R. H. Tawney

39
R. H. Tawney bigraphy, stories - British historian

R. H. Tawney : biography

30 November 1880 – 16 January 1962

Richard Henry "R. H." Tawney (30 November 1880 – 16 January 1962) was an English economic historian, (ed.) (1996, fifth ed. reprint), Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Chambers, Edinburgh, ISBN 0-550-16041-8 paperback, p. 1435 social critic, ethical socialist,Noel W. Thompson. Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884-2005. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2006. Christian socialist, and an important proponent of adult education. (ed.) (1987), The Oxford Companion to English Literature, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 965Elsey, B. (1987) "R. H. Tawney – Patron saint of adult education", in P. Jarvis (ed.) Twentieth Century Thinkers in Adult Education, Croom Helm, Beckenham: Tawney is “the patron saint of adult education”

The Oxford Companion to British History (1997) explained that Tawney made a “significant impact” in all four of these “interrelated roles”. A. L. Rowse goes further by insisting that, “Tawney exercised the widest influence of any historian of his time, politically, socially and, above all, educationally”. (1995), Historians I Have Known, Gerald Duckworth & Co., London, p. 92

Tawney is buried in Highgate Cemetery.

Activism

Social criticism

Two of Tawney’s books stand out as his most influential social criticism: The Acquisitive Society (1920), Richard Crossman’s “socialist bible”, and Equality (1931), “his seminal work”.Foote, G. (1997) p. 76 The former, one of his most widely read books, criticised the selfish individualism of modern society. Capitalism, he insisted, encourages acquisitiveness and thereby corrupts everyone. In the latter book, Tawney argues for an egalitarian society.

Both works reflected Tawney’s Christian moral values, “exercised a profound influence” in Britain and abroad, and “anticipated the Welfare state”. As Dr. David Ormrod, of the University of Kent, stresses, “intermittent opposition from the Churches to the new idolatry of wealth surfaced from time to time but no individual critics have arisen with a combination of political wisdom, historical insight and moral force to match that of R.H. Tawney, the prophet who denounced acquisitiveness”.Ormrod, D. (1990) p. 9

Christian socialist politics

Historian Geoffrey Foote, University of Teesside, has highlighted Tawney’s “political shifts”: “From an endorsement of a radical Guild socialism in 1921 through his authorship of the gradualist Labour & the Nation in 1928, his savage attacks on gradualism in the 1930s to his endorsement of revisionism in the 1950s”. Nevertheless, the same author also argues that “Tawney’s importance lies in his ability to propose a malleable yet coherent socialist philosophy which transcends any particular political situation. In this sense, his mature political thought never really changed”.Foote, G. (1997) p. 72

In 1906, Tawney joined the Fabian Society and was elected to its executive from 1921 to 1933. His fellow Fabian Beatrice Webb described him as a “saint of socialism” exercising influence without rancour.Ramsden, J. (2005) p. 633 He joined the Independent Labour Party in 1909Thane, P. (2001) p. 378 and the Labour Party in 1918.Dale, G. (2000) p. 91 He three times stood unsuccessfully for election for a seat in the House of Commons, in Rochdale in 1919, Tottenham South in 1922, and Swindon in 1924.Craig, F.W.S., British Parliamentary Election Results, 1919-1949 (1969), pp. 224, 258, 498. In 1935, Tawney refused the offer of a ‘safe seat’, believing that being an M.P. was now not the most effective contribution he could make to the Labour Party.Dale, G. (2000) p. 90

Tawney participated in numerous government bodies concerned with industry and education. In 1919, he and Sidney Webb were among the trade union side representatives on the First Royal Commission on the Coal Mining Industry, chaired by Sir John Sankey. Equal division of membership between union and employer representatives resulted in opposing recommendations on the future organisation of the industry.Ramsden, J. (2005) p. 580 The union side recommended nationalisation and this was largely due to Tawney and Webb.