In the immediate postwar years, the costs of the war, both environmental and economic defined government planning and limited the extent to which it could follow through on the new social contract envisioned by Beveridge and enacted through successive pieces of legislation. The myth of the shared sacrifice of the war created a new sense of accountability between politicians and the people, a relationship transformed by emerging media and polling technologies. The memories of the hungry thirties, and a reckoning with the horrors of the industrial revolution, made unemployment the central figure around which government economic policy developed, and created the consumer as a newly powerful figure. As the working class gained affluence and moved out of nineteenth century slums, social thinkers bemoaned the break up of these organic communities and the emergence of identity politics. In addition to these domestic matters, decolonization and the cold war raised concerns about the nature (and viability) of British liberalism, and as Britain unburdened herself of empire, she entered into new relationships with her former colonies, Europe and an emerging set of international institutions and ideologies centered around the United Nations. These are not the only ways to write the history of late-twentieth century Britain, but together these narratives have a strong hold on the twenty-first century imagination, contributing to contemporary debates about decline, national identity, and Britain’s sense of herself in the world.
In addition to these narratives, for the historian, the greatest burden of studying postwar history can be the weight of historiography. While since the end of the World War II, there has been a great questioning as to the nature of the era, and historians have been writing the story of these years for decades, there has yet to emerge a defined field with a shared language. How do we understand the post-war period when the big narratives of British history end in 1945 (or even 1914)? What relevance do classic historiographical categories—political, economic, social, cultural—have to postwar conditions? When so many historians have located the origins of twentieth century processes in earlier moments, how do we claim significance for the particular conditions of postwar Britain?
In addition to these narratives, for the historian, the greatest burden of studying postwar history can be the weight of historiography. While since the end of the World War II, there has been a great questioning as to the nature of the era, and historians have been writing the story of these years for decades, there has yet to emerge a defined field with a shared language. How do we understand the post-war period when the big narratives of British history end in 1945 (or even 1914)? What relevance do classic historiographical categories—political, economic, social, cultural—have to postwar conditions? When so many historians have located the origins of twentieth century processes in earlier moments, how do we claim significance for the particular conditions of postwar Britain?
If you have any thoughts about these concerns, please send them to us at burdensconference [at] gmail [dot] com, and we will post them on this page.
--
CHILDREN OF AN EASTERN SUBURB OF LONDON, WHO HAVE BEEN MADE HOMELESS BY THE RANDOM BOMBS OF NAZI NIGHT RAIDERS, WAITING OUTSIDE THE WRECKAGE OF WHAT WAS THEIR HOME
New Times Paris Bureau Collection, USIA, 1940
--
CHILDREN OF AN EASTERN SUBURB OF LONDON, WHO HAVE BEEN MADE HOMELESS BY THE RANDOM BOMBS OF NAZI NIGHT RAIDERS, WAITING OUTSIDE THE WRECKAGE OF WHAT WAS THEIR HOME
New Times Paris Bureau Collection, USIA, 1940