Discourses of power and rurality

Polird

Geograph?: Vol. 16. No. 6. pp. 453-478. 1991 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0962.6298/97 $17.00 + 0.00

Pergamon

PII: SO962-6298(96)00021-2

Discourses of power and rurality Local politics in Somerset

in the 20th century

MICIIAEI.Woo114

of Geogruph_y, IJniuersiQ~ @‘Bristol, Bristol BS8 lSS, IJK

Department

AHSTIUCI. ‘This paper

examines

the changing

of a rural

county

in the I:K during

accounts.

which

have

restructuring.

this

considering

the

empirical legitimate

the

leadership

‘3griculture‘ fragments

elite

the evolution of

under

pressure

from

cmpiricdly

derived

0 1997 Else\ier

Science

new

discourse.

model

and

political

elites.

in the context

of

local

on discourses

after the first world by

political

concludes

\v;Ir

discourses

war the power

non-agricultural

is

used to

Domination

united

world

The paper

in Using

structure

and rurality

elite hased

is replaced f:wmerh

political

geography

‘the political’.

of power

by 3 kmdowning and

behind

of the local power

After the second

an environmentalist

factors

structure

to previous

in political

‘the cultural‘

landowner5

and ‘community’.

In contrast

material

and ‘stewardship‘

of

of the local power

thinking

of the discourses

position

gentleman’

3 broader

within

from Somerset,

at the start of the centu~

of ‘the country

the

recent

between

from the perspective

go\‘ernance by

on

follows

interrelation

examples

examined

focused

paper

nature

the 20th century.

of

structure

actors

acting

by &cussing

of the concept

the

of ‘so~iet;llization‘.

Ltd

Introduction The 20th century and economic experience national

has been a period

restructuring

of rural life, as relatively and global systems.

restructuring.

Local power

legacy of feudalism. power

smaller

This paper

trdc‘es

the

the 20th century.

kvhosc

position

tliscursive

structures

be attributed evolution Power

rests upon

constructions

remote

in rural England.

of the rural population

areas have been

which

increasingly

to a single,

of local power

of leadership

dominant

over sections

and influence

control

competitive,

integrated

elite,

structures exclusive

and rurality.

polities

but rather

is dispersed

in one rural county, networks

The narrative

the

in which

local state.

are seen to be contestetl

of resources,

into

political

still reflected

politicized

of the pervasive

Social and the

extensive

at the start of the century

into complex,

elites with influence

during

transformation

both the character

At the same time, rural areas have witnessed

have evolved

c‘an no longer

between

of considerable

has changed

Somerset,

by sectional

elites.

of interaction,

centres

on changes

and in

the politics of local government. as opposed to other forms of power, reflecting the status of local government as the core motif of local politics. At the beginning of the century. institutional

local government

been established various fragments

was still a novelty

in 1888, parish councils and of the local state represented

in rural England.

County

councils

had

rural district councils in 1894, and the just one element of the local power

Discourses of power and mrali(v

454 structure.

The position

more traditional which

codified

structures

the system

of the welfare Local

of local authorities

power

councils,

governance

had

the

reforming

culture

fought

and a more

1991). During

to a diffusion

more extensive,

of local

authorities.

had greatly

relations

between

considerably

the

more

The history

power

of English

institutionalization,

government

central

class

in

government,’

and

system

(Hoggart, which

to exercise

increased

Despite bodies

remains

maintained reproduction of power

Analyses

this

certain

of power paper

upon gaining

been

one

separated interests in

local to assert

traditional elected

1991); similarly, towns

In their place, role

has hence

local

of the local governance the business

are now more the in-migrant

in electoral

politics

believed

it is one of the arguments sections

likely middle

(Cloke.

of the local community,

from

factors.

of this paper

Membership

and

professional

and place. In focusing

an alternative

merits

elitist.

of social

of local politics

1990;

the

whose

position

networks,

of previous

The existing

body

of literature

is introduced

in Somerset.

work,

The paper

is

and

on these more cultural

bulk

approach

that rural

of governmental the

aspects

which

has

is reviewed

and demonstrated concludes

with a

of this approach.

change

that ‘the English

to which

bodies.

departs

before

account

of rural political

is conventionally

a much

centre

has

prominence

of small market

fundamentally

manipulation

of the conceptual

In commenting the extent

however,

towards the

section,

an historical

the

sectional

sectors

1987; Paxman,

a leadership

on social and economic

in the following

produced

the ‘squirearchy‘-the

from

remained

of discourses

concentrated

both

which

and enabled

within

assuming

biased

relations,

of the bodies

1992).

have

through

(Elcock,

restructuring

the 20th century

retreated

non-elected

this fragmentation,

structures

of

saw the emergence

state-with

are still influential the councils

through

the power

local government

have

fragmentation,

structures

England--has

are increasingly

power

local

during

1991: 187; see also Newby,

Cloke and Goodwin,

changes

the

latterly

power

once dominated

influence

groups

in rural Britain and have impacted

parts of the local state. Whilst

rural

Party

1975; Jennings,

the 1980s.

more

their successors

interests

discussion

during

and

local government

over different

through

state

from more informal

influence

system

and

of local

style of participation

to non-elected

1992). These

administrative

county

administration

on party lines (Elcock,

managerial&

of powers

1991).

stronger

the

of

Act of 1933,

and by the creation

the 1980s and 1990s the Thatcherite

and Little, 1990; Goodwin,

stronger,

classes

established

of local government

councillors

local state contributed

ruling

political

independent

1978; Stoker,

prior to 1974 (see Lee et al., 1974), and the new authorities

1975; Holliday,

of

only

increasingly

functions

of semi-professional

(Cloke

the

were

1975). The burgeoning officers

of not

changing

and elections

and Richards,

in 1974, which

effect

institutions

by the Local Government

urban and rural district councils,

reorganization

but also

appeared

of county,

state after 1945 (Keith-Lucas

government

district

as autonomous

was strengthened

village

is neither

to be’ (,Newby,

the rural economy

as immemorial

1980: 1561, Newby

and society

have been

nor as unchanging was perhaps transformed

as it

understating in the 20th

century. The more tangible integration of rural areas into national and international societal systems has not only led to a diminution of ‘local cultures’, but has exposed the countryside to distinctive ‘rural’ responses to wider social and economic trends: agricultural restructuring; industrial and service sector relocation; counterurbanization including retirement in-migration; technological advances and increased mobility

MKHAELWOOI,S contributing

to the loss of village

recomposition of tourism Cloke have

including

and Goodwin,

literature

by sociologists,

summarized

in terms

geographers

of three

organization

of labour,

hence

et al. (1978) argued

particularistic

power

labourer-especially

where

accommodation. within

rural

middle-class

was

became

influence it has been

(Johnson.

power

with

of

of work may be

structure

provided

the

was orientated and

particularistic

Farmers

and

but were

with

the

restructuring. around

the

the

agricultural

not only employment

restructured

unravelled.

structure

economic

landowner/farmer

in local government. argued

that there

1972), following-like

improved

communications,

greater

has been

but also tied

power

landowners

of Farmers maintained

increasingly

joined

party political motivation

new technology

cultures).

uncontested

of councillors

‘nationalization‘

a

by other

‘national‘

issues

subsequently

local

(Johnson,

politics

1972)

leads to a polarization

of government community

and a ‘new breed’ service

culture

is alleged

to have

Furthermore,

(Grant,

Thirdly,

implication

1977a, of

process,

motivated 1978).

and a parochial

1,; Dyer,

by an increasing

growth

party

with

The

latter

a more confrontationat dogma

by both

recruitment.

style

rather than

transforming

the

party politicization

the old rural elite to a new trends

1978). The

concern

politics.

by political

Hence

is that these

rests on the

(or at least localized

government

of candidate

from

This thesis

political

have resulted

class.

in the demise

‘rural’ polity.

There

categories

the

Norton,

power

counterurbanization

restructuring.

both

of the political

new means

transferred

the underlying

of 3 distinctively

by

of councillors

197%:

and promoting

consensual 1978; Grant,

is marked

and

mobility.

integration--from

by non-partisanship

1973.

of local politics’

and economic

and greater

elections,

(Madgwick,

of rural

a ‘nationalisation

social, cultural

that a ‘true‘ rural polity is characterized

political

trends

groups.

Secondly.

assertion

1985;

by a range

This body

the rural

restructuring

the

that relation

communities

disproportionate

has aligned

political

between

As agriculture

demonstrated

scientists.

that the rural power

relation

and Curry,

approaches.

approach and

population importance

1980, 1987). All these

as has been

and political

broad

First. a political-economy

(see Blunden

et al., 1993; Newby,

in rural areas,

of poverty;

class’; and the increasing

of the countryside

1992; Marsden

on local politics

and a new geography

of ‘the service

with the cornmodification

impacted

Newby

services

the growth

455

of ‘incomer’

roughly

synonymous.

incomer

dichotomy

has

is some

been

overlap

and ‘service However,

identified

between

as a primary

agent

this work and class-based

class’ have often (and erroneously)

there

is also a body

to be a significant

political

of literature

cleavage

in political

analyses, been

that asserts

in its own

right.

as the

tlrken to be the local/ Harper,

for

example, shows how conflicting perceptions of place between ~Iocal’ and ‘incomer‘ groups cdn motivate political contest, as ‘individuals compete for positions on the parish council

in order

Similarly, identified

to defend

disputes

usage

of rural

important

issues

these

conflicts

through

space.

‘rural

Mormont

rote in this process, Conflicts up

about

of new

movements.

of the settlement’

like

conservation,

et al. (1978) as potential

by Newby

(1987, 1990) places is pxtially resolved

their image

over

There

of political

1988: 47). and

conflict;

footpaths

associations is here

were

whilst Mormont

a wider crisis of identity for rural areas, which in which actors contest the meaning and

struggles’

argues

that

in-migrants

halie

played

a particularly

and that:

rural schools,

local

within

causes

(Harper, planning

tourist

development

which :I truly

then

political

and so on result

involve effect

themselves

as certain

in the setting in plurilocal strata

of the

Discourses of power and rurality

456

population give themselves means of expressing their demands, of organizing mobilization around issues which had, until then, been monopolized by the traditional political organization. (Mormont, 1987: 566) In focusing

on conflicts

work has moved highlighting levied

towards

points

much

factors

definition

into the cultural

of the work

have tended

Hoggart

functional

on rural

to define

space

(1990), where

If, therefore, define

we are to speak

spaces.

distinctively political

rural,

particular

that

It is not my intention aim to complement

structure;

social

denies

and

that the rural can exist as the position

occupied

sense

constructed

by

at all, we must

by its participants

and by more formal representations that

the

‘politics’

of the rural must

impossible practices

to

research

that define

in public

in question be internal

rural

and debate

are to the

politics

without

what ‘rural’ means

to local politics in this paper

to discredit

by demonstrating structures

exemplified identified

existing how

accounts

cultural

approach

rests on two tenets: structure

of rural politics;

strategies

and have been significant

and that this power

of power

same period

prioritizing

in any meaningful

are to claim

it becomes

them

The classification famously

by

that can be

terms, yet, as Cloke (1994)

towards

but as socially

construction(s)

set of cultural

of rural power

discourses

if we

the social

rural polity.2 This alternative power

Furthermore,

a critique

context.

A cultural approach

construction

terms

and expectations,

Hence

the whole

Accounts

perspective

of ‘rural politics’

Moreover, then

process.

considering

towards

this latter

the term ‘rural’ is abandoned.

their experiences

private

politics.

inextricably

of rurality,

realm of politics.

‘the rural’ in functional

and moves

‘the rural’ not in functional

through

social constructions

of ‘rurality‘, it points

out, the logic of a political-economy

a separate

in

contrasting

the economic

the disputed

economic

and

beyond

between

rather I

are enrolled

in the

in the restructuring

of the

that the rural polity has an elite

is legitimated

by, and operates

through,

and rurality. of local power

structures

by Floyd Hunter

as elitist is a long-standing

(1953). Many studies

elites (e.g. Birch, 1959; Clements,

tradition.

most

of British local politics

of the

19(,9), but the greater

tendency

has been to categorize the historic power structure as elitist, whilst arguing that restructuring in the last half-century has created a far more pluralist form of politics. Others small

have posited number

government). neo-elitism

the evolution

of separate This paper

of a ‘neo-elitist’

groups

follows

that has developed

(see

Gray,

the latter position, the notion

system, 1994,

with power

for

more

and in particular

of elite networks,

on

shared

between

theories the literature

concentrating

a

of local within

less on the

resource base of elites and more on the interactions between elite members. Although much of this work has been rigidly structuralist (Laumann and Pappi, 1976; Knoke, 1990). some researchers have used qualitative methods to adopt less-structuralist stances, exploring the role of the elite’s backstage-what and the importance of discursive constructions Following

these last two writers,

to consist of three particular resources.

the concept

I denote ‘elite space‘-(Hunter, of local politics (Kirby, 1993).3 of ‘elite’ as used in this paper

1995),

can be seen

elements. First. an elite has privileged access to or control over This derives from conventional elite theory (Bottomore, 1993), with

the modification that ‘resources’ is defined to include not just, for example, wealth or power, but equally time, communication skills and charisma (Etzioni-Halevy, 1993). Secondly, members of an elite are linked by a network of social or professional relations

457

MICHAELWOODS

which may be used for recruitment, Stacey,

or the transmission

of influence

1960; Stacey et al., 1975; Newby et al., 1978; Kearns,

socially and discursively constructed The alternative approach

or patronage

as an ‘elite’ either by themselves

also entails reconfiguring

(see

1992). Thirdly, elites are or by others.

our formulation

of power in the

local state. Weberian power, the power to force another to act in a way they would not otherwise have done (Lukes, 19741, may well have operated in a feudal system, but in the contemporary

polity it can only be attributed, in a political sense, to actors within the local

state who have power within certain restricted areas (the collective power of councillors to grant or refuse planning permission;

the power of magistrates to fine offenders).

If we

are to suggest that there is local ‘power’ or ‘influence’ beyond these offices, then we are employing

a different definition of power. Following

the definition of an elite outlined

above, it is clear that power cannot simply be derived from control over resources. comes

from manipulating

relations,

being

able to use others’

significantly, power is discursively constructed. following his observation

influence

It also

and, most

This formulation is distinctly Foucauldian,

that

in a society such as ours there are manifold relations of power which permeate, character&e and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of a discourse. (Foucault, 1980: 93) Those who may be considered

to have ‘power’ or ‘influence’

both owe their position to discourses

in a locality, therefore,

that legitimate their power, but also to their own

ability to control the production and circulation of the dominant discourses. for both individuals apparatuses

and institutions,

have always recognized

for as Kirby (1993: the importance

63) notes,

This applies

‘successful

state

of discursive control’, such that the

power of the local state itself is a discursive construction

defined through conflict and

struggle. A history of local politics must therefore also be a history of local discourses

of

power;

to

and in the rural local state, discourses

of power

are intrinsically

bound

discourses of rurality. That is not to say that discourses of power and discourses of rurality are one and the same, rather that power has been defined in terms of rurality, and rurality in terms of power. By discourses

of power I am referring to the popularly diffused beliefs and prejudices

that establish the qualities expected

of leaders, that present the elite as being worthy of

power, and that define what power or influence an elite may reasonably have. In other words, discourses attributes

power

demonstrate, gentleman’,

of power create the circumstances

to an elite, thus making them powerful.

local

discourses

of power

have

included

Hence,

be expected

as this paper will

the myths

of the

‘country

of a ‘natural order’ and ‘aristocratic rule’, and more subtly the construction

farmers and businesspeople

as political elites because of their economic

the intervention of the professional

to

in which a non-elite

importance,

of and

middle classes on the pretext of making local politics

‘more representative’. Each of these groups has equally drawn on discourses of rurality. The discourse of the ‘country gentleman’

is entwined

with the notion

of ‘stewardship’

whilst the farmers’

political claim defines rurality in terms of agriculture. These are different to the ideologies of property, which Rose et al. (1976) showed to influence rural local government, extending beyond the interests and rights of landownership to all aspects of rural life. Although social constructions of rurality should perhaps be reduced to the individual, three broad discourses of rurality can be argued to have had a significant political impact:

Discourses of power and rurali&

458 a ‘traditional’ contradictory

discourse

which

celebrated

landed

estates

and

discourse which has posited the rural as a space of consumption These

discourses

represented

should

be seen

neither

as consecutive

a self-

as well as production.

nor as discrete.

here in an idealized form and individuals’ social constructions

draw on more than one, as they have done throughout local politics, highlighting a discussion

the discourses

are

how an alternative approach to

of power and locality (rurality), might work,

of the 20th-century

Somerset is not presented

They

of rurality may

the century.

In the remainder of this paper I intend to demonstrate through

stewardship;

‘agrarian’ discourse which prioritized agriculture; and an ‘environmentalist’

restructuring

of local politics

in Somerset.

here as being in any way typical or as a model to generalize

from, but simply as an empirical study. lndeed the political history of Somerset is quite different from that of other counties as presented antipathy of the Somerset

elite to mercantile

in existing studies. For example,

families contrasts to the incorporation

the of

such families into the county elite of Cheshire (Lee, 1963). The pattern of a paternalistic agricultural power structure as described similarly never quite reproduced,

by Newby et al. (1978) for East Anglid was

given the different nature of agriculture in Somerset,

with smaller farms perhaps meaning that individual farmers were not quite as dominant, and given the stronger

influence

of manufacturing

towns such as Bridgwater,

Chard,

Shepton Mallet and Yeovil.

Power and pleasure in Somerset, At the beginning

1900-1918

of the 20th century,

transition. Social and economic weakened

the position

of many

(Howkins,

1991).*

creation

councils

The

local politics

in Somerset

was in a stage of

restructuring in the second half of the 19th century had landowners of elected

in 1894 was in part a response

and started county

to dismantle

councils

the need

for

government

to play a stronger part in the social affairs of the new rural society,

the

inadequacy

of a weakened

allowing

the professional

paternalism

However, the institutionalization complexion

of local

politics.

in the country (Hawkins,

members

of the professional

that role, and the necessity

who had come

to prominence

of local government cases

backgrounds,

of in

initially had little effect on the

of working-class

representation

recorded

1991) were not repeated in Somerset, and although

classes

were

elected,

especially

from the towns,

and farming class remained the largest group in local government.

whilst 17 of the 67 members professional

classes

recognizing

in county government.

The

elsewhere landowning

for providing

and mercantile

market towns greater participation

to this change,

paternalism

in 1888 and of parish

of Somerset 26 were

In 1906,

County Council came from commercial

landowners

and

a further

8 were

the or

farmers.5

Furthermore, the landowning elite maintained a virtual monopoly over the more senior positions. In 1906, 5 of Somerset’s 7 MPs were landowners, living in what Kelly’s LXrecto y identified as the county’s ‘principal seats’.” The chairman of the County Council, Henry Hobhouse

MP, was a major landowner

Lund Fry Edwards, was provincial

in eastern Somerset;

Edward Fry, who chaired the Quarter Sessions, national repute. Of the 22 county aldermen, ‘principal seats’ and 4 of whom had titles.’ The

landowners

did not,

the vice-chairman,

treasurer of the Freemasons

however,

(Fisher,

was both a landowner

15 were landowners,

act as a single,

Charles

1962); and Sir and a lawyer of

14 of whom occupied

cohesive

party.

There

was

competition within the elite for election, especially for parliamentary seats, with the elite being fairly sharply divided between the Liberal and Conservative-Unionist parties. But

459

MILHAFL Worn:::

although

party

national

politics,

vaccination. servative

political

In local

issues about

and senior

candidates

of both

parties

on oligarchical

basic

to resources

referred exclusive

formed

than

their

have been

over resources:

by horse social

of social

the

a discourse

of power.

itself (see also Howkins, between (Press,

1890 and 1908, which 1890, 1894; Gaskelt,

consensual (Press, the

social

and

exclusively society

cultural

at large.

allowed

However,

terms

present

of an ambiguous

notion

undefined, of ‘cultural

of cultural StitUS

practices through

by a small but wealthy not

conform

to that

leadership, and hence The elite’s discourse of rural society. nature-a the ‘natural drew

construct

that implied

19841, rather appears

order’

of hierarchies of Hume

within

both

not

was

presented

nature

than in terms individuals of the

The rural leadership

of rurality as experienced

gentleman’

from

Anyone the

who did

discourse

of

and the stability

in the stewardship

of

land and people-upholding

and human

and Locke in constructing

leadership’ the elite in

to include

to reflect.

excluded

of both

within

gives an indication

in a discourse

the management

were

to ‘political

to delimit

of the rural population.

the role of the ‘country

concept

on the philosophy

the authors

hindered in any attempt to gain political power. of rurality emphasized the importance of tradition

It celebrated

into

over local government.

accomplishments,

society

a

insight

produced

do not limit themselves

in particular,

segment

of rural

an interesting

capital’ (Bourdieu,

their participation

agendas

displaying

of the ‘social and political

that the elite was expected

and powerful

political

Gaskell

discourses

leaders’

are far from

was that the discourses

allowing

That Gaskell,

define

published

with social status and power

influence

as records

in the elite on the basis solely of their hunting their

The

consequence

themselves

of either office or achievements.

acquired

elite.

but rather

disproportionate

Yet ‘social’ remains

framework

do provide

of Press (1890), the directories

but explicitly

of Somerset.

of the

a significant

to exercise

With the exception leaders’

the directories

construction

of a landed

of ‘Somersetshire

and

the

as an elite through

for the elite to publicly

manifesto

was

Thirdly,

that the identification

a collection

election

with local politics,

landowners

constructed

in the

influence

warranted.

1908). Whilst they vary in length,

a Liberal

bias), together

concerned

presented

the

conducted

of ‘leaders’ and each have clear underlying

in effect

Conservative/Unionist

council

meant

privileged

(1989: 79) has

this took the form of four volumes,

1906; Anon.,

in their selection

1890, being

explicitly

Stanyer

informally

and that an effort was needed

1991). In Somerset

of paternalism

as shall be demonstrated.

socially

of the late 19th century

axiomatic

First,

was still held in

that the landowners‘

county

elite was very clearly and deliberately

earlier.

landowners

to what

and business

landowning

elite was no longer

the remnants

leading

as a single

as outlined

gave

that

was not therefore

villages inequality

Con-

it was ensured

of the county

ensured

on

and

parliamentary

nor on organization

and trap’. Secondly, network

interaction

representation

The social upheavals

Liberal

a quarter

estate

economic

of

compulsory

Whilst

contested,

of elite construction

as time and transport,

an active

elite spaces

greater

elements

1986) and in those

such

between society.

in terms

and

class at the start of the 20th century

Furthermore,

to as ‘government

landowners

of rural

of local government,

control

access

a consensus

entirely rule

might

they had disproportionate (Beckett,

was values

home

from the right social background.

drawn

the three

be far stronger.

defined

Irish

were

party. Rather it reflected ‘great estates’

it was

trade,

local offices

domination

would

strong,

as free there

the

The elite status of the landowning based

was

such

government

landowners

representation

identification

over

society.

an ideology

The discourse of property,

as

Rose et al. (1976) show, but also on the political ideology prevalent nationally a century earlier, which Everett (1994) labels ‘the Tory View of Landscape‘. This conceptualization

460

Discourses of power and rurality

justified a hierarchical structuring of society, with wealth and status accompanied by obligations and duties, and a responsibility to the past as well as the future. These motifs are echoed in a passage from Gaskell which epitomizes the elite’s discourse of rurality: In the estimation of the majority of men’ there is no life that offers more solid attractions than that of a country gentleman. Far removed ‘from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife’,’ he lives the pure natural life for which man was originally intended, and sits at the feet of that greatest of Gamaliels-Nature. Such a man is spared the bustle and turmoil of the strenuous city life, with all its disappointments, its morbid restlessness and strifes. With him life pursues the even tenor of its way flowing with deep, silent stream, the converse of the career of a dweller in towns whose existence resembles rather a shallow, turbulent mountain torrent. But the life of the country gentleman does not lack responsibility, for he owes duties both to his own position and to his tenants and dependants. (Gaskell, 1906)

Hence this discourse of rurality was inextricably tied to a discourse of power which presented the leadership of rural society as being the duty and responsibility of the ‘country gentleman’. Newby (1987: 69) describes the ‘gentlemanly ethic’ as ‘a device for perpetuating distinctions of status, and an agency of social discipline’, derived from the mythical medieval code of chivalry, such that those born to gentility are ‘naturally’ attributed with the qualities of bravery, loyalty, fidelity, generosity and good judgement (see also Girouard, 1981).” Acceptance as a ‘real gentleman’ would bring the landowner deference from farmworkers and ensure the stability of rural society (and the landowner’s influence over its government). Contained within the construct of ‘the country gentleman’ were a further set of constructs of rurality, social order and gender relations. First, the ‘gentlemanly ethic’ is essentially patriarchal. Gentility is inherited through the male line, and ultimately is supposed to originate in the masculinist ideal of the medieval knight. Even given the absence of the female electoral franchise, it is noteworthy that not one of the nearly 150 ‘Somersetshire leaders’ described in the four volumes is a woman. The female gentry and aristocracy are mentioned in other accounts of the elite’s activities (see Evered, 1902, for example), but their role as social hostesses and administrators of charity is seen entirely as an appendage of their husbands’ positions. Secondly, the ideal of the ‘country gentleman’ places landownership at the heart of its social construct of rurality.‘l Girouard (1978: 2) has argued that the importance of land was not in agriculture, but in ‘the tenants and rent that came with it’, enabling the raising of a private army in a feudal system, and the securing of votes in a quasi-feudal system. Whilst this certainly was an element of the rural power structure, more important still was the cultural capital that the ownership of land bestowed. Deprived of the military duties of the medieval knight, the gentlemanly ethic had reinvented the role of the gentleman to be the stewardship of the countryside. To be a ‘country gentleman’ one must participate in the stewardship, and thus one must own land. The notion of stewardship furthermore reflects the third component of the ‘gentlemanly ethic’, the idea of a ‘natural order’. The predatory order within nature is extended, such that humans are given supremacy over nature and ‘nature’s most ancient peerage’ (Press, 1890: 22) is given supremacy over other rural dwellers.12 As Newby comments, the ‘gentlemanly ethic’ ‘enabled the landowner to claim an unimpeachable moral superiority over the other inhabitants of the rural world, so that the other “natural orders” would instinctively acknowledge the landowner as one of their “betters” as well as one of their rulers’ (Newby, 1987: 69).

461

MICHAEL WOOI,~

Political

leadership

Positions by

of power

birthright

is thus

tied to ‘nobility’

are not therefore

and

their

offices

duties

and

hence

to the hereditary

to be competed

performed

by

the

for, but rather gentry

out

of

principle.

are bestowed altruism

and

benevolence: [Henry H&house] is of that type of public spirited English gentlemen, who are willing to generously give of their time and talent t(> the common weal without any reward. ‘~3(Press. 1804) As head of one of the most ancient families resident in the West of England. Sir Thomas [Dyke Aclandl has naturally been called upon to play a prominent part in the municipal life of Somerset. ” (Gaskell. 1906) In this way, because

the deference

of an alleged

of the population

‘natural

order’,

towards

but because

the elite was expected

the elite were

portrayed

not only

as deserving

of that respect. The social construction nobility

of the rural elite promoted

of the country

compared urban

gentry

to the unrefined

influences

was seen

brashness

sought

by the virtual exclusion

few who

were

conflict

accepted,

with

mentions

In contrast. Foxes

such

the dominant

commercial

councillors.

Although

opportunity

of elected

evidently

by 1706 acquired landowners Somerset

in I905

perhaps

office

ovc’r resources

19th~century discourses

Somerset, of pot

members

to the

wert’ related been

of Somerset,

through

three

of

elite

CKIS The

so as not to

(1706)

only

members

one

gentr);:

sitting were

they

of the family

up the were

High

br

more

at Ron

(Anon.,

of

170X),

basis of the elite’s status in early-

dependent

so&I

or university:

created Sheriff

:IS Lord Wintcrstoke. on the reproduction

to justify their position.

:I f&y powerful

had

significant

had been

been

as

as count)

elected

were

in the last of the four books

network.

extended Henry and

Several

of its members A&n&Hood

f;lmily. A number Hobl~ousr

Balliol

of

Similarly important

families-the

and the Luttrell, Somemille

contemporaries

Clarks.

Fox serving

had opened

\vho

Wills had

not the primary

being

school

families-the

family

those

Sir William

er and rurality \\,hich sought

had been

in Gaskell

Clark

classes.

his ennoblement

that status

to each other through

Acland-Hood

of the

from commerce.

mercantile

of the country

and

was therefore

at bc,arding

as

the elite. The Wills family, furthermore,

~:IS included

the Frys, the Portmans

together

derived

of local government

LV:IS the fact that thca elite was also :I functioning dynast&,

purity

their backgrounds

of the

middle

of the trappings

Sir William

the

The

to the expansion

both William Clark and Charles

to have joined

finally ‘qualifying‘

Control

two

had sat in parliament

two

wealth

most successful

despite

and

in the north

baronets,

whilst

Fry, obscured

the institutionalization

many

of the countryside,

, and of 114 entries

of Somerset’s

still not considered

moral geography.

the nobility

“’

included.

magistrates,

whose

a particular An opposition

purity,li

of those

discourse

no members

and

rural

as Francis

activities.

and Wills-were

aldermen

of the town.

to protect

protected

as reflecting

and

College

more had

Sir Alexanclc~

before

sitting

on

opposing benches in parliament: whilst Arthur Fownes Somrn;illc-a county councillor-had been at Eton with the future -Judge Coppleatone,

magistrate mcl and at Trinity

College,

and the senior

gentry. Brook‘s,

Cambridge meanwhile, Arthur’s,

elite members local leadership, in fact located

with the Earl Waldegrave. were virtually all members Bachelor‘s

stressed

and the Carlton

their Somerset

many of the key spaces outside

the county.

The aristocratic of London

Club (Gaskell,

roots and activities in which

members

gentlemen’s

clubs-particularly

1906). In this way. whilst the in c,onstructing

the elite \vas formed

a discourse

and operated

of Lvere

Discourses ofpower and rurali&

462 Within

Somerset

the most

Hunting

performed

century.

First, it provided

for visiting

members

the

organic

1987: 65). In the presented landowner’s

key

dominant

closeness

place

for members

elite),

themes

and

culture

of the

such

that

the fox- or stag-hunt.

structure

elite’s

it was

social

hunting

participating

entertainment

a highly

construct

idea of the ‘natural

time,

of the early 20th

of the elite (and

secondly

of the

and the core

‘natural’,

was probably

in the rural power

national

community

as being

elite space

functions

a meeting

of the

activity-encapsulating stewardship,

important

two crucial

could

symbolic

of the

order’

(see

rural:

Newhy,

be uncontroversially

in the

hunt

demonstrated

a

to nature:

foxhunting is one of the most characteristic of our national sports, giving the maximum of pleasure and exercise to those who follow the hounds with the minimum of cruelty to the object of their pursuit, who very often, no doubt. has a good as reason to be satisfied with the result of a run as his pursuers. (Gaskell, lc)O6) Hunting

is hence

supported symbolically society.

expressed

organization economic cultural

capital

membership The social implicit devoted

to understand

entrenched

does

be complete

for the

actual

of the work of the harbourers,

‘great estates’-the

precise

is perhaps

in a description

revealed

nature

and buying

and rituals.

To the present

day, hunt

in the 19th and early 20th centuries activities.

The lengthy

a detailed

mention

within

and gentry;

of the Devon

of the men who ln the

employees

a supposedly

of the close of a successful

only

and Somerset

1911: 583-584).

and huntsmen-mostly

of class relations

is

section

Victoria COWZQJ History r!f‘Sonzmet

(Heinemann,

whips

equipment-and

(Cox et al., 1994: 194).

sought’

of hunt

of the

without

of rural and the both

horses

that ‘no history

hunting‘

hunting

restricted, Hunt

on the antics of the aristocracy

concede

that

all classes

were

accounts

hierarchy.

and prey and

masters

codes

volume

it embraced

social

in hunting

largely

Heinemann

would

responsible

account

in the second

1911) concentrates

argues

and to ride with the hunt required

for nor openly

of the contemporary

hunter

(19X7)

class was strictly

of keeping

the hunting

stratification

Staghounds been

or farmers,

be applied

10 pages

because

a very definite

cover the expense

to hunting

(Hcinemann,

embodied

by both

Newby

of the rural working

‘can neither

in many

enjoyed

way,

community’

from landowners

capital-to

force:

In this

the ‘organic

of hunting drawn

as a uniting

of society.

Yet the participation

exclusively

after

portrayed

by all parts

have brief on the

~classless’ sport

day’s hunting:

after a good stag had been killed the huntsman entered the master’s diningroom in full costume and soundecl a mort which was the signal for the company to @edge ‘Success to Staghunting’ in a bumper of port. Then he would again retire to his own place and rest himself after the labours of the day in company with one or two hvourites. at. (Heinemann,

Hunting

was

therefore,

whose

escape

from the kennel

had been

connived

1911: 584) despite

its protestations,

an elite

sport,

forming,

as Newby

(1987) observes, a rural equivalent to the London ‘season’. During the latter part of the 19th century, hunting guests at Dunster Castle, the seat of George Luttrell, had included the Lord Chancellor, the former Prime Minister, W. E. Gladstone and, in 1879, the Prince of Wales (Heinemann, 1911; Luttrell, 1925; Bonham-Carter, 1991). On a more routine basis, the hunt provided a meeting-place for a large number of the local social and political leaders, as a contemporary account illustrates:

463

MICHAEL WOODS

Sir William Karslake has for many a year been a member of the Hunt Committee, varying the toil of government at Somerset House with the welcome relaxation of a gallop over the heather and the grass; Lord Poltimore is to be seen at the Cuzzicombe Post meets, which lie nearest to his North Molton residence at Court Hall; Sir C. T. D. Acland. the owner of the field and of some very large slices of red deer land, is generally to be found at the first meets, and Mr. Luttrell has not far to come from Dunster Castle; while Viscount Ehrington, the owner of Exmoor proper, chairman of the Hunt Committee is sure to be present the member for West Somerset, Vice-Chamberlain and Treasury Whip, Sir Alexander Acland Hood. had travelled from Saint Audrirs; Mr. Basset, of Watermouth Castle, and former Master of thr Staghounds. is to be seen; and the Baroness Le Clement de Taintrgnies is dispensing hospitality to an admiring circle The master, Mr. R. A Sanders contebted the Eastern division of Bristol at the General Election of 1900. and considerably lowered the previous Liberal majority. In 1901 he became an alderman of the Somerset Count) Council. (Evered, 1902: 31-32).‘Mr Sanders’s

role as Master

major strengths

as he

of the Staghounds

pursued

a

~~f’Comrno~z.s (1907) expressed 1906 of the ‘popular

that seat in 1710.”

position

as a colmtry

Luttrcll.

who

compelled

surprise

master’,

winning

political

defeat

hunting

to become

to write a book

Claude

a banker

for others

seen

no doubt

of hunting

Luttrell,

as one of his

Guide to the Housr

in the lbidgwater

connections

Such was the importance that

widely

the Pull Mu11 Guzette

at the narrow

and Sanders’s

gentleman.

was forced

was indeed

career:

fourth

as the wealth

division aided

to maintaining

son

of George

of the gentry

in

him in one’s Founes

declined,

felt

in his predicament:

lLlyjustification for writing this book is the hope that it may encourage younger sons who are destined to earn their living at ,somc uncongenial bvork not to despair of getting a fair amount of hunting and shooting. (Luttrell. 1025: 11 I”’ Whilst

Luttrell‘s

references duties

account

to the ‘country

transformation they had byen

following

of decline,

Britain

changed

dismantled,

Parr-time

who more

carried

with out the

in the spirit of the

The social

basis of the landowners’

of favourahle

status

and

economic

continued power.

into

Initially

through

the uhe of their exclusi\,e

discourses.

I3y the 1720~. howe\ coiild

that 4uch strategies

no longer

er. be

in Somerset.

war. the English and power.

between

constituted

they deterritorialized.‘” country

activities

in the late 17th century

been so d:miagetl

up previously

(including

it is perhaps

of their influcncc,

the first world

ownership

landowners

sporting

1918-1974

in wealth,

opening

interests

the material

evolved

own

published.

that had begun

structure

community,

period

largest

hdcl

his

his acquaintances

in Lvhich it was

much

and 3 Ned power

In the years

amongst

and the dissemin:ltion

of landowners

of

their hunting.

weakening

able to retain

The agricultural

counties

the age

further

social nt,tworks 5ustaint.d

alongside

of thta countryside

the nev,’ century,

the position

than

memoirs

gentlemen‘

of local go\‘ernment

age it remembers

other

combines

a retreat

systems.

diverted

necessity,

were by the

life of the

their energies becoming

a

of Great

19871, as estates

from the political

who remained

from financial

entered

The sale of property

by many aristocrats often

and gentry

of the land surface

1922 (Newby.

political

Many of those

commerce),

gentlemen.

1918 and closed

aristocracy

A quarter

to

merely

464

Discourses ofpower and mraliQ:

As the last vestiges

of paternalism

in rural areas continued. new responsibilities codified

symbolized Through

1978).

and a continued the most

power-and

the lieutenancy. there

were

politics

lOal

simply

The

of farmers

in the

and the aldermanic of this class with the

anything

there emerged

like a majority

a new political

of the ‘shopocracy’

on the County

founded

farmers

farmer,

class,

(Elcock,

had been Union

in 1912, against county

in awe

of the

the

and

The

of large estates,

first motto,

gentry

(Hallam, from

by landowners.

by the break-up the I!nion’s

one of the

(NFU)

opposition

dominated

threatened

not Defiance”.

rather

Council

Farmers

conjures

in particular

up

of his

1971: 174). NFL7 was one of the largest branches

and as the gentry

to spot the opportunity

reduced

on the County

Council

John Joyce,

and secretary,

Gilbert

of Agriculture

Hope Simpson-an

its influence. Parker.”

Minister

The union

also claimed

1922. More significant NFL7 branch, at the novelty

by the Conservative

Party

including

the chair,

to have played

was the election

Somerset

a tenant farmer

mainly

by J.

that year of

as MP for Wells. As Halkim

felt sprang

a part

as MI’ for Taunton

of selecting

ofa typical

at the time, hut the trepidation

was quick

1912 and 1930, the proportion

Sir Arthur Griffin-Boscawcn

of the Taunton

the Wcll.s~/oz~rmcl remarked The adoption

Between

with 5124

the branch

had risen from 15 to 25 percent,

NFU member-in chair

in the country,

their role in local government,

for exerting

of farmers

discussion

elite to achieve

Instead

in the

‘“&fence

I3y 1923, the Somerset

Bruford,

been

tenant

comments,

of a tenant

in the defeat

members

of the National

organizations

was to represent

(Hallam,

branch

NFU had

agriculturrrl

picture

enough

from

elite

the most senior offices

Council

and in the small towns

of farmers

of the Somerset

and as Hallam

no longer

deference

prominent

to dominate

was

in 1935.

and businesspeople.

Somerset

established

continued

for the traditional

the representation

aims

Hall in Taunton

the chair of the County

or the district councils.

in the villages

Increasing

reports.

County

remained

1975) of shopkeepers

Robert

of the

networks

to

members;

confidence

their social

Council

landlord’

(Keith-Lucas Council

new

landowners

with declining

Act

various

the

base,

community,

on the County

the

and replacing

rural district and urban district councils

In Somerset,

resource

time to devote

intention

councils

their

However,

1971).

elected

In 1933 the Local Government

county

County

of local government:

original

and housing.

strengthening

of local government

state gave local government

of a purpose-built

county-albeit

composed

the welfare

by the opening

of the rural

bench.”

the institutionalization

towards

health

system,

with stronger,

Richards,

much

in education,

the local government

ad hoc boards and

crumbled,

The first moves

(1971)

farmer:”

caused

some

from a departure

the orthotiox rather than :I doubt of the character or suitability of the candidate. ( W~l/.s,/ozwnal, 24 November 1022. quoted by Hallam, 197 1: 51)

from

What

is perhaps

orchestrate branch

even

Bruford’s

as candidate

Association’

(Hallam,

more selection.

striking

is the

As Hallam

for the Wells Division, 1971: 51, emphasis

ease

with

records,

which

‘he was

and sz~hsquent(y added).

the adopted

NFIJ was by the

able

to

county

by the Wells Conservative

The Conservative

Party

had always

been identified with the landed interest, but during the 1920s the character of ‘agrarian Conservatism shifted significantly, with the increasing activity of small farmers in the party and the growing influence of the NFII over candiclate selection (Moore, 1991). The practice of ‘agrarian Conservatism’ helped the achieve

an

almost

hegemonic

dominance

of party

politics

and party policy Conservatives to in rural areas such as

Somerset as the Liberal Party declined: such that despite the increasing strength of political parties in the institutionalized state, the Conservative Party \vas able to stand

MN IME,.WC><>I >S

aloof

from

formally

contesting

elections

rural areas

elections

contesting

local

in the towns were

prevalent

the assertion

and

Labour

little success;

transition.

The traditional

discourses

of the century

of the First World War, of the extended steward

The

192Os, with

benevolent

were

franchise

no longer

squire

was

clouded

by the

sale

one hand

they drew

of the ‘back to the land’ movement

1990, 1994; Howkins,

strength

celebration

of agrarian

agriculture that included was eagerly

policy

power;

Councils

Association,

schemes,

with

removal tioned’

to celebrate

1939) devotes

a section

showing

the

and demolition

modernization,

These

threads

of buildings)

was established

the discourse

discourse

of power

claims

and

floreat civitas’-‘May

Similarly

the construction villages

Secondly,

and those

in ‘political

number

of local people and doctors)

Thirdly, solidarity,

rural society

as vicars,

the farmer‘s

‘apolitical’.

involved

As Matless

publicans,

being

to ‘Labore 1971).

strength-

both the cohesion contact

shopkeepers,

‘lord’. Large with a large postmasters/

beneficiaries.‘”

as a place (1994)

status

toil’ (Hallam,

the vanished

frequent

the urban/rural

Village:
an evolving

new

encouraged

the but

strengthened

their rural hinterlands

the obvious

the rural community

handed),

influenced the

the

given

not Defiance’

to replace

teachers,

1977a), were

Rural

Unlike

(perhaps

to agriculture

‘Defence

through

which

not only exaggerated

as being &moor

subtly

as servicing

for new figures

occupations’

(Grant,

by presenting the discourse

Luccombe,

(such

towns

in the

to be as heavy

given

the motif of ‘community‘

and the search

farmers mistresses

the State prosper

of market

the

‘recondi-

for social and

community.

leadership,

from

cottages

embodied

of power

unwise

to political

(involving

in 1922.

community

of the NFlJ’s motto

agricolae

ened the ‘shopocracy’.

have been

the

(County

modernization

A38 road

of the agricultural

First, the centrality

landowners

in the change

of ex-estate

ways.

councils

was a movement

a discourse

of the agricultural

in three

of farmers

recognized

it would

on

a centrality

strengthened

the Council’s

drama,

in Somerset

in a discourse

of the times

there

art and

the

This ‘modernization’

and of thatched

Equally

hand,

pressures

of rurality,

of county

of the

local On the

of rural England

it in effect

the jubilee

new

and the Rurdlists

economic

improvements.

to extolling

this was not also explicitly

instability

nonetheless

which

The

circulation.

On the other

to the

upgrading

education,

came together

discourse,

political

through

Council,

to react

Council-indeed

with tiled roofs and new windows.

Community

the

County

published

photographs

of hedgerows

cultural

earlier

a volume

able

to infrastructural

by Somerset

of as

called for the ‘preservation‘

to the heart of the construction

commitments

upheavals

in national

and ‘rural community’.

was

agriculture

adopted

Council’s

1991), which of ‘tradition‘

Consen/atism

by pushing

by discourses

and

The effects

of the landowner

of estates.

informed

on the ideas

of power

and of the constitutional

of a ‘natural order’; whilst the construct

of rurality were strongly

in an anti-urban

started

but in many

sustainable.

discourses (Matless,

Party

uncontested.

at the beginning

1910 precluded

in Somerset.

in the early

It was also a time of discursive rurality

elections

465

writes

of meaning

of stability. contrast,

tranquillity

of Turner’s resident

and

but also promoted (1947)

study

in Luccombe

of was

contrasted to what was regarded as the whims of fashion and politics, urban ephemera less enduring than the deeper reality of the country’ (Matless. 1994: 24). Indeed, as Turner himself

argues: of the questions

most centres

have

serious

business

no political

no interest

that are hotly debated whatever

for Luccomhe

of their own to attend

opinions

or discussions.

to. There (Turner.

in cities and big industrial people

are strictly

1047: X-31

as they speaking,

1

have

more

therefore,

466

Discourses of power and rurality

Yet what was construed as ‘apolitical’ in fact hid a deep conservatism, as is implicit in Turner’s account. The effect of a celebration of the ‘apolitical’ was popularly to discourage any left-wing activity as being against the spirit of the community, and as being an alien ‘urban’ influence. Thus when a group of newly enfranchised workers attempted to form a Labour Party branch in Milverton in 1918, they were first prevented from meeting in the Globe Inn as planned, and then banned from that establishment after meeting in the inn forecourt (Farley and Ekless, 1986). The discourse of the agricultural community therefore painted a gloss of stability over what was in effect an environment of social, economic and political change. Indeed the notion of ‘stability’ was being promoted by the organizations that were significant agents of restructuring: the NFU, the Conservative Party and increasingly the County Council. Furthermore, behind these organizations remained the traditional elite, whose members dominated the senior offices. The Rural Community Council for Somerset is a case in point, founded by Major M. F. Cely-Trevilian, a landowner and deputy lieutenant, at the request of the Marquess of Bath, the Lord Lieutenant, and supported by the vice-chair and future chair of the County Council and ‘several county councillors’ (Somerset Community Council, 1977).25 The traditional elite was joined in a loose consensus with the farmers and small businesspeople, who were not as explicitly presented as an elite, yet who might be considered as such, given their disproportionate influence, their use of social and professional networks mediated through the NFU, hunts and other organizations, and the contribution of the discourse to securing their position. Yet the discourse of the agricultural community was also riddled with contradictions: between ‘preservation’ and ‘modernization’, between the ‘apolitical community’ and the promotion of social and cultural change (see also Matless, 1990). These contradictions became increasingly apparent after the Second World War, as the processes of ‘modernization’ began to produce significant changes in both the social and the physical environment. The introduction of new technologies, plus the increased mobility and education of the rural population, contributed not only to the restructuring of agriculture-with consequences for the local labour market-but also to the greater integration of rural areas into global and national social and cultural systems, detracting from the notions of community and localism that had been promoted during the inter-war period. At the same time, the declining relative importance of agriculture to the local economy was manifested in the sale of agricultural land for housing, industry and recreational or service-sector purposes, introducing land uses that were regarded by some as alien and outside the established construct of rural space. This was reflected in the laments of local writers at ‘the pure, sweet life of Somerset’ being threatened by ‘recreational golf courses and businessmen’s efficiency colleges’ (Waugh, 1974: 89; see also Lawrence, 1951; Fox, 1978). Significantly agriculture was cast as a victim rather than a villain 26 blame instead being attributed to external agents-central government, the European Community and big business-effectively dismay at the uncodified traditional power structure being supplanted by institutional power. Indeed, the institutionalization of local government had been intensified by the expansion of the post-1945 ‘welfare state’, which bestowed new responsibilities on local authorities, particularly with regard to education and social housing, as well as creating new local bodies such as health authorities. However, despite the increased complexity of local government, councils in Somerset were still characterized by nonpartisanship and the spirit of amateurism. This is not to say that councillors were inexperienced or incapable of performing the duties they now had; landowners and farmers had been joined in the dominant elite by retired military officers,” business-

467

MICHAEL WOODS

people and professionals,

who often brought considerable

experience

of leadership

in

other fields to the council: We had a great mass of people, a lot of them were ex-military and you would expect them not really to be quite the right people, but in fact they were. They were tremendously conscientious and they were just concerned to sort out what they thought was best for Somerset. (Former county councillor?’ What the councillors

were, however, was undisciplined.

whips, council leaderships

were unable to determine

paid to council work by most rural backbench

Without any party groups or

voting patterns. The minimal time

councillors

power by officers and by a few active councillors;

enabled the accumulation

furthermore,

of

minority groups who

could organize themselves more coherently (and in particular the Labour Party) were also able to achieve an influence greater than their number would otherwise warrant: Those who had planned what their moves were going to be were able to drive a coach and horses through because the old village squires might be people who if they heard a good argument or a well presented argument they could be swayed by it, and so you got all these splendid squires bumbling up in their garters and wandering into the council chamber and voting all over the place. (Former county councillor) The debates over the reform of local government informed

by concerns

government structure,

about

and the needs territory,

accountability

of the modern

the professional

reform would present

in the 1960s and 1970s were strongly

between welfare

training

an ageing

structure

and councillors,

and Richards,

to consolidate

to introduce the position

of the weakening

democratic

1978). Less publicly

by both local and national Conservative

in itself a recognition

of local

state: issues about administrative

of officers

(Keith-Lucas

the opportunity

as a mechanism

elites-but

disparity

and representativeness

admitted was the realization councils

the

party-political

politicians

discipline

of the business

that

to rural

and agricultural

power of the established

discourses

of rural politics. From the end of the First World War until the I960s, prolonged period of relatively stable, consensual nature,

but effectively

dominated

a Conservative

by an expanded

had experienced

a

local politics, technically non-partisan

in

hegemony.

The

Somerset local

power

structure

was

elite headed by the remaining aristocratic landowners,

but

open also to farmers, military officers, businesspeople

and public service professionals-

sustained by discourses of apolitical community-based

leadership, amateurism and public

service, and promoting whilst attempting

discourses

to balance

however, both the increasing society and economy

of rurality which stressed the centrality of agriculture

elements complexity

of tradition and modernization.

By the 1960~,

of the local state and the restructuring of rural

had begun to undermine

the power of these discourses,

opening

the way for new political formulations.

Contesting

rurality and the fragmentation

The reorganization

of local government

structures in Somerset.

of the power structure,

in 1974 had a dramatic effect on local power

It marked a high-tide of institutionalization

creating strong, independent,

1974 onwards

of local government,

elected local authorities, with their responsibilities

and the

position of council officers clearly established. It was equally a spatial restructuring. Somerset County Council lost its northern area to Avon, whilst the boroughs, urban and

468

Discourses ojpower and rurality

rural district Deane

councils

covered

was now spatially urban

business

abolition many

were

leaders

the disruption

exercised

and

explicit

identification in

popularity

waned.

with

have become agriculture urbanization. or ‘service

a space

increasing

These

of national

economic

as

the

their

elites’

who’ve which

working

villages

lived

in villages

creates

stronger,

and

‘new middle the countryside

regarding

where

people

must stay and used

In many cases it’s the newcomers

work.

door-chocolate changes

box image,

anything.

People

who

are indigenous

they’ve

seen

new

roads

estates

being widened

because

the countryside

myself when

this looks nice, yes, I could it to change,

there,

because

might

have

The irony

when

to cease

anyone

houses

still who

we arrive in the village, a housing

estate

streetlamps,

you

a measure

go up and

and they’ve evolution

here 12 years-we we arrive

look for a house,

what you want.

up there, don’t

seen

of things.

as from the moment

you don’t want

want

a traffic

of urbanization,

from

‘oh

You don’t the

crossing

which

you

councillor) cases

people

who

neighbouring

farmer

wants

agricultural

building

for him to carry out his livelihood

who chose

to come

and live in the countryside.

animals

seen

have

got this nice little bit of the countryside, the

as

and no doubt

in-filling

as one, we’ve only been

is that in many

so they’ve

loudly

want

(District

of it really

conversions, scream

don’t

this all introduces

come.

seen

live here’, and that defines

you don’t want you

mind

villages

it to look roses-round-the

they’ve

and they’ve

in the village

we look around

widened,

to work

it like that and woe betide

to the village develop

I count

road

actually

regard

councillor)

development

want

They

and they take that as part of the natural

The incomers-and tend to want

time don’t

who want

they bought

(District

a long

and mud and things

like that. (District

to put

councillor)

bought

the barn

are the first to up

a genuine

And they are the ones

The countryside

of

counterclass’

to Farming, they were

regarded

in their village.

of

at a time of

sector,

direct or indirect,

for quite

employment

loss

the decline

of consumption:

something

now

that local discourses

has occurred

service

discourses,

Council,

Conservatives’

in particular

of the

occupations’

However,

has not meant

of rurality which

alternative

on the County

to the

mid-1980s

a more numerous,

discourse

but developed

were

and rural professionals

councils.

in Somerset,

either

groups

on the County

to contribute

the

significance

an attachment,

to the traditional

bench

farmers

district

politics

transformation

have produced

The people

of

party-politicized

Party

or in ‘political

of local government

trends

of production,

gentry

whilst

was

from

class’.“’ Without

not exposed space

Conservatives

and economic

and

elites. The

advantage

on party lines. The partisanship,

continued

on the new

The restructuring

became

strategy.

of the aldermanic

office,“”

government

importance

irrelevant.

social

the

allotted

establishment

for senior

local

Office

from the landed

influence

elected

Yet the increased renewed

the abolition

to be preferred

influence

such as the

with other

the electoral

in Somerset

Central places

of the landed

disproportionate

only Taunton establishment

power-bases,

or compete

removed

local government

many councillors

to retire. A few members and continued

additionally

and committee

of change,

encouraged

concentrated

to combine

to a Conservative

appointed

of which

area. The old county

occupations’.

however,

in response

forced

wards

in ‘political

Most significantly,

Council

were

single-parish

councillors

formed,

into five new districts,l’ identifiable

split, whilst elites with spatially

communities,

of most

‘overnight’,

amalgamated

any kind of commonly

does consist

of

as a as

MICHAFLWoor,s

460

These discourses of rurality (see also Halfacree, 1994; Cloke et al., 1995; Urry, 1995), counterpoised to the agrarian-centred discourses still held to by the traditional elite (even if individual elite members now have no direct involvement in agriculture), do not have a political agenda in themselves, but rather form the context in which discourses of power have been

contested.

The traditional

they will now take the stance construct

them

elite’s discourse

of denying

Instead

they talk about

‘public

to justify their position.

inclusive;

such

champion

a discourse

that the new

representative

of their social in Somerset

housing

or their

County

estate. Council’s over against

In Somerset, identified

were

in the

Mendips-always

the political

activity

to Thatcherite and Savage,

(Heath

nen’ middle

class

net\vorks

and. significantly. signs of them councils

during

the senior

of elected

the ne\v middle

has

bodies-NHS of‘ appointment

been

social events.

Compared

Certainly

favour

since

the

the exercise

particularl)

both the overlapping

ability.

of

of the public sector and other

Their

churches,

own

public

as

changes

privileged and social

pressure

to the lsndowningor

groups business

an elite, yet there are clear in the political

that the ne\v middle

local government

authorities.

public

result of Liberal activists

skills ha1.e been exploited.

clash do not yet qualify

that status.

class colonization

transferred

trusts. health

has become

local gcnernment

in \vorkplac~cs.

the 1980s and 1990s have meant

positions

Ho\h,e\q

towards

in

has been that since the midL19XOs the

and political

developed

the new middle

evoh?ng

class

and the opposition

in education.

in confidence

have been

Common hunters-or

;IS representing

it; but also it recognizes

capital and communication

Liberal Democrat

elites at their zenith.

middle

1995 ). The consequence

has gro\vn

of educational

and political

reforms

as Somerset

landowning

I’artly this is the chance

with Liberal philosophy

middlta classes

such

elite.

of the new

and targeting

by a local council. Customs

constructed

middle-

they felt that their

treated

against

on. instead

Thus many

conflicts’

on Over Stowey

in than

be ‘representative’:

because

unfairly

campaigners

more

is not called

of rurality.

by .rural

staghunting

of the traditional

of democracy

being

defined

the practice

services resources

still

‘using expertise’ i.4 exclusive

that local government into local politics

has been anti-hunt

an opportunity

the discourse

whose

and their construct

with the Liberal IIcmocrats,

recognizing

power

groups

to prohibit

quarrying

a contribution’, ‘expertise’

class,

that demands

were mobilized

middle-class

conflicts

‘making

middle

organizations,

attempt

199$-pitching

service’,

of ‘expertise’

the shift in power

opinion

such that

opponents

whatever succ~esses you have at the ballot box, term quite deliberately and loatledly, is there. it’s ‘this lot is only passing by, we‘re here‘, and (IXstrict councillor)

Yet the construction

of power

class c~ouncillors Meamvhile

has been diluted

AS such:

You become painfully au’3re that the Establishment. and I LIX that It‘s in evidence. it’s going on and they are really quite entrenched.

order

of power

that they are an elite, although

control

of

class now doniinatt

in Somerset.” of the Iocal state is only partial. Signific.ant

mid-1080s

to non-elected

training

and enterprise

of patronage

through

local

government

councils-whose

existing

social

systems

netn.orks

tsec

Kcarns. 1902; Peck. 1993: Marl-, 1995). With the poL\‘er of appointment bestowed b), central government on members of the traditional elite. thr new middle class has largel) been

excluded

landowners. lord lieutenant

from these The search

bodies,

which

for members

and deputy

lieutenants-the

the traditional power structure-whose lieutenant still chairs the appointment

instead

with suitable

are domin;lted ‘expertise‘

by businesspeople has revi\.ed

and

the role of the

one part of the local state still enmeshed

\\ith

advice is often consulted. [n addition, the Iord committee for magistrates, Lvho are in turn

470

Discourses of power and rurality

disproportionately interesting activists

drawn

observation identify

Hence

the

the lord lieutenant

the post-war

a fragmentation discourses

from

agricultural

and

that at the end of the century period

of the

communities.

as one of the most influential

has not seen so much power

business

as at the beginning,

structure,

a transfer

manifested

people

of power

in contests

It is an

local political in Somerset.33

between

elites, but

between

conflicting

of rurality.

Conclusion During the course of rural

of the 20th century,

England-has

moved

exclusive

landowning

contested

through

transformation previous

elite

conflicts

could

accounts

be

described

relation

marginalization

and the service

sector

of local power

of influence

by the traditional

of local

politics,

the considerable accounts

in individual

What this paper politic4

change

restructuring.

factors,

that

instrumental actual

have

Somerset

material

run

issues dominated.

however,

almost

Or thirdly,

since

the early

given empirical

of discursive

to them,

but create discursive

foundation. suggest.

to be appointed

In particular,

element

political

of power

are

than their

any property-owner

sheriff,

goes to a member

to local

to legitimate

discourses

of

from social

share of influence

For example. as high

Discourses

be divorced power

of local

and economic

formations.

an additional

elites to retain a greater

the post always

of social

of rurality--cannot

in the

yet it is a discursive

of the fdrming/landowning/

elite. it is apposite

to reassert

the claim

that the

continue

to represent

specific,

women.

by

is that an account

elitist. Legalistically local councillors and members

young

especially

the effects

fundamentally majority of

social

the loss

by incomer/long-term-resident

remains but the

specific

increasingly

by Somerset

Foucauldian

otherwise

eligible

realm

by discourses

established

that ensures

At this point Somerset pluralist,

the cultural

base would

upper-middle-class

system

activism

of

to the

to the ‘nationaliza-

national

not only with

through

little

is technically

convention

into

were

to have contributed

change,

by

importance

class. Alternatively,

experienced

to demonstrate,

as they respond

operating

in enabling

resource

county

motivated

has attempted

in Somerset

structures

relations

being

adopted the breakdown

villages.

but also with

and economic power

of population

are

I). This

as large estates

elites may be attributed where

(Table

and the growing

to the new middle

in contests

and

of rurality

frameworks perspective,

be shown

a party-politicized

must be concerned

power-informed

could

(Conservative)

politics

and farm labourers

as a major agent of political

of in-migrants

disputes

landowner

from farmers

in-migration

the

in much defined

and lifestyles

conceptual

of the small farmer,

elected

1980s could be considered

the

in Somerset

with

councillors

where

From a political-economy

between

transference

‘professional’

one,

in Somerset-as

by a culturally

conservation

through

of rural politics.

structure

dominated

to a fragmented

sold, the economic

tion’

a system

over development,

of the particularistic tourism

the local power

from

networks.

Large sections

for instance-are

small social

groups

structure

in

government may now of non-elected bodies

local

be in

and, moreover,

of the population-the

effectively

excluded

power

frequently

rural working

through

material

class and

disadvantage,

non-inclusion in patronage networks and non-compatibility with the ‘leadership qualities‘ required by discourses of power. Furthermore, whilst the elites attempt to control the circulation of discourses, alternative discourses of rurality-those of travellers. implicitly

children and or explicitly..”

ethnic

minorities-are

excluded

from

the

political

arena,

lHH8-1018

1X8X County

re-

State

Act

1980s Shift of pou erb to non-elected bodies

1945 Welfxe

1933 Local Govt

Formal, institlttionaliz:lecl Iocal government: party politicked: growth of non-elected bodies; very strong central government

persisted

1Y-t Local govt organisation

Paternalism in areah

Early stages of institutionalization

Increasing mstitutionalization. confirmed by 1933 Act. More responsibilities aftet1945. Shift of pc,\ver to officers and central state.

councils

councils

of local

politics

‘gentq

class

leaders

New middle

Business

Farmers

Lando\vners militaq

People in ‘political occupations‘

,Shopocracy‘

Farmers

I.ando\~ners/Rentry/ military

The transformatlc,n

1918 End of First World War

1894 Parish created

created

7‘1151F 1,

during

be

‘representative’

shoulcl

Contested: (i) ‘public .senictt‘ using expertise: (ii 1 government

Community leadership: amateurkin; ‘public service’: ‘apolitical‘ rural community

Contested: (i) the rural as a apace of production: (ii) the rural as a space of consumption

Centrality of agriculture; contradictory elements of modernization and tradition

Traditional; landed estates: stewardship

the 20th centur).

‘Natural order‘: benevolent quirearchy with ‘duties‘ for ‘country gentlemen‘

in Somerset

to

Non-

Shift from Conservative dominance in 1970s Liberal Democrat dominance in 1990s

Conservative in national politics. partisan in local government

Conservative/Unionist and Liberal in national politics. More ccxxensus in local governance

vY ‘2

2

5 $

472

Discourses of power and rurality

As elites become policy objectives as described people.

identified

with a discourse

of rurality,

of the elite. In this manner,

in this paper

Although

can be argued

one must recognize

that the majority

during

initiative

of local elites,“5 there has historically positively

of progressive

social policies

rise of the ‘agricultural national

movement,

towards

interests.

central government specific

use of referendums. prohibit

policy

how

its discourse

the beginning power’

rested

largely

closed

between

a shift from personal bandowning

authority

was minimal.

able to tighten governmental

its control power

authority

tion of local governance

has

and the

the promotion

of

Forum and the attempt

to broaden

being constructed

the scope

to

of reasonable

as outside

by a pro-agricultural

discourse

the remit of rurality

elite spaces.

of members

to institutional

and thus much

of the elite, exercised

authority

at local level, though the impact

the means

by which

also laid the foundations

as long as the

the central

social/political),

the

marked

on the local

after 1970. 13~ separating

(and formal/informal,

At

‘local

within

of local government

machinery.

create

much of this history.

developed

The empowerment

over local governance

relations

of petitions

has informed

in

class has

local government

of hunting

the local state

It did. however.

in

Even despite

in Taunton.

and local states underlies

of rural villages.

elite controlled

politics

blocks

Environmental

the local state was poorly

on the personal societies

and

policy

education

combined

significant

the central

of the century

to ‘non-partisan’

times, the presentation

elites, informed

hunt meets remain

The relationship

of roads

bias in council

in the 199Os, the new middle

of rurality

the

part of a

This latter policy, ruled illegal by the High Court,

have

by traditional

In contrast,

of comprehensive

of ‘representative’

of the Somerset

by the local state, the practice

and for whom

of high-rise

with question

the discourses

projects).

and a general

the adherence

Its discourse

meetings,

that the

in the absence

into the modernization

activities’

on local government

objectives.

on the Quantocks.“’

of local government

power

state was

personal

and

the institutionaliza-

for the fragmentation

of the local rural

structure.

The writing regulationist

of Jessop school

the

practices by which society tion results in an ‘historic political

by local elites

to the construction

Similarly,

staghunting

intervention

power

not the

it can be argued

was manifested

water supply

in the early introduction

the establishment

also indicates

structure

state legislation,

after the First World War, whilst

More peculiarly,

constraints policy

open council

conservation,

discourse

of ‘community

1960s resulted

and resistance

produced

on the lives of local

for local elites to adapt

Thus in Somerset

(such as metropolitan

community’ was converted

agricultural

the 1950s and

realized

space

elite at the start of the century

the encouragement

Somerset

been

the

structure

in local state policy and

the result of central

or negatively.

of the landowning

buildings,

of changes

power

interests.

This may occur dominance

have been

influences

to the Somerset

to have had a real effect

activities

to their own

the 20th century

so that discourse

the changes

ideologicrll

(1990)

is instructive

concept

here.

of ‘societalization’,

is structured, regulated bloc’ of correspondence

superstructures

of social

alliance

of class forces.37 Cloke and Goodwin

provide

a useful

tool in examining

Jessop

borrows

or the

from

the German

institutionally

mediated

and reproduced. Successful societalizabetween the economic base and the formation,

and

a ‘hegemonic

(1992) argue that regulationist

rural restructuring,

equating

the historic

bloc‘

or

approaches feudal

and

quasi-feudal systems with a historic bloc in which the landowning elite led a hegemonic bloc that dominated rural society through an ensemble of political, economic, social and CUkUrdl power. Within this formulation, the importance of discursive power becomes evident. The elites’ construction

and transmission

of discourses

of rurality

and leadership

contributed

473

MICHAEL Woons

to the cultural setting

the

strength

regulation

of rural society,

parameters

of discourses

within

which

controlling the

of the state and of capitalism

bloc’ in rural England

has remained

the signification

political

fundamentally

process

of rural society

could

in Britain has ensured unchanged,

and

be conducted.

The

that the ‘historic

whilst

discursive

contest

has contributed to a realigning of local ‘hegemonic blocs’ during the century. Thus at the close of the 20th century, in Somerset-as in many rural English counties-there is no longer

a dominant

economic

a pervasive

discourse

concentrate

social,

characterized informed

economic

by a number

by competing

In order statistical

activity or dominant

of power

and political of elites the

organizational

structures

the ability of a dominant

cultural

has been eroded.

power

have attempted

power.

and similarly

to a hegemonic

Rather

proto-elites

restructuring

way in which

we must consider

and

localist culture, linked

the local power

with

partial

no longer

elite which

political

can

structure power

is and

discourses.

to understand change,

or of rurality

in particular to secure

of rural signifiers

domination

into discourses

As reference

has become

politics

elite to combine

we

position, dispersed,

need

power

political,

to the concept

the role of the discursive

their political

production

of rural

and resource-derived

to go beyond and analyze

economic,

of ‘societalization’ formulations

but which

as control

have transformed

the

social

and

highlights,

with which

elites

over the cultural from discourses

of

for debate.

Acknowledgements This paper is based on research conducted for a PhD on local politics in rural areas undertaken at the University of Bristol and funded by the ESRC. I am grateful to Paul Cloke, Peter Taylor and three anonymous referees for their comments on earlier drafts; all opinions, interpretations and mistakes in this paper are, however, purely my own.

Notes For example, in 1945 the chairs of English county councils included 10 peers, 5 baronets and 14 knights. In 1991, Sir Stephen Hammick Bt, in Dorset, was the only titled council chair (see Wbitakeh Almanack, 1946 and 1992 editions). In doing so I believe that I am reflecting a wider concern within political geography for a greater understanding of the intersection between ‘the cultural’ and ‘the political’ (MacPhaiI and Painter, 1993; Duncan, 1995; Painter, 1995). This is not simply a reassertion of ‘cultural politics’ nor of ‘political cultures’, but a more fundamental problematization of ‘the political’, ‘the cultural’ and the relation between them. As MacPhail and Painter (1993) argue, we must understand ‘the cultural’ as referring to the mobilization of meaning, and ‘the political’ as a continuum stretching from the individual-personal to the state-bureaucratic. If this is done then all political institutions and activities are revealed as cultural phenomena. Alternative theories have placed more power with the public (Dahl, 1961) or interest groups (Rachrach and Baratz, 1970), exercised through elections and popular protest; with local state managers (see Buchanan, 1982; Saunders, 19831, or with small ‘policy communities’ for specific issue-areas (Laffin, 1986; Rhodes, 1986). The decline of paternalistic government during this period has been well documented for other parts of the country by Howkins (19911, Jaggard (1992), Lee (1963), Moylan (19781, Newhy ef al. (1978) and Olney (1979). Those from commercial and professional backgrounds included two medical doctors, two auctioneers, a builder, a wine merchant, an insurance broker and a carriage manufacturer. The council also included three clergymen and one councillor who is listed only as a local secretary of the Liberal Party. There is insufficient information given for 12 counciIIors to attribute an

Discourses ofpower and rurali(y

474 occupation.

Kelly’s Directoy, for Somerset, 1906.) This contrasts

(Source:

Council,

on which

commercial

and professional

members

formed

with

the majority

Kent

County

by 1901 (Moykm,

1978). 6. These

included

amongst

Sir Alexander

the largest

Acland-Hood

landowners

and

in the county.

Henry

Hobhouse,

whose

The two non-kurdowner

families

MPs were

were

a banker

and

CKelJy’s Director?, for Somerset, 1906).

a solicitor

7. Sir Edward Viscount

Fry. Lord Hylton,

8. The masculinist

language

9. The reference provoking

the Earl Waldegrave

and the Hon.

Edward

Portman,

brother

of

CKel!y!l/:s Direct0 y,for Somerset, 1906).

Portman

of the prose

to Thomas

a mental

Hardy

reflects

would

identification

the gender-bias

have been

of Gaskell’s

easily

of the ‘country

recognized

comments

gentleman’

ideal.

by contemporary

with the romantic

readers,

ruralism

of Hardy’s

novels 10. The explicit

manner

Girouard

(19811,

Camelot

(Cadbury

in which

has

Castle)

and

construction

of place which

This localist

discourse

pageant

in fand

nationalization The

to this discourse

nationalization.

However,

tradition’

moderate

land

of the party

Strdchey

was

MP for South

abolition

of land taxes

Liberal

make

12. The differential engrained

about

14. Sir Thomas Cornwall,

Dyke

15. This impulse

was

alderman both

Meade,

wholesale connections 17. Phillip

19. Claude second

such

members

refers

opposed

of Arthur.

as the Taunton

Liberal

of the elite could

Party

to the

was at that time

campaign

by the aristocratic

government

Later to lead

1976). Perhaps however,

of the

were

also

as Sir Edward a campaign

the most significant

is that none

for kind wing

of 1906-10

that Lord Strachie-who

and the gentry

for the

observation

of the volumes

meant

on Somersetshire

of Somerset

a deputy

the earlier

Council

lieutenant

presenting

the Marquess

order’

was

their subjects

of Bath.

and MP for East Somerset.

and

magistrate

for Somerset,

Devon

and

and MP for East Corm&f.

Tory antipathy

(Hawkins,

councilfor,

that the ‘natural

leaders

with the Lord Lieutenant,

for Devon

and cheese

media,

magistrate,

manufacturer

to ‘improvement’

(Everett,

1994) and the

1991). coroner

and who

and Portreeve

of Langport,

as such possibly

who

was a

had sufficient

agricultural

and chairman

of Somerset

to tie him to the elite.

Evered

18. R. A. Sanders County

a county

grocer

(1989)

in 1906-was

of the County

later ‘back to the land’ movement 16. Francis

Somerset

of the aristocracy beginning

evokes

cultural

that the Liberal

it is revealing

the elite, the volumes

Acland

to a localist

to the issue.

was chairman

a county

of the

the land question,

of precedence, Hobhouse

and

reference

hierarchy

even within

in order 13. Henry

Vogel

in the 1920s (Douglas,

any direct

contributed

by

of both

elite with the knights

the Liberal

given

in Liberalism,

reforms

by sections

that can be made

whether

to adhere

as a ‘deviant more

popular

highlighted

The claiming

for the county

the contemporary

through

legend,

gentry.

1928).

opposed

leaders

aligned

for Political Ge0graph.y questioned

interested

on Arthurian

for the Somerset

(Glastonbury)

hdOn

implicitly

was reproduced

be considered

party.

ethic’ drew

resonance

of 1928 (Cely-Trevihan,

11. A referee really

the ‘gentlemanly

a particular

was himself

a county

was MP for Bridgwater,

Council,

1937-40.

alderman. 1910-23,

He was created

Luttrell himself

served

brother,

was MP for Tavistock.

Hugh,

20. By ‘deterritorialized’

in certain

on their main

seat.

21. Of the 25 aldermen

as a magistrate,

I am referring

their interests

Bayford

and Lord Strachie, engineer

county

councillors,

(Sir William 17 were

eldest brother

the largest estates

in 1935, ten were five held military

and sister. His

landowners

relinquished

in order

to concentrate (including

three

titles. Two had peerages

fandowners

(Lord

MPs), and four had knighthoods-although

their honour Meade-King)

fandowners,

his father,

by which

Council

and a further

both former

in 1929.

the sale of peripheral

County

family)

that three of these had achieved Grey),

through

of Somerset

of the Hobhouse

alongside

to the practice

counties

members

MP for Wells, 1924-29

Lord Bayford

for commercial and

12 were

activities,

civil sewant small farmers

it is notable

as a solicitor

(Sir Matthew

Nathan).

(Sir George Of the 74

and at least 15 had commercial

MKHAFI. WOOI)> backgrounds,

including

occupation 22. Farmers

also increased

aldermanic

bench.

23. Bruford 24. Thr

candidates professional

political

contacts.

increasing broad

of RDCs which

from

‘agricultural’

25. Major

as president

by Colonel

of Rely-TreviIian’s

Marshal

Frith. Admiral

George

32. South

Somerset

they have

helped

man)

geography

of their

who

and

the

Marquess

in 1932 by Captain

a

of Bath.

Douglas

Wills.

in 1946. He was in turn succeeded

lord lieutenant

in 1970. Several

in the council,

and

for the Taunton

been

members

his son and grandson

Pageant

of 1928, a central

3 members

of those

survey;

of the rural

(1994). Savory,

from interviews

Brigadier

Eric

Sir Michael

have

with the author.

and Yeovil (later renamed

in 1980 included

South Somerset).

the leader,

Gass,

a former

Penny

acting

Phillips,

governor

of

H. Leonard-Williams.

been

employees

has

been

since

much

signifier.

debated

of intervention

significant: notably

et ul.,

(see Cloke

In terms

particularly

of the utilities,

District Council,

of Somerset

County

of rurality

local

British

in

authority

Telecom

and

move

the introduction

of social

arguments

by

bloc

since

now

being

employed

in overall group.

gentry’,

4 more

and

The public

In

the largest

‘landed

9 in education

1987,

1993.

no party

haS

and Taunton

since since

1991. In 1995 the

remain

in 1995 were

Somerset

10 elsewhere

sector Deane,

was

also the

with only

in agriculture.

2. 5

(Sources.

local press.)

was explicit which

36. One

of the Quantock

South

Council

which

not known.

Council:

35. For example,

used

were

Council

independents

Council

Democrats

County

survey.

Residents

people

Council, where

respectively

in Taunton

camps such

4

to Mendip, County

District

11 in commerce,

of

councils

by the Liberal Somerset

on Mendip

District

Somerset

discourse

controlled 1991 and

party

to a questionnaire

in the 1995 local elections

‘historic

are taken

and

in agriculture.

of councillors

when

Sir Reginald

here as an imperfect

The occupations

provider

New Age Travellers

Lt General

this ‘new‘ class has been

and

as the enemy

R. D. Austin.

Council

of Sedgemoor

employed

sector.

34. An exclusionary

is portrayed

1980): see also Matless

West Somerset

the largest

West Somerset

on responses

Slessor,

councillors

Council

or had been

in the public

agriculture

(Mabey,

groups

Council

were

37. The terms

the then involved

Waley-Cohen

teachers,

2 of the 57 members

enjoyment

clearly

the

Station.

Only

of the

Council

president

and Brigadier

two

lost control

as does

experiences

became

was Air Vice Marshall

Borough

Conservatives

questionnaire

Community

where

and naming

District

addition,

33. Based

who

class’ is used

especially

Deane

and

wards

matched

as chair on his death

was also responsible

in Somerset,

Taunton

largest

of the

Deane,

Michael

Point Power

control,

area

1975).

on the County

of defining

politics

Hinkley

of single-village ward

formed

and county

1995), and ‘new middle employees,

1960

on KI>Cs.

arguments

The chairman

31. The problem local

(RDCs)

1920 and

to be over-represented

also been

Tweedie

landowners

Kong.

have

Taunton

Wyndham,

Hong

between

and professionals

of the RAF, Sir John

Sir Hugh

Sedgemoor,

30. Significant

secretaries

and the

councils

tended

1955) and of nature

from district

29. Mendip,

the magistracy

the rural district

traders

C. T. Mitford-Slade,

to other

(Hoskins,

28. All quotes

including

was ‘continuity’.

26. This is in contrast 27. Including

The

and village-based

councillor.

family

owner.

Somerset, 1935.)

that small parishes

chair

Cely-Trevilian

motif of which landscape

as the

was succeeded

and county

patrons.

occupations

became

Cely-Trevilian

a quarry

to sit at Westminster.

composed

of farmers

a landowner

remain

farmers

bloc (see Stanyer.

Cely-Trevilian

president.

bodies,

dominated

of NFL’ branch

were

It also meant

the influence

and

councils.

was one of the first tenant

geography

farmers

that a number

agent

Kel&:s Directovjbr

on other

(1971) notes,

to rural district

a miners’

(Sourer:

their representation

significant

also clerks

2 builders,

is not known.

As Hallam

and it is perhaps were

4 solicitors,

of 23 councillors

475

in both

election

‘You can save the Deane rural and town

areas

leaflet

distributed

from plans to build

have already

had nasty

into a locality.’ housing

anti-hunt

Hills by other

and ‘hegemonic

in a Conservative

stated:

and secondary

campaigners

was

education. that

the

hunts

consumers. bloc’ are adopted

from Gramsci

(1971).

disrupted

the

476

Discourses

of power and rurality

References ANON.(1908) Somersetshire und Some Neighhoming Kecordv Historicul, Riographicul and Pictoral. London: Allan North. BA(.IIRA(.I 1,P. ANDBARATZ, M. (1970) Power and Poverty: Theoy and Pructice. New York: Oxford IJniversity Press. BIR~I, A. H. (1959) Small Town Politics. London: Oxford University Press. BXKFII, J. V. (1986) 7k Aristocracy in England 166G1924. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. BI.II&IXY,J. AND CIIHRY,N. (1985) The Cbanginl: Countyside. London: Christopher Helm and The Open [Jniversity. BONHAM-CARTER, V. (1991) i%e Essence of &moor: The Stay of Exmoor since the Second World Wur. Dulvenon: Exmoor Press. BO~TOMORE, T. (1993) Elites and Society. London: Routledge. B~~R~IIXI,P. (1984) Dislinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (translated by R. Nice). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. BUCHANAN, S. (1982) Power and planning in rural areas: preparation of the Suffolk County Structure Plan. In Power, Plunning and People in Rural Eust Anglia (M. Moseley ed.). Norwich: Centre for EdSt Angktn Studies, University of East Anglia. CELY-TRBVILIAN, M. F. (1928) Defundumus. A Pugeant of Taunton. Taunton: Goodman & Son. CI.EM~N.TS, R. V. (1969) Local Notuhles and the City Council. London: Macmillan. CI.OKF, 1’. (1990) Community development and political leadership in rural Britain. Sociologiu Rurulis 25, 305-322. CLOKIZ,P. (1994) (En)culturing political economy: a life in the day of a ‘rural geographer’. In Writing the Rurul(P. Cloke, M. Doel, D. Matless, M. Phillips and N. Thrift), pp. 149-190. London: Paul Chapman. Cloke, P. and Goodwin, M. (1992) Conceptualizing countryside change: from post-Ford&m to iXXal structural coherence. Trunsactions, Institute of British Geographers (NS) 17(3), 321-336. CL.OKF., P. ANI>LI.ITI.~,J. (1990) The Rural State? Limits to Plunning in Rural Society Oxford: Oxford University Press. CI.OK~,P., PHII.I.IPS, M. ANDTwwr, N. (1995) The new middle class and the socrdl construct of rural living. In New Theories of the Middle Class (T. Butler and M. Savage eds), pp. 220-23X. London: (JCL Press. COIIN~VC~XIN~ISASS~XXA’IX>N (1939) The Jubilee of County Councils, Purt 2: The Coun[y Council of Somerset. London: Evans Bras. Cox, G., HALI.FTT, J. ANL~ WIN.I.FR,M. (1994) Hunting the wild red deer: the social organization and ritual of a ‘rural’ institution. Sociologiu Rurulis 34(2-31, 190-205. DAIIL,R. (1961) whoGoverns? Democracy und Power in u~ Americun Cir?/. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. DOII<;LA\,R. (1976) Lund, PeopleandPolitics. A Histoory oftbeLand Questio?z in the United Kingdom, 1878-1952. London: Allison and Bushy. DUNCAN,N. (1995) The aestheticization of politics in cultural geography. Paper presented to the conference of the kssociation of American Geographers, 14-18 March, Chicago, IL. DYER,M C. (1978) ‘Leadership in a rural Scottish county. In Political Leudersbip in Local Authorities (C. W. Jones and A. Norton eds), pp. 30-50. Birmingham: Inlogov. EI~OCK, H. (1975) English local government reformed: the politics of Humberside. Public Administration 53, 159-166. ETZIONI-HALE~Y, E. (1993) The Elite Connection. Cambridge: Polity. Ewwn, P. (1902) Stugbunting with Ibe Devon and Somerset. London: Chatto & Windus and Exeter: James G. Commin. EV~KEII,N. (1994) The Toy View of Lanukupe. New Haven, CT and London: Yale IJniversity Press. FAHI.I:Y, F. E. ANI)EKLFSS,D. F. (1986) A History of Milverton. Milverton: The Milverton and Fitzhead Society. FISI~EH, W. G. (1962) The History of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Somerset. Bath: The Provincial Grand Lodge of Somerset. FOIICAIIIII,M (1980) Pouvx/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writiqs 1972-1977 (edited by Colin Gordan). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatshraf Fox, G. (1978) A County Dial. Wellington: G. Fox. GASK~I.I., E. (1906) Somemetsbive Leaden. Social and Political. London: Queenhithe Printing and Pubhshing. GIROI~ARI~, M. (1978) LtJk in the English County House: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. GIROIIARL~, M. (1981) The Return to Camelot Cbwulv and the English Genrleman. New Haven, CT and London: Yak IJniversity Press.

MICHAELWoona Goorwu, 77-95

M. (1992) The changing loc;tl state. In Poliq

and

177

Chax~s

in

Thatcher:s

Britaitz

0’.

Cloke ed.). pp.

Oxford: l~ergamon.

GHAM’IU, A. (1971) Selections

from

the

Priso?z

Notebooks

of Autodo

Gmmsci

(edited by Quinton Hour

and

Geoffrey Nowell Smith). London: Lawrence and Wishart GKAN.I;W. (1977a)

hdepndent Local

Politics

in Ettglad

ad

Wales.

Fdrnhorough: Saxon House.

GKAN.I;W (1977h) The role perceptions of rural councillor~. Coventry: Ilniversity of Warwick, Department of I’oiitlc‘s, Working Paper 12