Search results

In the context of what may be understood as an ‘emotional retreat’ in homelessness research and service provision (Chamberlayne, 2004, p. 347), this chapter canvasses the valuable role of qualitative research in continuing to diversify understandings and evidences of homelessness made available across the field. I work to make sense of the ways, in which the emotional and physical messiness of ‘in situ’ research (Malins, Fitzgerald, & Threadgold, 2006, p. 514) can give rise to new understandings of homelessness that both intervene in and compliment existing research and policy knowledges. While my key focus here will be on the difficult task of actually articulating how it is that particular forms of qualitative research knowledge may provide epistemological leverage to the field of homelessness, it should also be clear that the impetus for this chapter, and indeed for my broader research engagement in homelessness (see for example, Robinson 2002b, 2003, 2005) stems from my concern with the ways in which felt-experience is particularly backgrounded in this field. As I have discussed elsewhere, the ramifications of making relatively silent corporeal and emotional dimensions of homelessness have troublingly included the entrenchment of conceptualisations of, and responses to, homelessness that cannot account for the multidimensional ways in which trajectories of homelessness can unfold and become reinforced. In particular, my focus has been on the ways in which the lack of attention paid within social research to the bodily impacts of cumulative trauma and grief in the lives of homeless people, has in turn been mirrored in the limited framing of social policy and welfare service delivery.

IN the October number of THE BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, while disclaiming any intention of supporting or opposing any political party or any section of politicians, we stated our opinion that the fiscal policy which has been outlined before the country by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN is eminently one which requires to be put to the test of experiment and which cannot be profitably argued about upon theoretical bases. In connection with the allegation that by following the policy of leaving our doors open to those who shut their own doors in our faces, we are able to obtain goods at less expense than would be the case under other conditions, we pointed out that it would be well for the public to consider whether that which is so cheap may not also, to a great extent, be particularly nasty. The desirability of considering the nature and quality of so‐called “ cheap ” foods, supplied to us by various countriies without restriction, does not, as yet, appear to have entered the heads of those who have made matter for political controversy out of what is, in reality, a scientific question. The facts are not sufficiently known, or, in consequence of the proverbial carelessness of our generation, are not clearly appreciated. And yet, as it seems to us, some of those facts are of paramount importance to those who desire to study the subject in a calm and scientific manner and outside the region of political turmoil. What do we get from the various countries whose producers and merchants are free to “dump” their goods in this country without the restrictive influence of duty payments? Great Britain has made it known to all the world that “Rubbish may be Shot Here,” and we venture to say that the fullest advantage has been taken, and is taken, of the permission. From America, France, Germany, Italy, Holland, and Belgium, in fact from every producing country—including now even Russia and Siberia, we get inferior or scientifically‐adulterated articles which are sold to the public “ cheap.” Milk and butter scientifically adulterated, or produced under improper conditions in such a way that their composition becomes the same as physically‐adulterated products, condensed “milk” minus cream, cheese practically devoid of fat, or “ filled ” (as it is called) with margarine, all reach us in enormous quantities from most of our near and dear neighbours. Butter and certain wines and beers, loaded with injurious ‘ preservative” chemicals and the sale of which is prohibited in the country of production, are sent to the easily‐entered British “dumping‐ground” for the delectation of its confiding inhabitants. “Tinned” foods prepared from raw materials of inferior character or of more than questionable origin, are copiously unloaded on our shores to feed our complaisant population,—instead of being consigned to the refuse destructors which should be their proper destination; while, every now and then, when something worse than usual has been supplied, representative specimens of this delectable class of preparation are proved to have caused outbreaks of violent illness—those so‐called ptomaine poisonings which, of late years, have increased in number and in virulence to so distinctly alarming an extent. Flour made from diseased or damaged grain, or itself “ sick ” or damaged, and so “ processed ” as to mask its real condition; flour, again, adulterated with other and inferior meals, are “ goods ” supplied to us in ample amount for the benefit of those whose mainstay is some form of bread or flour‐food. The list might be continued literally ad nauseam.

The British Food Journal is in no way concerned with politics, and as it would appear that the propositions put forward by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN are commonly regarded as constituting matter for political controversy instead of being looked upon as subjects for serious investigation and discussion entirely outside the field of politics, it would be an undesirable course and one likely to be misunderstood and, no doubt, misrepresented, were we to refer to the great question which is now before the country without plainly indicating at the outset that we have no intention of supporting or opposing any political party or any section of politicians. We believe Mr. CHAMBERLAIN'S suggestion that the subjects which he has brought forward should be discussed on a higher plane than on the muddy plane of party politics was a reasonable and proper suggestion which all men of sense who are not blinded by political bias should applaud and endeavour to adopt. We do not mean to say that problems of so complicated a character are capable of being accurately solved, in the present state of knowledge, by scientific methods other than actual experiment. They certainly cannot be solved by abstract discussions of a pseudo‐scientific character. The factors which enter into the problems of political economy are so numerous, so complex, and so little understood, that to endeavour to argue even on the basis of what are alleged by political economists to be well‐ascertained facts in the so‐called “dismal science” is to lay oneself open to the charge of theorising from insufficient data. HERBERT SPENCER has lucidly demonstrated the universality of this scientific crime. On comparatively simple subjects, in regard to which a man has no special knowledge, he will, if possessed of the quality known as common sense, generally decline to deliver oracular opinions; but, let a subject be sufficiently complex and let the data relating to it be few, obscure, and uncertain, then decisive opinions will be delivered by all and sundry,—and the more profound the ignorance the more decisive will be the expression of opinion.

The information which has hitherto appeared in the daily press as to the evidence laid before the Departmental Committee which is inquiring into the use of preservatives and colouring matters can hardly have afforded pleasant reading to the apologists for the drugging of foods. It is plainly the intention of the Committee to make a thorough investigation of the whole subject, and the main conclusions which, in the result, must bo forced upon unbiassed persons by an investigation of this character will be tolerably obvious to those who have given serious attention to the subject. At a later stage of the inquiry we shall publish a full account of the evidence submitted and of the Committee's proceedings. At present we may observe that the facts which have been brought forward fully confirm the statements made from time to time upon these matters in the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and amply justify the attitude which we have adopted on the whole question. Representatives of various trade interests have given evidence which has served to show the extent to which the practices now being inquired into are followed. Strong medical evidence, as to the dangers which must attach to the promiscuous and unacknowledged drugging of the public by more or less ignorant persons, has been given; and some medical evidence of that apologetic order to which the public have of late become accustomed, and which we, at any rate, regard as particularly feeble, has also been put forward. Much more will no doubt be said, but those who have borne the heat and burden of the day in forcing these matters upon the attention of the Legislature and of the public can view with satisfaction the result already attained. Full and free investigation must produce its educational effect ; and whatever legal machinery may be devised to put some kind of check upon these most dangerous forms of adulteration, the demand of the public will be for undrugged food, and for a guarantee of sufficient authority to ensure that the demand is met.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

Referring to the importance of the public health services in this country, Sir Kingsley Wood, M.P., in a recent speech observed that the result of the recent General Election afforded an unprecedented opportunity for the steady development during the next five years, and possibly ten, of the public health services of the country, not by means of stunts, but by science and statecraft. Prevention must be their great watchword. The great triumphs of public health were due in no small degree to the work of the general practitioner. To him came the great host of patients with what were called “trivial ailments,” which, in fact, did so much to incapacitate us as a nation. People little realised, for instance, what the “common cold” cost the State. One of the greatest needs in health matters of the immediate future was research. We were still in the dark as to the causes of measles, of influenza, of rheumatism, and of cancer. We had yet to learn the relationship of certain foods and particular diseases. The Health Ministry was concerned with the important question of pure food. We needed not only cheap food but clean food, which was vital to a healthy and vigorous race. There were two great objects to be achieved. We must continue to improve our food values. It was true that in 1920 out of nearly half a million deaths those of fourteen men and two women were directly attributed to “starvation.” but the evils of malnutrition could not be so narrowly limited. Clean and wholesome food was an effective weapon against disease and premature death. There was, it was gratifying to note, a considerable rise in the standard of national nutrition, and this had been an important and favourable factor in the decline of mortality from tuberculosis. But the consumer must more and more be safeguarded against contaminated, adulterated, and disease‐producing food. Civilisation had urbanised man, it had taken him away from his natural base—the soil—and thus from the prime source of his food supply. It brought him from lone distances, and while giving him a greater abundance it had robbed his food of much of its freshness and vitality. To‐day we often chose our food more by reading advertisements than in trusting to our natural tastes. We loved to see some of our vegetables very green, and accordingly they were canned and coloured for us. Dirty and dusty milk, and careless handling of meat and bread, “doctored” butter, and the boron preserved sausage, the boracised egg, the mixture of sugar, artificial flavouring, and benzoic acid, sometimes called ginger beer, were not the best illustrations of our advance in national health conditions. It was quite possible to imagine a reasonable meal which might contain 20 or even more grains of boric acid besides other preservatives. In these respects Great Britain was behind the standard of many other countries. There was a general movement in various parts of the civilised world in the direction of limiting and controlling the admixture of chemical preservatives and colouring matter with foodstuffs. He was glad to say that it had the support in this country of the great majority of the traders, who were equally anxious to see a pure food supply. The best firms and the shopkeepers of the country strongly desired it. Mr. Neville Chamberlain had the matter well in hand, and already certain regulations were being framed on the basis of the recommendation of an Expert Committee which had recently enquired into the whole subject. These regulations would first be published, in order that persons interested might, if they desired, submit recommendations to the Ministry. Certain of the recommendations of the Committee could not be effected without legislation, but it was proposed to undertake this as soon as pressure on Parliamentary time permitted. The Ministry hoped also to promote a measure consolidating the whole of the law relating to food. He desired to say, in conclusion, that while laws were necessary and regulations were desirable to a large extent, the vital matter of clean food rested with the nation itself. The public had recently been asked by the Ministry to refrain from the common practice of handling meat before purchasing. Fingering meat was, of course, a definitely unhealthy habit. Nobody desired unnecessary regulations, especially Britishers, and they did not want grandmotherly legislation: but in certain elementary matters in connection with our food we must break many old bad habits. Education had done much for improved health and temperance, and he did not doubt it would largely help to achieve the advanre which was so necessary and urgent in connection with attainment of a purer and cleaner food supply.

Discourses celebrating Kurt Hahn's practical and intellectual contributions to the field of progressive education are ubiquitous. However, the centrality of sexuality in Hahn's educational aims is often misrecognized in contemporary accounts. The purpose of this paper is to provide an historical and historicized contextualization of Hahn's hypervigilance on young male sexuality as it pertained to his educational aims.

This is an historical analysis of sexuality in Kurt Hahn's educational aims and practices. It draws on Hahn's own writings and speeches, coupled with documents from his students and colleagues, educational historians, German historians and historians of both world wars. The paper is informed by critical theory as well as critical approaches to gender, sexuality and pedagogy.

Contrary to contemporary accounts, Kurt Hahn was neither a liberal nor modernizing progressive educator, nor was he interested in generalized sexual repression. Hahn developed a homophobic pedagogy due to his belief that inside all young males were the latent capacities to either be homosexual or contribute societal value. His political-aristocratic allegiances, desire to identify and educate future ruling classes and fear homosexuality was the death of social value led to the use of adventure as a form of preemptive conversion therapy.

This paper links several historical threads and analyses to provide a unique vantage point for understanding the origins of adventure as pedagogical intervention and Kurt Hahn's aims of education.

The chapter argues that you can appease both the present and the past; and that whilst appeasement is viewed with distaste that might not necessarily be so. Many traditions within moral philosophy itself seemingly advocate some degree of appeasement. Admittedly this could not be said of ethical egoists but it has long been disputed whether ethical egoism constitutes a moral philosophy solely because they refuse to appease anyone else insisting that their happiness cannot be compromised. Beyond that moral philosophy always involves appeasing someone or something. However in this chapter I am predominantly interested in those attempts to appease the past. I am especially interested in that given current developments in several states. With regard to those developments I am interested in the arguments made by Avishai Margalit that there is an ethics of memory. Margalit’s insistence that there is an ethics of memory is not unrelated to the conservative project in that it is concerned with conserving the past and conveying it to subsequent generations. I contrast that with John Lukacs' explanation of populism and its propensity to create myths; and in doing so contemplate Bernard Lewis' arguments as to the tensions which will be created by denying history.