit., p. 97.

⁶⁶ For the contrasts between the ‘aristocratic ideal’ and the ‘entrepreneurial ideal’, see H. Perkin, op. cit., Ch. VII.

⁶⁷ W. L. Burn, op. cit., p. 254.

⁶⁸ G. Best, op. cit., pp. 253–4.

⁶⁹ Ibid., p. 165. On the role of the public school in fusing the two ideals see D. C. Coleman, op. cit., Ward, D., ‘The Public Schools and Industry, in Britain after 1870’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 2, 2, 1967, pp. 37–52,CrossRefGoogle ScholarMack, E. C., Public Schools and British Opinion, 1780–1860 (London: Methuen, 1938).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See D. C. Coleman, op. cit., p. 98. The key to gentility for the ‘lower orders’ was respectability, a watered-down version of gentility adapted to the economic circumstances of the poor. The respectable, it goes without saying, were also deferential. See G. Best, op. cit., pp. 256-63 and L. Davidoff, ‘Mastered for Life …’, op. cit. Also Mogey, J., Family and Neighbourhood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956),Google ScholarStacey, M., Tradition and Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960),Google Scholar Ch. 6., Roberts, R., The Classic Slum (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1971), Ch. 1.Google Scholar I take this to be the content of the ‘deferential’ image of society outlined by D. Lockwood, op. cit., pp. 252–3.

⁷¹ L. Davidoff, The Best Circles …, passim.

⁷² G. Best, op. cit., p. 256.

⁷³ M. Weber (1964), op. cit., pp. 341–2.

⁷⁴ Percy, E., Some Memories (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1958),Google Scholar cited in Spring, D., ‘Some Reflections on Social History in the Nineteenth Century’, Victorian Studies, Vol. IV, 1960–61, p. 58. For an outstanding analysis of swinging the norms of immemoriality see R. Williams, op. cit. The only way in which manifest changes in a traditional system could be accommodated was by the cultural device of ‘retrospective regret’ that has dominated the English ideology of rural life: ‘The English landowning class, which had changed itself in changing its world, was idealised and displaced into an historical contrast with its own real activities. In its actual inhumanity, it could be recognized only with difficulty by man linked to and ‘dependent on it’, and the great majority of the poor and oppressed were without a connecting voice to make clear the recognition that was their daily experience. Thus a human instinct was separated from society; it became a sympathy and a pity, after the decisive social events. The real ruling class could not be put in question so they were seen as temporarily absent, or as the good old people succeeded by the bad new people—themselves succeeding themselves. We have heard this sad song for many centuries now: a seductive song, turning into retrospect, until we die of time’,Google Scholaribid., p. 83. See also Williams, R., ‘Literature and Rural Society’, The Listener, November 16, 1967, pp. 630–1.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ H. Perkin. op. cit., p. 37. Also H. Newby, op. cit., and C. Bell and H. Newby, op. cit.

⁷⁶ D. Lockwood, op. cit., p. 254, F. Parkin, op. cit., pp. 82-8, C. Bell and H. Newby, op. cit.

⁷⁷ The classic interpretation is that of Burke; see summary in W. L. Guttsman, op. cit., pp. 66–9.

⁷⁸ For the intimate connection between power and territoriality see L. Dumont, op. cit., Ch. 7, and H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, op. cit., Ch. VI.

⁷⁹ Vinogradoff, P., The Growth of the Manor (London: Allen and Unwin, 2nd edition, 1911), pp. 214,Google Scholar 307–8. On the links between feudal power and territoriality see also Bloch, M., Feudal Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961), Vol. II, passim. The echoes of this military protection are still present in attentuated form as part of the ideology of‘paternalism’.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See ten Broek, J., ‘California's Dual System of Family Law: Its Origin, Development and Present Status’, part 1, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 16, 2, 1964, pp. 251–81.Google Scholar Also Hilton, R. H., The Decline of Serfdom in Medieval England (London: Macmillan, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Given the importance of ideological control the fact that the parish was the unit of settlement may also be significant—see Jordan, W. K., Philanthropy in England, 1480–1660 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959).Google Scholar

⁸¹ E. J. Hobsbawm and G. Rudé, op. cit., Ch. 2. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries rural landlords and employers attempted to discredit ‘agitators’ by branding them as outsiders. This was the dominant theme of the head-on clash of 1874–see Clifford, F., The Agricultural Lock-Out of 1874 (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1875) especially p. 128.Google Scholar

⁸² H. Perkin, op. cit., p. 42, L. Dumont, op. cit., p. 198, Darwin, B., ‘Country Life and Sport’ in Young, G. M., ed., Early Victorian England, 1830-1865, Vol. 1 (London: Oxford University Press, 1934). p. 263. Each individual could therefore claim his own sphere of influence in which he was owed deference except from those at the very bottom, vagrants, paupers, wives, unmarried daughters, who could be controlled by coercive methods when the need arose. Thus ‘A determination to have both place and privilege respected was common to all ranks of society’, A. P. Thornton, op. cit., p. 256.Google Scholar

⁸³ See the discussion in Bell, C. and Newby, H., Community Studies (London: Allen and Unwin, 1972), Ch. 2.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ H. Perkin, op. cit., passim, Bendix, R., Work and Authority in Industry (NewYork: Harper and Row, 1963).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Nisbet, R., The Sociological Tradition (London: Heinemann, 1966),Google Scholar Ch. 3, Wolin, S., Politicsand Vision (London: Allen and Unwin, 1961), Ch. 10.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Birch, A. A., Small Town Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959), M. Stacey, op. cit., R. S. Moore, ‘Religion as a Source of Variation in Working class Images of Society’, in M. I. A. Bulmer, ed., op. cit.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ T. Lane and K. Roberts, op. cit., R. Martin and R. H. Fryer, op. cit., A. S. Birch, op. cit., D. Lockwood, op. cit., Watson, W., ‘Social Mobility and Social Class in Industrial Communities’ in Gluckman, M., ed., Closed Systems and Open Minds (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, (1964),Google ScholarRoger-Power, E. R., ‘The Social Structure of an English Country Town’, Sociological Review, old series. Vol. 34, 1937, pp. 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁸ Towner, L. W., ‘“A Fondness for Freedom”: Servant Protest in Puritan Society’, William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, Vol. XIX, 1962, pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ The term is taken from Douglas, M., Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967); also U. Dumont, op. cit.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Park, R. E., Race and Culture (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1950), p. 258.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Goffman, E. (1972), op. cit.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid., p. 63.

⁹³ Ibid., see also the studies cited in J. M. Beshers, E. H. Mizruchi, and Perrucci, R., ‘Social Distance Strategies and Status Symbols: An Approach to the Study of Social Structure’, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 4, 1963, pp. 311–24.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See Beattie, J., ‘Ritual and Social Change’, Man, n.s. Vol. 1, 1, pp. 60–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There is some evidence that subordinates use similar strategies to reduce the impact of their symbolical affirmed inferiority; for instance, Tumin, M., Social Class and Social Change in Puerto Rico (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 480,Google ScholarDollard, J., Caste and Class in a Southern Town (New York: Doubleday, 1957),Google ScholarPatterson, O., The Sociology of Slavery (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ L. Davidoff, ‘Mastered for Life …’.

⁹⁶ See R. Perrott, op. cit.

⁹⁷ C. Bell and H. Newby (1973), op. cit.

⁹⁸ V. Sackville-West, The Edwardians, cited by R. Perrott, op. cit., p. 159.

⁹⁹ Marquand, J. P., Point of No Return (Boston: Little, Brown, 1947), pp. 31–2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Notably in Malinowski, B., Argonauts of the Western Pacific (London: Routledge, 1922).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Mauss, M., The Gift (London: Cohen and West, 1970),Google ScholarLevi-Strauss, C., ‘The Principle of Reciprocity’ in Coser, L. and Rosenberg, B., eds., Sociological Theory (New York: Macmil-lan, 1965),Google Scholar Simmel's essays on ‘Exchange’ and ‘The poor’ in D. N. Levine, op. cit., and on ‘Faithfulness and Gratitude’ in K. H. Wolff, op. cit. For two recent contributions see Titmuss, R. M., The Gift Relationship (London: Allen and Unwin, 1970)Google Scholar and Schwartz, B., ‘The Social Psychology of the Gift’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 73, 1, 1967–8, pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁰² M. Mauss, op. cit., p. 72.

¹⁰³ G. Simmel, in K. H. Wolff, op. cit., pp. 379–95.

¹⁰⁴ J. ten Broek, op. cit., p. 278. For a general critique see A. Sinfield, ‘Poor Laws and Poor History: A Suitable Case for Retreatment’, paper presented to the Social Administration Association annual conference (Nottingham, 1972).

¹⁰⁵ By far the best discussion of this is in Jones, G. Stedman, Outcast London (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971) especially part III.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ M. Mauss, op. cit., p. 15. See also Owen, D., English Philanthropy, 1660–1960 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), pp. 138ff, E. C. P. Lascelles, ‘Charity’ in G. M. Young, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 319-22, and Brian Harrison's important summary article, ‘Philanthropy and the Victorians’, Victorian Studies, Vol. 9, 1965–6, pp. 353–74.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Cited by D. Owen, op. cit., p. 143.

¹⁰⁸ E. C. P. Lascelles, op. cit., p. 322.

¹⁰⁹ See G. Stedman Jones, op. cit., part III, B. Harrison, op. cit., p. 372.

¹¹⁰ Cited by E. C. P. Lascelles, op. cit., p. 337.

¹¹¹ Cited by Woodroofe, K., From Charity to Social Work (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962), p. 55.Google Scholar

¹¹² Letter by Lady Stradbroke to The Times, April 16, 1874, reprinted in Thirsk, J. and Imray, J., Suffolk Farming in the Nineteenth Century (Ipswich: Suffolk Records Society, 1958), p. 143.Google Scholar

¹¹³ In addition to the references already cited further material can be found in G. Best, op. cit., pp. 133-48, Simey, M. B., Charitable Effort in Liverpool in the Nineteenth Century (Liverpool: University of Liverpool Press, 1951),Google ScholarRose, M., The Relief of Poverty, 1834–1914 (London: Macmillan, 1972),Google ScholarRoberts, D., Victorian Origins of the British Welfare State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960)Google Scholar and McGregor, O. R., ‘Social Research and Social Policy in the Nineteenth Century’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 8, 1957, pp. 146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁴ Discussed in C. Bell and H. Newby (1973), op. cit., also H. Perkin, op. cit., pp. 38–62. I have used the term ‘charity’ so as to include ‘patronage’, indeed ‘patronage’ was probably the most characteristic form of pre-industrial charity. See D. Owen, op. cit., pp. 92–3. For, as Simey points out, ‘The system of local responsibility for local distress required as its foundation a stable society with a clear conception of the rights and duties of its various members.’ (op. cit., pp. 23–4). Otherwise it would encourage the great Malthusian bogey of early industrialism, pauperism.

¹¹⁵ An example of this in the area of education is R. H. Wilkinson, op. cit.