Progressivism and the History of the Public House, 1850–1950

Abstract

In a recent article, Alistair Mutch suggests that twin concepts -'control' and 'interpretation' -explain the evolution of the public house over a century of dramatic changes between 1850 and 1950. This article argues that these concepts are confusing, ambiguous and misleading. It was not regulatory pressures, the temperance movement, local politicians, pressure groups or magistrates that most shaped the history of drinking premises, but developments outside the brewing industry, most notably Progressivism. Emerging in the late nineteenth century, Progressives set out to reform drinkers and drink premises, first in the trust house movement, and then in the Liquor Traffic Central Control Board during the First World War. Appropriating their ideas and philosophy immediately following the war, England's foremost brewers launched the public house improvement movement, the most far-reaching attempt to transform the nature of public drinking in the twentieth century.

Theories and Evidence

“…11 While I might have some reservations about the use of the term Progressivism, there is no doubt that Gutzke is to be congratulated on supplying us with a considerable amount of additional evidence about the nature of the improved public house movement. Whether such evidence can stand the weight of the putative association with Progressivism or had the impact that Gutzke suggests is open to a little more doubt.…”

“…Such social engineering began decades earlier in the First World War with the CCB and continued with the improved public house in interwar England. 13 I want to draw a distinction in assessing this statement, one which I should perhaps have made clearer in the original article, between market research and social engineering. I am quite happy to entertain an argument that marketing is an attempt at a form of social engineering, but this is an endeavour very different from that engaged in by the heroes of Gutzke's tale.…”

“…So, for example, it is a little misleading of him to write that 'For Mutch, brewers embraced the managerial system to "maximise financial returns" in the interwar years, but only on "an individual basis"', when the two elements of the 'citation' are five pages apart. 7 When we turn to look at the first phrase, it turns out that it is my summary of the evidence about the actions of two companies, Peter Walker & Son and Mitchells and Butlers, in the years before 1914. 8 I want to pull out one further example from the footnotes (Gutzke has a habit of conducting key parts of the argument in the footnotes, something I will try to avoid).…”

“…Such tactics would simply deprive Walker & Sons' tenants of profits and foster acrimony. 9 What is central here is the distinction between managers and tenants. Twenty-first century allegations about the use of predatory pricing tactics by coffee houses and supermarkets, where the resources of a centralized organization operating through managers obliged to carry out central policy are used to force local independent competitors out of business, are surely common enough for us to recognize this distinction.…”

“…1 Much of Gutzke's surprisingly overheated response refers to rather minor issues (spending three paragraphs at the beginning of his article, for example, on a discussion of control before conceding that 'this is only a minor point'), and it would be tedious for the general reader to go through these point by point. 2 Rather, I wish to use the available space to tackle three interrelated issues. The first is the point of the original article, which Gutzke seems to have missed but which I think is important for general readers -the need for cultural and social historians to take business history seriously.…”