No abstract

A common claim in disability studies is that industrialization has marginalized disabled people by limiting their access to paid employment. This claim is empirically weak and rests on simplified accounts of industrialization. Use of the British coal industry during the period 1780–1880 as a case study shows that reassessment of the effect of the Industrial Revolution is in order. The Industrial Revolution was not as detrimental to the lives of disabled people as has often been assumed. While utopian workplaces for disabled people hardly existed, industrial sites of work did accommodate quite a large number of workers with impairments. More attention therefore needs to be paid to neglected or marginalized features of industrial development in the theorization of disability. Drawing on historical research on disability in the industrial workplace will help scholars better understand the significance of industrialization to the lives of disabled people, both in the past and the present.

Writing to The Times in the aftermath of the Gethin Colliery explosion of 1865, Dr W. Wadham wrote movingly on behalf of the victims of the tragedy-'for those who are dead, for those who linger in their agony' and 'for the widows and orphans of the first, and the aged and little ones depending for their daily bread upon the now no longer available labour of the latter'. These were people, he wrote, who deserved not philanthropy, but better measures to ensure safety in coal mines. Victims of disasters required no 'alms', he wrote, 'feeling that by mutual assistance, and that heroic self-dependence so happily distinguishing the mining population of Wales, they will know how to encounter and overcome the pecuniary distresses accompanying a catastrophe which would render those less strong of heart the recipients of public charity'. 1 Just over a decade later, a similar view was presented in the Glasgow Herald of Scottish coal workers. 'All who know the decent working people of this part of the kingdom', the article contended, 'are aware how reluctant they are, as a rule, to become … the recipients of charity.' It extolled the virtues of the careful, self-sufficient miner whose infirmity was supported by payments from the 'box' of his friendly society, into which he had contributed 'when able to work'. Such a man was 'regarded as a gentleman compared with one who has had to go on the parish'. 2 Contrasting with the stereotype of miners as feckless, the image of the self-sufficient coal worker, managing his own welfare needs or supported by mutual aid in his community, was a powerful ideal and motivated thousands of miners to join friendly societies, insurance schemes, pit clubs and trade unions as the nineteenth century progressed. 3 Disability has long been at the heart of discussions and debates about welfare. It has been used as a yardstick by policymakers, charities and self-help organisations to determine not only who needs support and assistance, but also who deserves it. 4 Welfare systems played a critical role in defining 'disability'

No abstract

Historical studies of bodily and cognitive difference have flourished in the past decade. This article surveys recent work in disability history to provide a sense of the state of the field today. Concentrating on work published in English, the article outlines three main pillars of the field: its political impetus; its commitment to a sociocultural approach to disability, and its insistence that disability constitutes a powerful category of historical analysis. Following this, the article discusses the sources and methods used by disability historians, as well as some of the ethical issues their work raises. Major themes and areas of strength in the field are also identified. The article concludes by suggesting how disability history might develop in the future and encourages disability historians to push beyond a Cartesian separation of body and mind when considering human difference. IFrom new book series, blogs, exhibitions and public events to radio programmes and Oscar-nominated documentaries, the last decade has witnessed a tremendous growth in the practice and visibility of disability history. 1 Historians have contributed greatly to this success, but whatWe are grateful to Becky Taylor, Stephanie Wright, and the two anonymous reviewers of our manuscript for their thoughtful comments. Our thanks also go to the School of History at the University of Leeds for its support of our collaboration.