Grim Up
North?" : Northern Identity, History and Heritage
The Leeds
Library, 16th September 2016
An extremely
interesting day spent in the fine surroundings of the Leeds Library. There were
three panels, summarised below, including my first academic paper.
 |
| With other Symposium participants during a break (photo : Mel Dewey) |
Panel 1 : Identity
First up was
William Marshall (independent), who discussed negative Yorkshire stereotypes
and how they have been appropriated positively by Yorkshire folk constructing
their own identity. One example he gave was that of horse dealers who allegedly
swindled unsuspecting non-Yorkshire folk of their horses. This gave rise to the
positive ideas of humour, thriftiness and cunning as part of the county’s
identity, and gained particular currency with the advent of print. William
argued that the adoption of negative stereotypes as positive constructs could
be both a form of defence and defiance.
The second speaker
on the panel was Jack Southern (University of Central Lancashire), who spoke
about the Lancashire cotton industry up to 1915. He argued that previous
investigations have often focused on the economic situations of the time,
rather than the effects of those economic terms. This he termed microhistory. Neighbouring
villages competed, taking pride in their industrial outputs. They built their
identity based on industrial reputation and local principles, propagating these
until they became the stuff of myth.The local identity ignored civic boundary changes.
Women also had some financial independence, and although this point was not pursued,
there were comments asking is history gendered?
The last speaker
of the morning was Anna Feintuck (University of Edinburgh) whose research
investigates the amalgamation of Leith into Edinburgh. . Although Leith had and
has its own identity, it also had and has connections to Edinburgh e.g. by public
transport and tracks. Anna made a strong point of how arbitrary boundaries can
be, citing the anecdote of the Hull – East Yorkshire boundary running through
her own back garden when she was a child. She raised ideas of the boundary
being at once definite, permeable and arbitrary, depending on whose viewpoint
was under consideration.
All three talks
had a strong theme of the self-determination of identity by residents, drawing
on myths, microhistory and reputation. Boundaries imposed by civic authorities
were not necessarily accepted by local residents. However there is a boundary
fluidity. Boundaries are invisible. How do we know they are there?
Panel 2 : T’other
The first speaker
in this panel was Adelle Stripe (Manchester Metropolitan University) who spoke
about the Bradford playwright Andrea Dunbar, who wrote “Rita Sue and Bob too”
amongt other works. Dunbar wrote the stories she saw on the Buttershaw Estate
in Bradford, for example in her local pub, the un-aptly named “The Beacon”.
When her work was performed in London, audiences laughed, leaving Dunbar
nonplussed. Opening up her lived experience of Buttershaw to the whole country
caused disuputes with neighbours because of the way she portrayed the estate. The
media played a part in this, constructing their own versions of Dunbar’s and
Bradford’s identities, ultimately contributing to Dunbar’s early death.
Next up was Rhiannon
Pickin (Leeds Beckett University) who spoke about constructs of Yorkshire identity
in Yorkshire Crime and Punishment Museums, in particular contrasting these
museums in Ripon and York. Both museums offer experiences for children to
understand their heritage (and by implication, add to the construction of their
identity). However, as one might expect, York’s Museum has more of an international
outlook, whereas Ripon draws on local volunteers who have actually worked in
the judiciary and are therefore passing on direct experience. So the experience
for the children is quite different. She also explained that there was little
research about historical judicial systems outside London.
Closing the panel
was Tosh Warwick (Leeds Beckett University) who spoke about the World Cup 1966
in Sheffield and Middlesbrough, which were both host towns (used as a generic
term as Sheffield is a city). His research reveals that people (FA officials,
foreign journalists and FIFA officals) didn’t want to go there. The two venues
set about selling manufacturing towns as tourist destinations, with differing ideas
of Northernness. Sheffield showcased its steel industry but Middlesbrough wanted
to create a sculpture-based art trail (much to the dismay of some locals). Tosh
associated this with Middlesbrough’s gradual move out of Yorkshire proper and
towards Teesside.
Within all three papers
there was the concept of the “other” being London; it wasn’t overtly stated,
but it was implied. There were though also other others e.g. the media
(Stripe), foreign FIFA officials (Warwick). Again the paradigm of identity construction
emerged strongly, although this time not as self-determined, but as determined
by others (e.g. museum staff, media).
Panel 3: Heritage
This was my panel,
and unfortunately the two other speakers had to drop out. However, a
replacement speaker was found for one of them. I presented on “Using wandering
and visual response to investigate Northernness: How did I get here”?. More on
this here.
 |
| With Catherine Flinn Goldie taking questions after the papers (photo: Paula Hickey) |
The keynote
address, by Barry Doyle (University of Huddersfield) looked at health
indicators in the inter-war years in Leeds and Sheffield. He discussed that
this can be politicised and that there is evidence that it wasn’t so “grim up
North”. He also, again, touched on the idea of London as “other”.
Discussion
The Symposium had
a number of recurring themes:
Boundaries – boundaries featured strongly and it was
clear there were definitions other than those used by the authorities.
Boundaries could be fluid and could be invoked by local people when necessary
and equally, ignored when necessary. There was a playful jibe at Jack Southern
from the panel chair that he was from the wrong side of the Pennines (i.e.
Lancashire) and Jack gave as good as he got – the county rivalry lives on! This
gives rise to areas for investigation, e.g. what boundaries do we have that we
acknowledge (myself and my classmates gave the example of the boundaries of
where you could play out as a child). Conversely, what boundaries do we have
that we don’t consciously know about or refuse to acknowledge?
Construction of identity – this massive topic was touched on in
various ways. To at least some extent, we self-determine our identity, and our
community does the same. However, there are many external agencies at play,
particularly the media. Alongside this, .I felt there was the question of whose
voice constructs our history, and therefore our heritage, thereby feeding our
identities? Certainly all the speakers were giving some voice to their own view
of history.
London – London was identified as the “other” several times. This
poses the question – what about that part of the country (England? UK?) which
isn’t the North and isn’t London? Just as some papers argued that previous research
had only investigated London, and by implication there is a conflation of “London”
with the “UK”, so I felt we as Northerners were conflating London with the
South.
Moving around the urban space – this was another strong theme, which my
own paper relied on, and which also arose in discussion of boundaries and in
persons or groups moving to another place. Reactions to the urban space and to
moves help create identity.
Microhistory – I hadn’t heard of this term before, but
I identified it with Bathmaker’s idea of “life history” (one’s life story in
its social and historical context) which I used in my own paper. Again, I think
this is something that my work is exploring. The very brief mention of the
gendering of history was, alongside this, also an indicator of the question of
whose voice shapes our history.
Heritage feeding identity – this is a key tenet for me and it came
out very strongly from many different viewpoints. This confirmation was very
satisfying.
Above all, there
was a joy of Northernness and a real affirmation of the value and importance of
researching regional and local identity. It was a fascinating day and a great
experience for me to be a part of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment