Post on 26-May-2022
CriticalCommentary
The Student Journalof Newman University College
Volume 3 Number 1 - Summer 2010
Critical C
omm
entary | The S
tudent Journal of New
man U
niversity College Volum
e 2 Num
ber 1 - Spring 2009
ISSN 1757-7829
Contents
Editorial 2
FedericaCarusoTheMakingofMethod:DevelopinganEthnographyofaChildren’sCentre 5
JonathanAthertonThePriestleyRiotsandthe18thCenturyRiotinHistory 26
Dr.GeorgWalserAcomparisonbetweentheMasoretictextandtheSeptuagintof
Jer.31.31–34(LXX38:31–34) 44
PeterRobertAustinBurgessHeartrateandHeartRateVariabilityResponsestoCompetition
UnderEgoorTask-Orientation 60
PeterCollinsTheInfluenceoftheBuiltEnvironmentonChildren’sPhysicalActivity 71
RichardFiskNegotiatingthe‘Natural’World:PostcolonialRepresentationsofthe
WildLandscapesofIndiainGlobalLiterature 106
2 3
Critical Commentary
The Student Journal of Newman University College
NewmanUniversityCollege
Volume3Number1(Summer2010)
EDITORIAL BOARD
ProfessorStanTucker,EditorClaireSmith,AssistantEditorJonathanAtherton,PhDStudentRepresentativeDrSusanDocherty,TheologyDrLornaDodd,PsychologyPaulineGrace,YouthWorkDr.JulianMcDougall,CreativeArtsProfessorYahyaAl-Nakeeb,DirectorofResearchJohnPerkins,I.T.andManagementDr.NoellePlack,HistoryDr.JenniRamone,EnglishDr.PersephoneSextou,DramaDr.DaveTrotman,EducationandProfessionalStudiesDr.LorayneWoodfield,PhysicalEducationandSportScience
GUIDELINES FOR POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTORS
Critical Commentary welcomes articles from undergraduate and postgraduate students whichdiscusstopicsofimportanceandinterestfromallsubjectareasoftheUniversityCollege.Articlesmaybewrittenfromavarietyofacademicandprofessionalperspectivesandshouldbeinformedbytheoryandresearch.
Articles accepted for publication should not exceed 7,000 words including references. CriticalCommentarywillholdthecopyrightofthearticleifitissubsequentlypublished.Articlesshouldnothavebeensenttoanotherjournalforconsideration.Twocopiesofthearticleshouldbesentto:Professor Stan TuckerEditor, Critical Commentary: The Student Journal of Newman University College
Newman University College, Genners Lane, Bartley Green, Birmingham, B32 3NTPhone: 01214761181ext:2296Fax: 01214761196Email: s.a.tucker@newman.ac.uk
Manuscripts that do not conform to the requirements listed below will not be considered for publication.
• Articlescanonlybeconsiderediftwocompletecopiesofeachmanuscriptaresubmitted. Afteranarticlehasbeenacceptedanelectroniccopywillberequested.
• The articles should be typed (font size 12 Tahoma) on one side of the paper, doubleline-spaced,withamplemargins,andbearthetitleofthecontribution,name(s)oftheauthor(s),the full postal address of the author who will check proofs and receive correspondence.Offprintsshouldalsobeincluded.
• Allpagesshouldbenumbered.
• Footnotesandheaderstothetextshouldbeavoided.
•Eacharticleshouldbeaccompaniedbyanabstractofnomore than200words together withthreetofivekeywords.Theabstractshouldbesubmittedonaseparatesheettothe maintext.
•Tables and figures must be reproduced on separate sheets and not included as part of thetext.
• Tables should be numbered by Roman numerals, and Figures by Arabic numerals. Theapproximatepositionoftablesandfiguresshouldbeindicatedinthemanuscript.
•Referencesshouldbeindicatedinthetypescriptbygivingtheauthor’ssurname(without initials),withtheyearofpublicationinparenthesis.
•Whenreferencingdirectquotations,pleaseusethefollowingformat,(Brookes,1998:3)this wouldindicatethattheSurnameisBrookes,theYearwas1998,andthepagenumberis3. Singlecitationmarksmustalsobeusedaroundthequotation.
•Ifseveralbooks/papersbythesameauthorandfromthesameyeararecited,a,b,c,etc. shouldbeputaftertheyearofpublication.
•Thereferencesshouldbelistedinalphabeticalorderattheendofthepaperinthefollowing standardform:
For books: Ball, S. (1990) Politics and Policy Making in Education. London: Routledge andKeganPaul.Forarticles:Johnson,R. (1989) ‘ThatcherismandEnglisheducation:breaking themouldorconfirmingthepattern?’History of Education,18(2),pp3-34.
Titlesofjournalsshouldnotbeabbreviated.
Editorial Editorial
4 5
Forchapterswithinbooks:Ranson,S.(1990)‘From1944to1988:education,citizenshipanddemocracy.’InM.FludeandM.Hammer(eds)The Education Reform Act 1988: Its Origins and Implications.Basingstoke:Falmer.
• Proofs will be sent to the author(s) and should be corrected and returned to theAssistantEditor:ClaireSmith(ext:2466ore-mail:claire.smith@newman.ac.uk)within14days.Majoralterationstothetextcannotbeaccepted.
• APDFoffprintissuppliedfreeonpublication.
POSTGRADUATE EDITION -EDITORIAL
ThiseditionofCriticalCommentaryisalandmarkedition.Itbringstogetherarangeofcontributionsfrom the full-time PhD student group at Newman University College. As might be expectedthearticlescoverarangeofacademicdisciplines. Iamsureyouwillfindtheminterestingandintellectuallychallenging.Theycapture,inaverysuccinctway,thehighqualityresearchworkthatiscurrentlybeinggenerated.Theyshouldofcoursebereadas‘workinprogress’.Itisanticipatedthataseriesoffollowuparticleswillbepublishedatalaterdate.Asourpostgraduatecommunitygrows and matures we can expect to see a significant contribution being made to academicknowledgeandunderstanding.
ThefirstarticlefromFedericaCarusotakesusintowhatisarelativelynewareaofacademicstudy.It reflects theconsiderablechange thathasbeenexperienced in theorganisationanddeliveryofservices forchildrenand their families.The focusof thesecondarticle,writtenbyJonathonAtherton,examinesthePriestlyRiotsthatoccurredintheeighteenthcentury.Adetailedsummaryofresearchworkprovidesthereaderwithafascinatingoverviewof‘populardisturbances’duringthatperiod.GeorgWalser is theauthorof the thirdof thecontributions.Heprovidesuswithadetailedcomparisonoftwokeybiblicaltextsandposessomeinterestingquestionsaroundtheirageandoriginality.Thenextcontribution fromPeterBurgess isconcerned toexplorepsycho-physiologicalresponsestocompetition.Differencesinthestressandanxietylevelsengenderedareexaminedfrombothindividualandteamperspectives.Inthepenultimatecontribution,PeterCollinsexplores therelationshipbetweenthebuiltenvironmentandchildren’s levelofphysicalactivity.Considerationisgiventotheneedtoencouragechildrentoactivelycommutebetweenhome and school and the importance of using open spaces such as parks for recreationalpurposes.InthefinalcontributionRichardFisklooksatpostcolonialrepresentationsofthewildlandscapes of India in global literature. Through the discussion he points to the need to givecareful consideration to a variety of literary representations that can help us to examine ‘theproblemandpossibilitiesofecocriticism’.
IamduetoretirefromNewmanlaterthisyear.Ihaveenjoyededitingthisfledglingjournal.Ithascomea longway inashortspaceof time. IwishtothankClaireSmiththeAssistantEditor,allmembersoftheEditorialBoardandCarolMillingtonfortheirhelpsupportandguidance.IwishCriticalCommentarywellforthefuture.
Professor Stan TuckerEditorNewmanUniversityCollegeJune2010
The Making of Method: Developing an Ethnography of a Children’s Centre
FedericaCaruso
ABSTRACT
In this article, I discuss the main theoretical and methodological aspects of aninvestigation into inter-professional collaboration in an urban children’s centre incentralEngland.Thearticleexaminesthepolicycontextinwhichthereconfigurationofchildcareserviceshasbeenundertaken inEnglandandoffersanoverviewofthemaintheoreticalapproachestointer-professionalwork,withaspecificreferenceto two perspectives that have come to dominate the discourse of professionalcollaboration:CommunitiesofPracticeandActivityTheory.Ithensetoutatheoreticalrationale for the development of an ethnographic approach to this study, whileillustratingtheadoptionoflinguisticethnographyasaprincipalmethodologicaltoolinthestudyofachildren’scentreinaregionalurbansetting.
KEYWORDS
Inter-professionalCollaboration,LinguisticEthnography,Discourse,Genre.
IntroductionThepasttwodecadeshaveseenaperiodof intensetransformationofpublicsector
services on an international and national scale. In many western countries, policy
themes of ‘accountability’ and ‘performativity’ have emerged as ‘the product of a
globaliseddiscourse’(Bottery2003:192).Onagenerallevel,thisapproachpromotes
freermovementsofgoods,resourcesandprivateenterprisesandadistinctiveopenness
totradeandinvestmentinordertomaximiseprofitsandefficiency(Cole1998).These
political and economic imperatives coupled with an aggressive market philosophy
havere-shapednotonlythestructureoftheprivatesectoragencies,butmorecrucially
havepromotedamarketmodelofeducationalprovision(Walford2001;Ball2003).The
increasedcompetitionthroughperformancemeasurement,moredemandsforpublic
Editorial
6 7
accountability in achieving set goals and targets, and tighter regulation by central
governmenthavenowbecomecommonEuropeantrends.
Inthefieldofchildandfamilycare,currentUKgovernmentpolicieshaveresultedin
substantialchangesinthenature,thestructure,andtheoperationofeducation,welfare
andhealthsystems.WhilesomeEnglishpolicies,suchastheintroductionofschool
performancetables,havebeendesignedtostimulateinter-schoolcompetition,other
recent initiatives (e.g. the requirement of collaborative and new learning networks
betweenschools;theintroductionofcommunityrepresentativesontheforumsthatrun
theEducationActionZonesprogramme),havebeenaimedatfosteringcollaboration
betweenschoolsandwithothereducationalagencies(Gewirtz2002;HarrisandMuijs
2005).Theextent towhich thecurrentpolicymix representsacoherentpackage to
tackle social exclusion, while simultaneously promoting competition to raise the
levelsofacademicattainments,hasyettobeexplored(Walford2001;Ball2003).As
partofabroaderstrategytoaddresspovertyandsocialexclusion,theemphasison
integratedworkingpracticesinEnglandmarksanunprecedentedattemptbytheState
torespondtothefragmentationofsocialservicesforchildren,youngpeopleandtheir
families, whose needs had previously been the concern of separate compartments
withinsingleagencies.Thisapproachispartofacomplexandambitiousprogramme
ofreformunderpinnedbytheChildrenAct2004.Throughtheseinitiatives,theEnglish
educationalreformagendahasfocusedontheneedtoprovideasinglepointofaccess
toarangeofservicesandactivitiesbeyondtheschool.Thishaslaidthefoundations
for positioning extended schools and integrated children’s services as ‘new multi-
professional partnerships...allied to the fields of health and welfare’ (Trotman 2009:
342). More specifically, local authorities are required to ensure the cooperation
betweendifferentagencies throughthecreationofaNationalSafeguardingDelivery
Unit,alocalSafeguardingChildren’sBoard,andachildren’sservicedirectorate.This
assumesthatpartnerships,collaborationandnetworkingaretobewelcomedaskey-
factors in delivering more effective services for families and guaranteeing improved
educationaloutcomes.However,theeffectsoftheseinitiativesoneducationalpractice
haveyettobefullyestablishedandresearched(Hargreaves2004).Moreover,whilethe
evidencebasefrommulti-agencyworkingcontinuestoburgeon(Anningetal.2006;
Danielsetal.2007;FitzgeraldandKay2008),theliteraturearoundinter-professional
workremainsinitsinfancy.Inparticular,theoreticalframeworksrelatedtoprofessional
learninghavegivenlimitedattentiontothesituatedcultureofcollaborationthatenables
thosechangestobeenacted.Whilemarkingasignificantshift inNewLaboursocial
policy, this also has several problematic implications in the relationship between
educationalpolicy,researchandprofessionalpractice.
Policy Background: the New Labour Agenda
In1997theLabourelectoralvictoryledtoaprofoundreformofthepublicsectorthat
the then Prime Minister Tony Blair outlined in terms of high standards of provision
andtighteraccountabilityaswellasthedevolutionofdecision-makingaboutservice
deliveryatthelocalleveltopromotecreativityanddiversity(Anningetal.2006).
Thishighlightsaninternaltensionbetweenthe(apparent)powerandautonomygiven
toboth theprovidersand theusersofservicesat the local level;and thecontrolof
thepublicsectorprofessionalsthroughtheimpositionofexternaltargetsandcentral
systems of monitoring and inspection. These two competing imperatives have
contributedtocreateageneralsenseofuncertaintyandconfusionamongprofessional
sectors concerning how to coherently implement government policies, and also a
pervasivetensionbetweenthelocallevel(LocalAuthorities)andcentralgovernment.
Thiscontradictioninthelegislationappearsevenmoresignificantwithregardtothe
Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) legislation. While searching for and extensively
promoting collaboration, partnership and integration of services, the new agenda
alsocarriesastrongaccountabilityframeworkwithawiderangeoftargetsforwhich
evidence,specificinspectionarrangementsandtop-downmonitoringarerequired.
Followingthehighprofileandtragicexamplesofchildabusecases(e.g.thedeathof
VictoriaClimbié),theUKsystemofprovisionforyoungpeoplewasaccusedoffailure.
Thiswasexacerbatedbyaperiodofintensemediainterest,inwhichchildprotection
andlowstandardsofliteracywereconsideredtobethemaincontributingfactorsineach
ofthecases.AfterthepublicationofLordLaming’sreport(2003)onthecircumstances
surroundingthedeathofVictoriaClimbié,publicopinionstronglydemandedaradical
reformofthewayinwhichsocialexclusionhadbeenaddressed.
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
8 9
Ontheonehand,NewLabourideologyrecognisedadeepinterrelatednessbetween
thesocialandtheeconomicparadigmsintermsofdeprivationandtheneedtoreshape
publicservices.Ontheotherhand,itemphasisedtheliberalisationofthechoicesfor
consumersandthemarketisationoftheschool.Inthissense,thereformsofthepublic
sectorproposedbytheNewLabour initiativesseemedtoreflect thosepromotedby
the previous Conservative Party (Anning et al. 2006; Gewirtz 2004). At the macro-
policylevel,thisentailedtheperpetuationoftheinterestsofthecapitalandthemarket
-adistinctivehallmarkofpreviousConservativepolicy.Oneofthemainprioritiesthat
policy makers identified was to address social exclusion by creating new forms of
flexible, joined up, collaborative-oriented practices in order to deliver improved and
organisedservicesforchildrenandyoungpeople(Glass1999).
Social exclusion is typically described as resulting from the lack of possibilities
to connect individuals to participation in social life (Warmington et al. 2004). This
phenomenon is thought to be particularly pronounced when the local community
suffers from a combination of high rates of unemployment, under-developed skills,
low incomes, poor housing and schooling, crime and poor health. While strongly
advocatingjoinedupwelfareservicesandagenciesasthekey-driverofsocialinclusion
(SocialExclusionUnit2000;2001),theNewLabourSocialPolicyhasbeenlessclearin
providingguidanceabouthowtoestablishanddeliverthoseservices.Inthisrespect,
fromareviewofcontemporarypolicydocuments,theprevalenceofstrategicliterature
thatemphasisesgood practice-based modelsmayriskassumingasimplifiednotionof
collaborativeworkastheidealsolutionforservicedelivery;aswellasfailingtooffera
deepconceptualisationoftheprocessesinvolvedinprofessionalsettings.Inadditionto
this,thegood practice-based modelstendnottotakeintoaccountthepressureplaced
onprofessionalsbyexternalperformancetargets,whilebeingheavilycontradictedby
thecomplexityofthepracticeintermsoflocalsolutions.
Inthissense,therelationshipbetweenthepolicyrhetoricon joined up thinking onthe
onehand,andthereframingofservicesontheother,canbeparticularlyproblematic,
since it requires both a shift in (re)conceptualising inter-professional work and
understanding thehighlycontextualisedactivitiesandsituatedculture (Ball1997)of
professionalpractice.Theevidencebasefrommulti-agencyworkingisstillverymuch
initsinfancy,yetearlyanecdotalevidencesuggeststhatacrucialrevisionofchildcare
practiceisneeded.Thismayresultinachangeinfocusfromtheinvestigationoftragic
abuse incidents (and thesubsequentgovernment intervention), to thedevelopment
ofamoreholistic,consistent,andmulti-agencydrivenapproachintheassessmentof
childrenandfamilies’needs(JonesandGallop,2003).
Every Child Matters: implications for inter-professional workInordertomeetboththedemandsandtheinspectioncriteriaoftheEveryChildMatters
(DfES2003)agenda,statutorylocalauthoritiesarerequiredtorestructurethemselves
inordertocreatenewchildren’sservicesthatmayrespondtointer-relatedproblems.In
particular,theChildrenAct2004notonlyaimedatencouragingpartnershiparrangements
throughareconfigurationof theservicesandthe integrationof funds, infrastructure,
goalsandwaysofworking.Morecruciallyitsharpenedtheaccountabilityframeworks
through thecreationofaNationalSafeguardingDeliveryUnit,aLocalSafeguarding
Children’sBoard,andachildren’sservicedirectorate.Secondly,itrequiredaprocess
of sharing information, entailing a joint system of assessment protocols and record
keepingthathastobeaccessiblebyalltheprofessionalsinvolvedinthecreationand
thedeliveryofservicesandactionplansorientatedtospecificcases.Whilstthisfeature
can reveal subtle differences in the conceptualisation and evaluation of children’s
needs, it isalsocontingentoncompetingprofessionalvaluesand identities.Finally,
the ‘EveryChildMatters’agendaalsocompelledengaging inapreventionagenda:
involvingwhatgovernmentliteratureincreasinglydescribesasa‘coreoffer’ofactivities
(DfES2003)thatshouldseekthewiderlocalcommunity’sparticipation,bygivingthe
children’scentreacrucialroletoplay,whileensuringhighlevelsofaccountabilityand
performativityforthedifferentprofessionalsinvolved.
Studies of inter-professional work collaboration: the dominant theoretical approachesInter-professionalworkrepresentsarelativelynewareaofresearch(FitzgeraldandKay
2008),whichfrequentlyinvolvesdifferentterminologies,understandingsandmeanings
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
10 11
ofcollaborativepractice.Whilstamultiplicityofperspectiveshasrapidlyevolved,thereis
anabsenceofsystematicresearchonhowprofessionalexpertiseisacquired,enriched
andappliedtoemergingissuesaroundpracticeinthesecontexts.Thepictureoffered
fromthestudiesthathavebeenconducted(Hargreaves2004;Roaf2002),suggests
thatprofessionalpracticeinthefieldofchildwelfareisnotsufficientlysustainedbythe
institutionalsystemandthatprofessionalexpertisehastobeconstantlyrenegotiated
intherelationshipwithclients,otheragencies,andmembersofthesameprofessional
area(Leadbetteretal.2007).Thesenegotiationsimplyawiderangeofcommitmentby
practitioners,whohavetoengageinnewprofessionalproblems,newwaysofsharing
informationandevaluatingfamilies’needs,newideasandresourcestobeintroduced
andharmonisedintoalreadywell-establishedpractices.
Intermsofconceptualmodels,thereviewoftheliteratureconductedbyWarmington
etal.(2004),proposesfourmainapproachestotheanalysisofinteragencyandcross-
professionalcollaboration.Thefirstapproachisgroundedinresearchexpresslybased
onsocio-culturalperspectives(Wertsch1985;Daniels2001;WellsandClaxton2002),
andencompasses twomain theoretical frameworks:CommunitiesofPractice (Lave
andWenger1991;Wenger1998)andActivityTheory(Engeström1999).Theformer
model adopts the study of participation and identity transformation as a construct
of thecommunityofpractice (Frost2005;Anningetal.2006). It isspecificallyused
to transcend terms such as teams and organisations and describes the process of
developingacommunity thatsharesaccountability,discoursesand tools.The latter
hasbeenusedinseveralprojects(Engeström2005,2007;Puonti2004;Warmington
etal.2004),whichadoptaninterventionistmethodcalledDWR(DevelopmentalWork
Research).Thisframeworkpresentsjointhumanactivityasthemainunitofanalysis
andaimstotracethehistoricityoforganisationalandprofessionaltoolsbyanalysing
thechangesembodiedby thenew formsofknowledgeand learning (Danielsetal.
2007).
The second approach is informed by different variations of bureaucratic and
organisational theory(Meyers1993;Farmakopoulou2002),aswellas investigations
basedondiscourseanalysis(Brownetal2000),andontheFoucaultianconceptofthe
institution-subjectrelationsofpower(Allen2003).
The thirdapproach includes research thatoffersnarrativeorevaluativeaccountsof
specificinitiativeswithinagroundedapproach(Colesetal2000;SeckerandHill2001;
Pavisetal.2003).
The last of these approaches consists of strategic documents that offer models of
interagencyworkandprovideexamplesofgoodpractice(DfES2002;FryeandWebb
2002;Whittington2003).However,twodominanttheoreticalapproachesaroundinter-
professionalcollaborationhaveemerged:CommunitiesofPracticeandActivityTheory.
The Community of Practice ApproachThe concepts articulated by Lave and Wenger in their work ‘Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation’ (1991), and the most recent development of the
accountbyWenger(1998),haveundoubtedlycontributedtoaconsiderablebodyof
researchthathasexploredtherelationshipbetweenlearningandthesocialsituationin
whichitoccurs.Intheirview,CommunityofPracticeisdefinedassocialmechanismfor
sharinganddevelopingknowledgeandexpertise.Thecentralconceptthatdescribes
thisparticularmodeofengagementisthe legitimate peripheral participation(LPP):the
socialprocessbywhicha learnerentersacommunityofpractitioners,bygradually
moving from an initial peripheral position towards a full participation in the social
practiceofthecommunity.Theneedtoprogressivelymastertheknowledgeandthe
practice requiredby thecommunityentailsadelicateprocessofunderstanding the
situatednatureof theactivity,whichmeansbeingable touse,shapeandnegotiate
meanings, artifacts, and tasks.Oneof themajor contributionsof theCommunityof
Practiceframeworktothestudyofprofessionalsettingsistheenrichedperspectiveon
learning that theyprovided.Thisviewtakes intoaccount therecognitionofevolving
dimensionssuchasmembership,relationofpower,identity,andafocusonparticipation
asacollaborativeanddialogicproduction,whichtakesplacewithinacomplexsetof
activitiesandpractices.
However,despitebeingaflexibleanddynamicconcept,thenotionofaCommunityof
Practiceraisesanumberofproblemsinrelationtothetypesoflearningthataredescribed
in social practice. Hedegaard (1998: 117) states that ‘no qualitative differentiation
betweenknowledgeandpracticeofdifferentcommunities’hasbeentakenintoaccount
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
12 13
byLaveandWengerand‘adult’sactivities(...)areregardedasunquestionedstandards
for thegoalsofdevelopment’.Similarly,Edwards(2005:57)highlightssome limitations
inthewayinwhich‘thecommunityofpracticemetaphordealswithlearningsomething
new’,bysuggestingthatresearchersturntotheconceptof‘expansivelearning’developed
byEngeström(1987;2001). In fact,while theCommunityofPracticeperspectiveoffers
usefulexamplesofhowknowledgeisappropriatedintheapprenticeshipmodel,theways
inwhichnewknowledgeiscreatedandtransformedbyarticulatingnewtoolsandconcepts
isnotfullyexplored.
AnothersignificantproblemintheoriginalnotionofCommunitiesofPracticeisthelack
ofa theoreticalconstruct toanalysemechanismsofrejecting,breakingaway,orsimply
expandingthegivenactivity,ashighlightedbyLinehanandMcCarthy(2000),andmore
recentlybyEngeström(2007).Wenger(1998)considersidentityasapivotalconceptin
ourunderstandingofcommunitiesofpracticeinwhichasenseoftrajectoryisestablished
through a negotiation of meanings that derive from our experience as members of a
community. However, this concept lacks an adequate framework for theorising how
professionalswithdifferentknowledge,valuesandperspectivesparticipateinnewsocial
settings. In order to enrich the concept of participation, Hodges (1998) points out the
existenceofmomentsofnonparticipationanddis-identification,whichrevealthetension
betweennormativepractice,senseofmembershipandofdifference.
In theiraccountofparticipation,LaveandWenger (1991)stress theconstitutive roleof
practice in determining and shaping the possible locations for participation. However,
conceptualising practices as pre-existing social structures that make participation in a
communityofpracticepossible,risksunderminingtwocrucialaspectsofinter-professional
work:agencyandactivity.
Ontheonehand,agencyplaysacrucialroleinunveilingthetensionbetweenperception
andposition.Thatistosay,betweenaninstitutionalisedformofpractice(theimplementation
processofapolicy),andthewayinwhichaprofessionalpositionsherself/himself.Thiscan
beintermsofidentificationwith,ordifferentiationfrom,theroles/heperceives,asgivenby
theinstitution.Ontheotherhand,theactivityiscarriedoutinaspacethatisnegotiatedin
betweenpracticeanddiscourse,wherenormativeconstraints,institutionalisedpractices,
agentiveresponse,andemergingpossibilitiesaredeveloped.
The Activity Theory ApproachAn attempt to offer a more encompassing perspective on professional practice is
represented by the Activity Theory framework. Engeström (1999) highlights five
principlesthathavebeenalsoutilisedtoanalysemulti-professionalcontexts.
Thefirstisrepresentedbythe unit of analysis: anartefact-mediatedandobject-oriented
activity system, seen in its relation to other activity systems. The activity system is
conceptualisedasacommunitythatdevelopsaspecificmicro-culturecharacterisedby
multivoicedness.Eachpractitionerparticipatesintheactivitywithdifferentprofessional
perspectivesandlinguisticrepertoires.Theactivitysystemitselfcarriesmultiplelayers
of history, embodied in artifacts, rules and conventions. The division of labour also
createsdifferentpositionsfortheprofessionalsinvolvedinthecommunity,whoemploy
symbolic (the discourse) and material (e.g., the Common Assessment Framework)
toolstomediatetheiractivitiesandnegotiatenewgoals.
Thethirdkey-principleistheconceptofhistoricity:whereanactivitysystemtakesshape
andistransformedovertime.Itshistoryneedstobestudiednotonlyaslocalhistory
ofevolvingactivitiesandobjects,butalsoashistoryofthetheoreticalideasandtools
thathaveshapedtheiractivities.Contradictionsthenhaveacentralroleasasourceof
changeanddevelopment.Theyareconceptualisedasstructuraltensionswithinand
betweenactivitysystems,thatarisewhenresponsibilities,tasksandgoalsareredefined
andredistributedbetweenchangingorganisationsandinstitutions(e.g.acrossalocal
authority).Thecapacityofparticipantsinanactivitytointerpretandexpandtheobject
ofactivityisdefinedasexpansive transformation.Thisinvolvesareconceptualisationof
existingtools,meaningsandpossibilitiesforlearning,increatingnewknowledgeand
newpractice.
Inparticular,theActivityTheoryperspectiveofferstwopowerfulconceptsthatcanhelp
toexploreinter-professionalwork:co-configurationandboundary-crossing.Theformer
is a form of work emerging from complex multi-professional settings in children’s
services.Itimpliesacollaborativeanddiscursiveconstructionoftasks,solutionsand
visions.The latter refers toconstructive formsof rule-bending ina teamofdifferent
professionals.Newexpertise isdevelopedwhenpractitionerscollaborateacross the
differentsectorsbytransformingtoolsandwaysofworkingtogether.
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
14 15
Both perspectives described above are helpful in identifying the ways in which the
artifactsofacommunityofpractice(oranactivitysystem)becometoolsofmediation
thatshapepracticesandprocesses.Particularemphasis isplacedon thehistoricity
ofthecommunityasthedominantaspectofsocialandculturalorganisationthathas
beenestablishedandtransformedovertimeinaspecificsetofrelationsinwhichthe
practitioner’s participation is immersed. In my view, this sense of historicity needs
to be re-conceptualised when the policy mandates and the normative practice
are restructured in a new system. This is particularly significant in researching new
practicesthatinvolvedifferentprofessionalsworkingtogether.Asaresultofthis,more
developedtheoreticalandmethodologicaltoolstodescribe,interpret,andevaluatethe
complexityofthepracticeandtheshiftingrelationbetweenactivity,subject-positioning
anddiscourseareneeded.
BothCommunityofPracticeandActivityTheoryapproachesofferapossibletheoretical
and analytical framework as means to interpret ways in which organisational and
professional learning can evolve in a system that comprises tensions and powerful
relationshipsbetweenprofessionals,localauthoritiesandclients(Edwardsetal.2009).
Inthisperspective,thedevelopmentofinnovativepracticesisfosteredbythecreation
oftoolsthatcouldhelptheprocessofre-configurationofprofessionalexpertiseand
institutional roles such as boundary-crossing and rule-bending. The Socio-cultural
approach offers also a powerful account of both construction and maintenance of
a sharedobjectof activity through thecreationofnew toolsand theuseof shared
resourcestoexpand,negotiate,andshapethecollaborativetask.However,theanalysis
of a changing system as conceptualised in the Socio-Cultural Approach limits the
complexityoftheprocessofmeaningmakingsinceitfocusesonthedivisionoflabour
and thesymbolic (ormaterial) artefacts specific todifferentprofessional categories.
Lessimportanceisgiventothetensionsbetweenthesituatedpracticeofcollaboration
andtheinstitutionaldiscoursethatconstraintstheprofessionalactivities.Inadditionto
this,thereislackofmethodologicalfocusonthestrugglebetweendifferentdiscourses
and different voices within a joint activity. However, a recent attempt to expand the
rather fixed conceptualisation of the elements that compose the activity system, is
representedbythestudyofinteractionaldynamicsandsocialpositionsindiscursive
practicewithinaSocio-Culturalapproach(HjörneandSäljö2004;MäkitaloandSäljö
2002).
A way of further enriching the methodological tools offered by the Socio-cultural
frameworkcanbetofocusonadeeperexplorationoftherelationshipbetweenmicro-
contexts in which the policy is ‘entextualised’ (Blommaert 2005) within the wider
institutionalcontext.Thiswillentailnotonlyavividdescriptionoftheimplementationof
collaborativepracticesbutalsoaninneranddeeperinterpretationofthewaysinwhich
meanings,actions,anddiscoursecombinetodefinetheparticularrolesandrulesin
whichthatcultureisinscribed.
Moreover,theidentificationofdivergentculturalmodelsandsocialpositioningcannot
beseparatedfromacloserinvestigationofthetypeofdiscoursethatunderliethem,
since different professionals will possess and use a different professional talk (and
text),whichwillhave identifiable linguistic features(SarangiandRoberts1999).Any
investigationofcollaborativepracticethereforeinvolvesanethnographicmovebetween
interactionalandinstitutionalfeaturesinordertodepicttheconstruction,negotiation
andcontestationofprofessionalcategoriesandattributes.AsMäkitalo(2003)points
out, categorisation in institutions not only affects the everyday management of
professionalpracticebutalsopinpointsawidercontextofhistoricallyandpolitically
generatedinstitutionalproceduresandevaluativeprocesses.
An alternative approach to the study of inter-professional work: Linguistic EthnographyLinguistic Ethnography (Blommaert 2005; Rampton et al. 2004) can be a suitable
methodological tool to investigate inter-professional work because it allows the
explorationoftheinterplaybetweenthecomplexityofthepolicyimplementationand
thedifferentprofessionaldiscoursesencapsulatedintalkandpractice.Inthissense,it
representsapointofconvergenceofmyinterestinthesituatedcultureofachildren’s
centre, my engagement with the problem of the representation of voices, and the
intentionofnotonlydescribing,butalsoattemptingtointerpret,thedifferentvariations
ofwelfarepractice.
The point of departure in both my theoretical and methodological orientations has
beentheideaofvoiceastheformalrepresentationofmoreimplicitformsofcultural
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
16 17
agency.Inalinguisticanthropologicalperspective(Hymes1996),theconceptofvoice
isdefinedasconstrainedbyparticularculturalcodes thatwilldetermine thekindof
performancesandgenresinwhichthatvoicewillattempttobeheardorimposeitself.
Translatingthemetaphorintothepolicyandmulti-professionalcontextofmyresearch,
theperformancesand thegenrescanbeseenas thedeploymentofprofessionally
organised narrative patterns that can represent, or misrepresent, particular voices,
dependentonwhetherornottheyfitintospecificcodesofbehaviourandlanguage.
Inthissense,normsareencodedinsocial(andprofessional)configurationsthatare
reflected in language codes and styles of performance. Ethnography, therefore, is
adoptedasbothdescriptive theoryandan interpretativeperspectivewithaspecific
focus on language as culturally embedded practice, which helps to conceptualise,
describeandinterpretlanguageandpracticeasspecificcommunicativeresourcesthat
areorganisedinrepertoiresandperformedingenres.
In order to shed light on the contextual factors that frame inter-professional work, I
haveturnedtothenotionof‘discourse’asasemioticandmeditationalwebinwhich
dispositions,identitiesandpracticeshape,andareshapedby,thesocialandinstitutional
contextsinwhichtheyoccur(Hasan2002;Bernstein1990).Mykeypointofdeparture
is the conceptualisation of discourse as ‘language in action’ (Blommaert 2005: 2),
which‘comprisesallformsofmeaningfulsemiotichumanactivityseeninconnection
withsocial,cultural,andhistoricalpatternsanddevelopmentofuse’(ibidem:3).Inthis
sense,myinitialinterestininvestigatingtheroleofdiscoursewithininter-professional
collaboration was prompted by the need to combine a close focus on the patterns
of micro- interactions, in which the practice of the children’s centre unfolds, with a
wideranalysisof themacro- featuresthat framethecontext: fromtheorganisational
structureofthechildren’scentreitself,throughthedemandsoftheLocalAuthority,to
the external policy mandates. In epistemological terms Linguistic Ethnography (LE)
maintainsthat‘languageandsociallifearemutuallyshaping,andthatcloseanalysis
ofsituatedlanguageusecanprovide[...]insightsintothemechanismsanddynamics
ofsocialandculturalproductionineverydayactivity’(Ramptonetal.2004:2).More
specifically,thethreeempiricalfocithatLEintendstoexploreareindividuals,situated
encountersandinstitutions,andnetworksandcommunitiesofpractice.Inthefirstof
these,individualsareconsideredintermsoftheirsemioticrepertoires,useofresources,
habitualpracticesanddispositions.Insituatedencountersevents,genresandtypes
ofactivityinwhichthesubjectsinteractarethesubjectofattention.Materialsettings
and physical arrangements are also taken into account, as well as the negotiation
processinwhichsubjectsengagetounderstandorinfluenceeachother.Finally,how
institutionsshape,sustainandgetreproducedthroughtexts,genresandpracticesare
consideredthroughtheprismofinstitutions,networks,andCommunitiesofPractice.
LEapproacheshavethenprovidedadescriptiveandanalyticorientationtoaddress
the relationship between structure, practice and agency. This offers a powerful tool
intheexplorationoftheinterplaybetweenthevoicesoftheprofessionalsinvolvedin
thechildren’scentre, thesituatedpractice that theycreate insharedactivities (e.g.,
Common Assessment Framework or Team Around the Child meetings), and the
institutionstowhichtheyrelate(e.g.,schoolslinkedtothechildren’scentre,theLocal
Authority).
The concept of “genre”Theconceptofgenrerepresentstheanalyticallinkbetweensituatedeventsandsocial
structures,andbetween individualdifferencesand institutionalpatterns.Despite the
situated nature and the individual variability of a communicative act, the genre still
followsrelativelystableformsofcommunicationandstructure(Bakhtin1986).Inother
words, thegenrecreatesa setof conventionalisedexpectations thatmembersof a
socialgroupornetworkuse toconstructandshape thecommunicativeactivity that
they are involved in (Bauman 1986; Bakhtin 1986). These expectations also give a
senseof thespecificelements thatareconstitutiveof thatactivity,suchaspossible
tasks,roles,relationships,waysofcarryingouttheactivityandwaysofusingresources.
Theconceptcanbeusedasamethodological tool toanalysespecific instancesof
communicationintheprocessofsharinginformationandconstructingmeaningswithin
aninter-professionalcommunity.
In particular, the twofold quality of the ‘genre’ concept, both descriptive and
interpretative,canguidetheanalysisthroughthesetofdifferentformalandinformal
typesofcollaborativearrangementsemployedbyaninter-professionalteam,because
itcanhelptodistinguishdifferentcommunicativeevents(officialmeetings,telephone
conversations,correspondence)intermsoftype,purposeandrelationtothecontext.
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
18 19
Following Bakthin’s notion of genre, it can be seen as belonging to particular
communities:amongmedicaldoctorsthedoctor-patientinterviewwillbethecommon
genre. Likewise, in a children’s centre context, sessions with parents, subgroup
meetings,staffmeetingsand telephoneconversationswithprofessionals fromother
agencies,willbepartof thatgenrerepertoire.Theprocessofsocialisation isalsoa
matterofacquiringthespecificpatternsthatarerequiredbyagenre.Specifically,inthe
contextofachild’scasereview,afamilysupportworkerneedstobeabletorecognise
andbecomefamiliarwiththespecificgenrerelatedtohowtoassessthefamily’sneeds,
whichperspectivetobeheldduringthemeetingwiththerestoftheteam,whatkindof
activitiestobeputintheplan,etc.This,inturn,willhelpthefamilysupportworkerto
establishhis/hercredibilityasbeingaprofessionalworkinginthatspecificchildren’s
centrewithinthatspecificLocalAuthority.
Inorder toanalyse thedata, transcriptions from theparticipant’s interviewsand the
actual interactions within staff and partnership board meetings will be considered
throughthespecificfeaturesthatthegenreentails.Theseare:thefunctionofagenre
(topersuade,demonstrate,describeapersonalpointofviewontheobjectofanalysis),
itsspecificstructure(e.g.anarrativewouldentailanopening,astorylineandacoda),
and its linguisticpatterns (useofpassive form,personalor impersonalexpressions,
complexityofsyntax,anduseofspecificterminology).
Onthesamelevelofanalysis,thefunctionofagenrecanbeconnectedtoaparticular
socialdomain,thatis;howgenresorganisespecificpartsofcommunicationaccording
to well-established social contexts. For example, analysing to what extent a report
compiledbyamaternitysupportworker,aftervisitinga family,fits in the institutional
genrecanoffernewinsights intotherecontextualisationprocess. In fact, itcanhelp
the recognitionof the interplaybetweena standardised institutionalpractice (e.g. a
CommonAssessmentFrameworkformtoassessachild’scase)andtheprofessional’s
position,intermsofagencyandrole.Inthissense,itiscrucialfortheanalysistofocus
ontherecognitionoftheorganisedandpatternedformsthataninter-professionalteam
uses,asbothlanguageandsemioticalmeans,whendiscussingachild’scaseduring
areviewmeeting.Thecommunicativeformsthatbelongtothatspecificprofessional
registermayreveal:aparticularprofessionalidentity,aparticularepistemicorientation,
aparticularmutualpositionbetweentheparticipantsofthemeeting.
Onaninterpretativelevel,theseinstancesaroundgenreconvergewithafundamental
ideaputforwardbyBakthin(1986):theheteroglossia.Thisentailsthemulti-variedness
andmulti-voicednessof everydiscourse; the fact thatdifferentpartsof adiscourse
reflectmultiplevoicesintermsofsocialpositions,orientationtowardswhatisbeingsaid,
articulationofexpectationsandrolesintheinteraction.Onasimilarlevel,thetransmission
ofasetofpolicies(intermsoftexts,protocolsandforms)canbeconceptualisedasa
processthroughwhichaninstitutionaldiscourseisdecontextualised,elaboratedand
recontextualised(SilversteinandUrban1996;Blommaert2001)inthesituatedculture
ofachildren’scentreprofessionalteam.
Inthissense,theLEmethodcanunraveltwolinesofinquiry,bothofwhicharefruitful
for theprogressionof theproposed research: the levelof congruencebetween the
genreandthe institutionalcontext,andthe levelofmeaningoreffect that thegenre
entails.Thefirstaspectisrelatedtoapromisingdomainofexploration:theconnection
between genre and normativity; the second aspect refers to the layered nature of
thegenre,whichentailstheco-occurrenceofdifferentgenresinrealcommunicative
events. The former line of inquiry can shed light on the way in which a production
of a particular register is intertwined with the normative expectations about it. The
latteropensuppossibilitiestoinvestigatenotonlythecomplexstructuresofamacro-
genre(suchastheTACmeeting),butalsothelevelofagencyofanindividual(how
aprofessionalmanagesthesub-genres,whetherhe/sheisabletoactinaneffective
wayinordertomakehis/herpointofviewonthechild’scasevisible),onamicro-level.
Theseorientationscanpotentiallyleadtonewwaysofresearchingissuesof identity
andtherelationshipbetweentheindividualandtheinstitution,byrevealingthehidden
tensionsbetweenagencyandnormativity.Forexample in thesharingof information
(e.g.theCAFformat),howinscribedinthepolicymandatesitis,orthedegreetowhich
theprofessionaljudgmentcanbeexercisedinrelationtogivenprotocols,andsoon.
Returningtotheexampleprovidedabove, ifweanalyseaTACmeetingasamacro-
genre,weshouldalso take intoaccount thedifferentsub-genreswithin it:question-
answersequences,narratives,readingaloudtheminutesofthepreviousmeeting,the
presentationofeachprofessional’sreview,conversationalinterpositions.Innegotiating
thebalancebetweenrules,processes,andprofessionalcontributions, theremaybe
asignificantmovementbetween themultiplesub-genres thatdifferentprofessionals
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
20 21
develop(orinwhichtheytrytoperform).Thiscanpotentiallyleadtofindingnewways
tonegotiatetheobjectandtheaimsoftheactivityincollaborativepractice.
ConclusionInthisarticle,threemaintheoreticalandmethodologicalframeworksforthestudyof
inter-professional workhavebeen illustrated. It highlights that the complexity of the
researchsitecannotbereducedtoadescriptiveaccountofthefeaturesthatconstitute
membership and cannot be exclusively analysed through the conceptual lenses of
CommunityofPracticeandActivityTheoryFrameworks.Infact,althoughbothofthem
areusefultodepicttheelementsthatcharacterisethesituatedcultureofactivityand
participationwithinthechildren’scentre,theydonotallowtherecognitionandmore
in-depthexplorationoftheinterplaybetweenstructuralorganisation,socialpositioning
and agency. In particular, both perspectives have not developed a focus on how
discourse negotiates and shapes the relationship between structure and agency in
practiceInordertodoso,moresophisticatedandrefinedtoolsareneededinorderto
investigatetheprocessofpolicymediation.Inthissense,LinguisticEthnographycan
powerfullyelaborateontheconceptofcontextualisationbydevelopinganenhanced
sensitivity towards a situated practice through understanding both the tension and
the possibility of (re) creating and transforming an external mandate through an
interpretativeactivity.Thisismadepossiblewithafine-grainedanalysisofdiscursive
patternsbythearticulationofspecificgenresthatreflectthenegotiationbetweenlocal
practicesandinstitutionalorders.
REFERENCES
Allen,C. (2003) ‘Desperatelyseeking fusion:on ‘joinedup thinking’, ‘holisticpractice’andtheneweconomyofwelfareprofessionalpower’.British Journal of Sociology,54(2),287-306
Anning,A,Cottrell,DandFrost,N (2006)DevelopingMultiprofessionalTeamwork forIntegratedChildren’sServices.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress
Bakthin,M (1986)SpeechGenresandOtherLateEssays.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress
Ball,S.J. (1997) ‘Policy,SociologyandCriticalSocialResearch:apersonal reviewofrecenteducationpolicyandpolicyresearch’.British Educational Research Journal 23(3),257-274
Ball, S. J. (2003) ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’. Journal of Educational Policy,18(2),215-228
Bauman, R (1986) Story, Performance and Event. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress
Bernstein,B(1990)TheStructuringofPedagogicDiscourse.London:Routledge
Blommaert,J.(2001)‘Contextis/ascritique’CritiqueofAnthropology,21(1),13-32
Blommaert,J(2005)Discourse:ACriticalIntroduction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
Bottery,M.(2003)‘TheLeadershipofLearningCommunitiesinaCultureofUnhappiness’.School Leadership & Management,23(2),187-207
Brown, B., Crawford, P. and Darongkamas, J. (2000) ‘Blurred roles and permeableboundaries: the experience of multidisciplinary working in community mental health’.Health and Social Care in the Community,8(6),425-435
Cole, M. (1998) ‘Globalisation, Modernisation and Competitiveness: A Critique of theNewLabourProjectinEducation’.International Studies in Sociology of Education,8(3),315-332
Coles,B.,England,J.andRugg,J.(2000)‘Spacedout:YoungPeopleonSocialHousingEstates:SocialExclusionandMulti-Agencywork’.Journal of Youth Studies,3(1),21-33
Daniels,H.(2001)VygotskyandPedagogy.London:Routledge.
Daniels, H., Leadbetter, J., Warmington, P., Edwards, A., Popova, A., Apostolov, A.,Middleton,D.andBrown,S.(2007)‘Learninginandformulti-agencyworking’.Oxford Review of Education,33(4),521-538
DfES(2002)SaferSchoolPartnerships:Guidance.London:Department forEducationandSkills.
DfES(2003)EveryChildMatters.London:DepartmentforEducationandSkills.
Edwards,A.(2005)‘Let’sgetbeyondcommunityandpractice:themanymeaningsoflearningbyparticipating’.Curriculum Journal,16(1),49-65
Federica Caruso | The Making of MethodFederica Caruso | The Making of Method
22 23
Edwards,A,Daniels,H,Gallagher,T,Leadbetter,JandWarmington,P(2009)Improvinginter-professionalcollaborations.Multi-agencyworkingforchildren’swellbeing.London:Routledge
Engeström, Y (1987) Learning by Expanding: an activity-theoretical approach todevelopmentalresearch.Helsinki:Orienta-Konsultit
Engeström, Y. (1999) ‘Activity Theory and individual and social transformation’. InY. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R. L. Punamäki (eds) Perspectives on activity theory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
Engeström, Y. (2001) ‘Expansive learning at work: toward and activity theoreticalreconceptualization’.Journal of Education and Work,14(1),133-156
Engeström, Y (2005) Developmental Work Research: Expanding Activity Theory inPractice.Berlin:LehmannsMedia
Engeström,Y.(2007)‘PuttingVygotskytowork.Thechangelaboratoryasanapplicationofdoublestimulation’. InH.Daniels,M.ColeandJ.V.Wertsch(eds)TheCambridgeCompanion to Vygotsky.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
Farmakopoulou,N. (2002) ‘WhatLiesUnderneath?An inter-organizationalAnalysisofCollaborationbetweenEducationandSocialWork’.British Journal of Social Work,32(8),1051-1066
Fitzgerald,DandKay,D(2008)Workingtogetherinchildren’sservices.London:Routledge
Frost,N(2005)Professionalism,partnershipandjoined-upthinking:Aresearchreviewoffront-lineworkingwithchildrenandfamilies.DartingtonHallTrust:ResearchinPractice
Frye,MandWebb,A(2002)EffectivePartnershipWorking.London:HMTreasury
Gewirtz,S(2002)Themanagerialschool:post-welfarismandsocialjusticeineducation.London:Routledge
Gewirtz,S.(2004)‘NewLabour’sthirdwayforeducation:howisitbestconceptualised?’TheeducationpolicyofNewLabouras the thirdway.TokyoMetropolitanUniversity ,Tokyo26thJuly2004.Availableat:www.nichiei-forum.org/modules/wfsection/download.php?fileid=6(Accessed:08/12/2009)
Glass,N. (1999) ‘SureStart: thedevelopmentofanearly interventionprogramme foryoungchildrenintheUK’.Children & Society,13,257-264
Hargreaves, A (2004) Teaching in the Knowledge Society. New York: TeachersCollegePress
Harris, A and Muijs, D (2005) Improving Schools Through Teacher Leadership.Buckingham:UniversityPress
Hasan,R. (2002) ‘Semioticmediationandmentaldevelopment inpluralisticsocieties:someimplicationsfortomorrow’sschooling’InG.WellsandG.Claxton(eds)Learning for life in the 21st Century: Socio-Cultural Perspectives on the future of Education.Oxford:Blackwell
Hedegaard, M. (1998) ‘Situated Learning and Cognition: Theoretical Learning andCognition’.Mind, Culture and Activity,5,114-126
Hjörne, E. and Säljö, R. (2004) ‘The pupil welfare team as a discourse community:accountingforschoolproblems’.Linguistics and Education,15,321-338
Hodges,D.C.(1998)‘Participationasdis-identificationwith/inacommunityofpractice’.Mind, Culture and Activity,5(4),272-290
Hymes,D(1996)Ethnography,Linguistics,NarrativeInequality:TowardsanUnderstandingofVoice.London:TaylorandFrancis
Jones,J.andGallop,L. (2003) ‘NoTime toThink:Protecting theReflectiveSpace inChildren’sServices’.Child Abuse Review,12101-106
Laming,LordH.(2003)TheVictoriaClimbiéinquiry:reportofaninquirybyLordLaming(Cm5730).London:StationeryOffice
Lave, J and Wenger, E (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
Leadbetter,J.,Daniels,H.,Martin,D.,Middleton,D.,Popova,A.,Apostolov,A.andBrown,S.(2007)‘Professionallearningwithinmulti-agencychildren’sservices:researchingintopractice’.Educational Research,49(1),83-98
Linehan,C.andMcCarthy,J.(2000)‘Positioninginpractice:understandingparticipationinthesocialworld’.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,30435-453
Mäkitalo,A.(2003)‘Accountingpracticesassituatedknowing:dilemmasanddynamicsininstitutionalcategorisation’.Discourse Studies,5(4),495-516
Mäkitalo,A.andSäljö,R.(2002)‘Invisiblepeople:institutionalreasoningandreflexivityintheproductionofservicesand‘SocialFacts’inpublicemploymentagencies’.Mind, Culture and Activity,9(3),160-178
Meyers,M.K.(1993)‘Organizationalfactorsintheintegrationofservicesforchildren’.Social Service Review,67(4),547-575
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
24 25
Pavis,S.,Constable,H.andMasters,H.(2003)‘Multi-agency,multi-professionalwork:experiences from a drug prevention project’. Health Education Research, Theory & Practice,18(6),717-728
Puonti, A (2004) Learning to work together: collaboration between authorities ineconomic-crimeinvestigation.Helsinki,PhDthesis:UniversityofHelsinki
Rampton,B.,Maybin, J., Tusting,K.,Barwell,R.,Creese,A. andLytra,V. (2004) ‘UKLinguistic Ethnography: A Discussion Paper’. Available at: www.ling-ethnog.org.uk/publications.html(Accessed:01/04/09)
Roaf,C(2002)Coordinatingservicesforincludedchildren:joinedupaction.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress
Sarangi,SandRoberts,C(1999)Talk,WorkandInstitutionalOrder:discourseinMedical,MediationandManagementSettings.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter
Secker,J.andHill,K.(2001)‘Broadeningthepartnerships:experiencesofworkingacrosscommunityagencies’.Journal of Interprofessional Care,15(4),341-350
Silverstein,MandUrban,G(1996)TheNaturalHistoryofDiscourse.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress
SocialExclusionUnit (2000)Report of policy action team 12. Young people, national strategy for neighbourhood renewal.London:StationeryOffice
SocialExclusionUnit(2001)Preventingsocialexclusion.London:StationeryOffice
Trotman,D. (2009) ‘Networking forEducationalChange:Concepts, impedimentsandopportunities for primary school professional learning communities’. Professional Development in Education,35(3),341-356
Walford,G.(2001)‘DoestheMarketEnsureQuality?’.Westminster Studies in Education,24(1),23-33
Warmington,P,Daniels,H,Edwards,A,Brown,S,Leadbetter,J,Martin,DandMiddleton,D (2004) TLRPIII:Interagency Collaboration: a review of the literature. Birmingham:UniversityofBirmingham,SchoolofEducation
Wells,GandClaxton,G(2002)LearningforLifeinthe21stCentury.Oxford:Blackwell
Wenger,E(1998)CommunitiesofPractice:Learning,meaningandidentity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
Wertsch,JV (1985)Culture,communication,andcognition:Vygotskianperspectives.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress
Whittington, C (2003) Learning for Collaborative Practice with other professionsand agencies: a study to inform development of the degree in social work. London:DepartmentofHealth
Federica Caruso | The Making of Method Federica Caruso | The Making of Method
26 27
The Priestley Riots and the 18th Century Riot in History
JonathanAtherton
ABSTRACT
Thestudyofriotingandpopulardisturbancesintheeighteenthcenturyhasattracted
substantialscholarlyattention.Thishasservedtoenrichourunderstandingofthemake
upoftheeighteenthcenturycrowdandthemotivesofthoseparticipating.Considering
theirscaleandsignificanceinthecontextofeighteenthcenturypopulardisturbances,
historianshavewrittenmuchaboutthePriestleyriots.Thearticlebeginsbyproviding
abriefnarrativeoftheriots.Themajorpurposeistosummarizethestatusofresearch
conducted thus far on the Priestley Riots. In addition, a secondary objective is to
summarize themostsignificant researchconducted intoeighteenthcenturypopular
disturbances. Indoingso thishelpsplace theresearchconducted into thePriestley
Riotsintoitswidercontext.
KEYWORDS
Riots,thecrowd,eighteenthcentury,JosephPriestley,BirminghamDissenters.
Introduction
The immediateprecedent for the fournightsof riotingwasadinnercelebrating the
second anniversary of the fall of the Bastille which had been organised by local
supportersoftheFrenchRevolution.Theleadupthisdinnerprovidedsomewarningof
theviolencethatwastofollow.ThedinnerwasadvertisedinAris’sBirmingham Gazette
onthe11thJulywiththemenacingimplicationthatalistofthoseattendingwouldbe
publishedinasubsequentissue(Rose,1960).Thiscoincidedwiththedisseminationof
aninflammatoryhandbillaroundBirmingham.Includedinthishandbillwerecomplaints
about taxes, civil and ecclesiastical impositions and some coarse expressions of
disloyalty against King George III (Creasey, 1963). Whilst organisers of the dinner
quicklydenouncedthishandbillastotallyunrepresentativeoftheirownviews,thereis
nodoubtingthatitspresenceservedtofurtherinflameanalreadytensesituation.
Atthispoint,someofthosewhowereresponsiblefororganisingthedinnerconsidered
callingitoff.Thedinner,howeverwentaheadasplannedontheafternoonofthe14th
July1791.AroundeightydinersmetatDadley’shotelinBirminghamtocelebratethe
secondanniversaryofthestartoftheFrenchRevolution.Theyweregreetedbyacrowd
ofaroundsixtyorseventyprotestorswhoshoutedabusebeforedispersing.Joseph
Priestley,havingbeenmadeawareof thepotential troublehispresencemaycause
wasnot inattendance.ThemeetingwaschairedbyJamesKeir.A totalofnineteen
toasts were drunk, none of which could be described as revolutionary (Martineau,
1995).Uponleaving,dinersweregreetedbyalargercrowdwhothrewdirtandstones.
Thiscrowdmaintaineditspresenceforsometime,breakingthewindowsofthehotel
andlootingit.Thecrowdthenmovedon,havingmomentarilythreatenedtheQuaker
meeting house on Bull Street, the crowd then proceeded on to the Unitarian New
Meeting, which they set on fire. The next target of the crowd was the Old Meeting
whichwasransacked,withitscontentsbeingburnedinthestreet.JosephPriestley’s
houseatFairhillinSparkbrookwasthenattacked.Priestleyhadbeenwarnedaboutthe
approachingriotersandwasabletoescapewithjustminutestospare.Uponarrival,
thecrowdplunderedPriestley’shousebeforeburningittotheground.Overthecourse
of the next three days the houses of a number of prominent local dissenters were
attacked, including the dwellings of John Taylor, John Ryland and William Russell.
Nondissenterswerealsotofallvictimtotherioters.ThehistorianWilliamHuttonlost
bothhisstationersshopandhishouse inWashwoodHeath.The riotersalsobroke
openthetownprison,releasingalltheoccupyingprisoners.Bynow,themagistrates
hadbecomeconcernedbytheferocityandextentoftheriotsandsworeinanumber
of ‘specialconstables’.Theyconfronted theriotersat thehouseofJohnRylandbut
wereeasilyoverpowered.Thefinalactof the rioterswas toattack thehouseof the
moderateAnglican,WilliamWitheringonthe17thJuly.Witheringhadtakentheliberty
ofhiringsome ‘famousfighters fromBirmingham’ (Rose,1960p75),whowereable
tosuccessfully repel the rioters.Theeveningof the17thsignalled thearrivalof the
dragoonsfromNottinghamandthelastoftheriotersquicklydispersed.
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
28 29
During the riots the houses of some twenty-seven individuals were attacked or
threatened,whilstaround twentybuildingsweredestroyedorseverelydamaged. In
additiontheriotsledtoanumberoffatalitiesandcostinsomecontemporaryestimates,
hundredsofthousandsofpoundsworthofdamage.Anumberofthevictimswereto
leave Birmingham permanently. Joseph Priestley himself was never to return to the
cityhehadsettledinfortenyears.WhilstsomemembersofPriestley’sBirmingham
congregation implored him to come back, it was the unanimous view of Priestley’s
Londonfriendsthatthiswouldbeunwise(Griffith,1983).WithsomereluctancePriestley
settledinLondon,beforeeventuallyemigratingtoAmericain1794.Theramificationsof
theriotsweretobefeltfarbeyondBirminghamandweretoinfluencetheconservative
reaction against political and religious radicals which took place during the 1790s
(Wykes,2008).
The Priestley Riots in HistoryEarlystudiesofthePriestleyRiotstendedtotakearatherlimitedapproachtotheRiots,
dealing,forthemostpartwithPriestley’spersonalroleintheriots.Thisischaracterised
bythelivelyandvociferousdebatebetweenBernardAllenandRonaldMartineauDixon
thatoccurredintheTransactions of the Unitarian Historical Society intheearly1930s.
The focusofdebatewas the single issueofPriestley’s culpability inorganising the
infamousdinnercelebrating thesecondanniversaryof the fallof theBastille.Dixon
deniedPriestleyhadplayedanysignificantpartinorganisingthedinnerorencouraging
others to attend (Dixon, 1927). To this, Allen provided a somewhat more credible
repudiation. By using Catherine Hutton’s recollection that Priestley encouraged her
fartherWilliamHuttontoattendaswellanextensiveenumerationofPriestley’sother
activities,DixonsuccessfullyarguesthatPriestleydid indeedhaveamoreextensive
involvementintheorganisationofthedinnerthaninitiallyperceived(Allen,1932).Eric
Robinsonprovided furthersupport to thisargument inhisshortbutnot insignificant
article. Robinson demonstrated, despite Priestley’s claims to the contrary, he was
activelyrecruitingfortheplannedWarwickshireConstitutionalsocietyintheleadupto
thePriestleyRiots.Thesocietywasintendedtocampaignforparliamentaryreformbut
plansfor itscreationwereabandonedinviewofthehostilityexperiencedduringthe
PriestleyRiots(Robinson,1960).Theconclusionthatcanbedrawnfromthis, isthat
PriestleywasevidentlyfarmoreactiveinpoliticalmovementsinBirminghamthaneither
hecaredtoadmitorhiscontemporariesperceived.
WhilstJosephPriestley’sroleintheriotsprovedtobeasubjectofdispute,thequestion
oftheimpactoftheriotsuponPriestleyhasprovedfarlesscontentiousthankslargely
totheworkofR.E.W.MaddisonandFrancisMaddison.Inasuccinctexaminationof
thetrialsandsubsequentclaimsforcompensation,sufficientcontemporaryevidenceis
presentedtosuggestthatPriestleywasforcedtosufferconsiderablehostilityonboth
oftheseoccasions(Maddison,1956).Ofgreatersignificanceisthatthisarticlemarks
thefirstattempttoexplaintheoriginsoftheriotsinBirmingham.Theauthors’assert
religioustensionasoneoftheprimarymotivator’softherioters.Whilsttheanalysishere
islargelysuperficial,basedsolelyonthememoirsofJosephPriestleyandCatherine
Hutton,theconnectionoftheriotswithreligioustensionscausedbytheagitationfor
repealovertheTestandCorporationactsisofsomeconsequence.Thisinterpretation
wastofindfavorwithsomelaterhistoriansoftheriotswhoexpandedonthisconcept
morelucidly.
It is readilyapparent thatbefore1950, thePriestleyRiotshadreceivedonlycursory
attentionfromhistorians.SuchdisinterestinriotingwasnotconfinedtothePriestley
Riots, the archetypal historian up until this point considered popular disturbances
unworthyofseriousattention.Thisattitudewastoundertakeagreatseachangewith
thedevelopmentof‘historyfrombelow’thatledtothehistoriographicalascentofrioting
andpopulardisturbances,amongothertopics.Paramounttothisnewfoundinterest
inriotingweretheidentityandmotivesofindividualrioters.Whilstsuchresearchwas
initiallypioneeredbyGeorgeRudeinstudiesofpopularprotestsinParisandLondonin
theeighteenthcentury(Rude,1959),itwasfirstappliedtothePriestleyRiotsbyBarrie
Rose.
Rose’s synthesis remains the most comprehensive study of the Riots. Displaying
extensiveuseofprimarysources,Roseprovidesadetailednarrativeoftheriotsbefore
movingontobrieflyexaminingtheensuingtrialsandfinallyattemptingtoexplainthe
originsoftheriots.PerhapsRose’smostsignificantachievementistoabsolve,beyond
doubt, theministryofWilliamPitt theyoungerofanycomplicity incausingtheriots.
Insteadthreelocalmagistratesareaccusedofcollusion.Neitherofthesepointshave
beensubsequentlychallenged.Inaddition,inlinewiththemethodologicalapproach
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
30 31
advocatedbyRudé,Rose,throughtheuseofcollectionsfromthepublicrecordoffice
(includingHomeOfficepapersanddocumentsrelatingtoclaimsforcompensation),
successfullydeterminesthe identityofsomecrowdmembers,suggestingtheywere
primarilymadeupofindustrialartisansandothermembersofthecity’sworkingclasses.
Thisformsthebasisofhisconclusion,thattheriotswereessentially‘anexplosionof
latentclasshatred’(Rose,1960p84)
This conclusion, entrenched as it is in class conflict theory, has caused much
controversyamongsubsequenthistoriansoftheriots.Fundamentally,toseetheriots
purelyassystematicofdevelopingclasstensionsisalargelyanachronisticapproach.
Theargumentssurroundingclassconflictareprimarilybasedonthosewhoweretried
at theWorcestershireandWarwickassizes.Consideringtheunsatisfactorynatureof
the trials, itmustbequestionedwhether those triedwere truly representativeof the
rioters.Inaddition,Rose’scontentionregardingthemagistratesculpabilityintheriots
sitsuneasilywith thenotionofclassconflict, for themagistratesdonotnecessarily
representtheunprivilegedunderclassthatRosepicturesrisingupagainsttheirsocial
superiors.IfDenisMartineau’sconclusions,whichwillbediscussedshortly,regarding
theroleofthemagistratesininstigatingtheriotsaretobebelieved,thenthisonlycasts
furtherdoubtonRose’sconclusions(Martineau,1996).
Themostconvincing rebuttalofRose’s interpretationhascome fromJohnMoney’s
subtleandwideranginganalysisofthepoliticalcultureoftheWestMidlands.Money’s
argumentsarecomplex,essentiallycentringaroundthenotionthatinhisview,Rose’s
interpretation is overly simplistic because it takes the presence of the Birmingham
riotingcrowd‘forgranted’(Money,1977p271).Insteaditissuggestedthatiftheriots
wereasRosesuggests,causedbyacombinationof traditionalprejudicesandnew
socialandeconomictensions,thenitisnecessarytounderstandhowthesetensions
wereabletomanifestintheconsciousnessofthoseindividualswhorioted.
Moneysucceedsindoingthis,bylinkingtheinitiallyseeminglyabstractconceptsof
politicalupheavalandthedeclineofthelocalbuckletrade.Specifically,itiscontended
thatrisingunemploymentcausedbythedeclineofthebuckletradecouldeasilyhave
ledtodisillusionedworkersturningontheintellectualsofBirminghamastheimagined
instigatorsoftheirplight(Money,1977).
Money also makes an interesting contribution regarding the impact of the riots, a
subjecthitherto largely ignoredbyhistoriansof thePriestleyRiots.Whilstaccepting
thattheriotsundoubtedlyseverelydamagedthereformmovementwithinBirmingham,
itissuggestedthatitwasnotbroughttoacompletestandstill.AccordingtoMoney,the
continuingexistenceoftheBirminghambookclubisregardedasevenmoresignificant
thantheburningoftheNewMeetinghouse(Money,1977).
Inattemptingtounderstandwhytheriotstookplace,ArthurShepsprovidesafascinating
insightintothepublicperceptionofJosephPriestleyandotherleadingdissenterswho
weretobethemainvictimsoftheriots(Sheps,1989).Thisisinpartachievedthrough
anextensiveexaminationofcontemporarysatiresandcaricaturesofPriestleyandhis
fellowdissenters.Shep’sstudy inclines towards thematerialist interpretation initially
advocatedbyRose,whichstressestheimportanceofsocialfactorsinexplainingwhy
theriots tookplace.Shepsarguesthat leadingdissenters ‘constitutedthevanguard
ofthebourgeoisie’and‘theywerethenewindustrialmasterclassandthuswerethe
natural targets for popular resentment’ (Sheps, 1989 p47). In examining the public
perceptionoftheBirminghamdissenters,theauthorhoweverstressestheuniquerole
playedbyJosephPriestleyandhiscohortsincreatingtensionwithinBirmingham.
In the aftermath of the riots Joseph Priestley expressed surprise that he personally
wasseenasa threat to theconstitution.Shepsargues that this surpriseshouldbe
consideredattheveryleastnaïve.Priestleyunderestimatedthepoliticalcharacterof
someofhisearlierpublicationsandignoredtheequation,whichmostcontemporary
newspapers, pamphlets and prints made between dissent and political radicalism
(Sheps,1989).TheauthortracesPriestley’sactivitiesinBirminghamfromhisarrivalin
1780throughtotheriotsin1791.HepinpointsPriestley’sheatedandprolificdebate
withAnglicanssuchasSamuelHorsleyandEdwardBurnaswellastheattemptsto
repealtheTestandCorporationactsasservingtoincreasePriestley’snotorietyamong
thepublic(Sheps,1989).Therepealmovementinparticularattractedmorewidespread
condemnation, including that of the political satirist James Sayers. In his print ‘The
REPEALofTHETESTACT’publishedinFebruary1790,Sayersdrawsdirectparallels
betweendissentandFrenchirreligionandrepublicanism.ShepsarguesthatPriestley’s
letterstotheReverendEdwardBurnareequallysignificant(Sheps,1989). Itwason
thisoccasionwhenPriestleyusedhisnotoriousgunpowdermetaphor.Thisinfamous
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
32 33
quotationwastakenoutofitsoriginalcontextbymembersoftheAnglicanclergyand
used to portray Priestley as seditious and a dangerous member of society (Sheps,
1989).Thisandotherderogatorypublicationsandsatiricalprintswerethencirculated
throughouttheBirminghamneighborhoodbytheclergy.Shepsarguesthatthisserved
toincreasehostilityagainstPriestleybeforetheriots(Sheps,1989).Shepsbelievesthat
thedepictionofPriestleyinanumberofsatiricalprintswasespeciallysignificant.Inhis
viewtheyallowednegativedepictionsofPriestleytoreachsegmentsofthepublicthat
wereotherwiseuntouchedbynewspapersandtracts(Sheps,1989).
ArthurShep’sstudyiscertainlyofconsiderablevaluetothehistorianofthePriestley
Riots. It explains, to an extent why Priestley was to face such widespread hostility
duringtheBirminghamRiotsandindeedintheiraftermath.Itmustbenotedthatany
explanationastowhytheriotstookplaceshouldnotlimititselftotheroleofJoseph
Priestley alone. This is perhaps one drawback of Sheps’ study. The research of
otheraforementionedhistorianssuchasRoseandMoneyrevealsthe importanceof
consideringwidersocialandreligioustensionsthatexistedwithinBirminghamduring
1791ifareliableinterpretationontheoriginsofthePriestleyRiotsistobeachieved.
The 1991 bi-centenary of the Priestley Riots provided the perfect opportunity for
historianstore-examinethemaindebatessurroundingtheriots.Inareviewofliterature,
Ditchfield returned to the questions surrounding the origins of the Priestley Riots,
beforeassertingthattheriotswerenotsomuchcausedbyclasstensionsbutreligious
tensions instead (Ditchfield,1991).There is littledoubting that theauthorshowsan
admirableknowledgeofthehistoriographyofPriestleyRiotsaswellasthemoregeneral
discussions surrounding the 18th century riot. To support his arguments, Ditchfield
reliesandquotesheavilyfromtheaforementionedworkofJohnMoney.However,the
extensivequotingofMoneybyDitchfield to supporthisargumentscanbeseenas
deceptive.DitchfieldarguesthatthereligiousanimositythatexistedwithinBirmingham
‘didnotrequireaconjunction…withothergrievancestotakeariotousform’(Ditchfield,
1991p5).InrealitythisdirectlycontradictsMoney’sargumentssurroundingtheroleof
thedeclineofthebuckletradeincreatingthepresenceofthecrowdinBirmingham.
Whilstitisdifficulttodisagreewiththecontentionthatthedissentersattemptstorepeal
theTestandCorporationactsheightenedreligioustensionswithinthetown,(indeed,
Moneyseestheagitationforrepealashighlysignificantinthecontextoftheriots),it
wouldbequitewrongtosuggestthatthisalonecouldhavecompelledthepeopleof
Birminghamtoriot.
DitchfieldalsousesColinHaydon’sstudyofLondon’s1780Gordonriotsasatemplate
tosupporthisassertion’ssurroundingtheimportanceofreligiousissuesinexplaining
the tumultuous events of 1791 (Haydon, 1991). In his study, Haydon persuasively
arguesthatthosetargetedintheGordonRiotsweresobecausetheywereCatholic,not
becausetheyoccupiedahighersocialpositionasarguedbyRude.Whilstthereislittle
doubtingthattheGordonRiotsandthePriestleyRiotsshareanumberofsimilarities,
tousethemasasinglepointofcomparisonasDitchfielddoeshereisquestionable.
Havingshownanacuteknowledgeof thehistoriographyof18thcentury rioting, the
decision to discuss only a single study of a single 18th century riot is unfortunate.
Indeed, if Ditchfield’s arguments were to be in any way persuasive, then his study
would have benefited from a much fuller comparison with other 18th century riots,
especiallyotherChurchandKingriots.Fundamentally,Ditchfield’sapproachentirely
trivialises the roleof theFrenchRevolution increatingandexacerbating tensionsof
varyingsorts in the leadup to thePriestleyRiots.Suchacriticism isnotunique to
DitchfieldbutinactualityplaguestheentirehistoriographyofthePriestleyRiots.This
issomewhatironicconsideringitwasadinnercelebratingtheanniversaryofthefallof
theBastillethattriggeredtheeventsofJuly1791.
ItisreadilyapparentthatthequestionofwhatcausedthePriestleyRiotshasattracted
substantialinterestfromhistoriansovertheyears.Itmustbenotedthatsuchinterest
hasnotextendedtotheimpactandlegacyofthePriestleyRiots.WhilstRosetouched
brieflyuponthetrialsandclaimsforcompensationandMoneyhasarguedthattheriots
didnotbringthereformmovementtoacompletestandstill,thesearemerefootnotes
inthecontextofmuchwiderstudiesontheoriginsoftheriots.FrancisandR.E.W.
Maddisondiscussed the impactof the riotsuponJosephPriestleybutshowed little
interest in theirwider impact.Thefirstseriousattempt toexamine the impactof the
PriestleyRiotswasundertakenbyDavidWykes.
Wykes reverses the trendadvancedbyMoneyandalsoJohnStevenson inplaying
down the significance of the Priestley Riots. It is instead argued that the Priestley
RiotswereresponsibleforencouragingChurchandKingfeelingnotjustintheWest
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley RiotsJonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
34 35
Midlandsbutacrossthenation(Wykes,1991/1996).Displayinganadepthandlingof
primarysourcematerial,WykesisabletociteexamplesofincreasedChurchandKing
feeling in locationsasfarapartasStourbridge,Nottingham,Manchester,Newcastle,
andExeter.Onthebasisofhisresearchthereseemslittledoubtingthattheeffectofthe
PriestleyRiotswerefeltacrossEngland.
Perhaps, the most significant drawback of these studies is the narrowness of their
focus. Wykes is primarily (if not exclusively) concerned with the impact of the riots
uponUnitarians.AnincreaseinChurchandKingfeelingwouldnotjustaffectthoseof
theUnitarianfaith.Therefore,ifWyke’sargumentsconcerninganationwideincreasein
ChurchandKingaretobeupheldthenthefocusoftheresearchneedstobeexpanded
toincludenonUnitarianbranchesofdissent.
AfurtherminorcriticismthatcanbemadeofWyke’sworkisthatitsometimeslacks
cohesion. Whilst the decision to extend the focus of the research across England
is creditable, it is implemented in a relatively haphazard manner. In support of his
argumentthatthePriestleyRiotshelpedtoheightenChurchandKingfeelingacross
thecountry,WykesdrawsonnumerousexamplesfromaroundEngland,butnoneof
theseareexpandeduponinanydetail.Clearly,considerablymoreworkisneededon
thenationalimpactofthePriestleyRiots.
Denis Martineau’s aforementioned study took up Rose’s arguments regarding the
roleof themagistrates inthePriestleyRiotsandprovidedfurtherscrutinyastotheir
culpability.Inadetailedexaminationoftheeventsleadinguptoandduringtheriots,
Martineau concludes that the magistrates played a crucial part in instigating and
managingtheriots.ItissuggestedthatthecontroversialadvertinAris’sBirmingham
Gazette, which threatened to identify those who attended the dinner was, in fact,
placedbythemagistrates.Martineaucontendsthatthiswasanattempttocancelthe
dinner (Martineau,1996).Having failed tocancel thedinner, it issuggested that the
magistratesattemptedtodisrupt thedinner,hencethegatheringofacrowdoutside
thehotelataround7pm.Thisalsofailed,becausethedinnerfinishedearlyataround
6pm.Martineaubelievesthatthemagistrateswereunwillingtoletthedissenters‘get
offscotfree’soinstructedthecrowdtoattacktheUnitarianmeetinghouses(Martineau
1996p13).However,whenthecrowdextendeditsattentiontoPriestley’shomeandthe
homesofotherleadingdissenters,themagistratesrealisedtheyhadlostcontroland
madetheirfirstattemptstoquellthedisturbances.
In some ways, this study is quite sophisticated. Martineau recognises that those
participatingintheBirminghamdisturbancesdidnotconsistofasinglecrowd.Instead,
itissuggestedtheremaybeseveralgroupsofrioters,eachwiththeirownaspirations
andreasonsforparticipating.Ingeneralhowever,itmustbenotedthatwhilstmostof
Martineau’sargumentsareplausible,theyshouldbeapproachedwithsomecaution.
Firstly,thereliabilityofsomeoftheauthor’ssourcematerialmustbequestioned.For
example,MartineaucitesthememoirsofJamesAmphlett,whoattheageofsixteen
participatedintherioting,yethisrecollectionsoftheriotswerenotwrittenuntilhewas
eighty-fiveyearsold.ThismustraiseseriousdoubtsoverthereliabilityofAmphlett’s
memories of the riots. Secondly, whilst there is considerable evidence of primary
reading,itmustbenotedthatmanyofMartineau’sargumentsseemtobebasedmore
onconjecturethanavailablesourcematerial.Martineaudoesnotcitesufficientevidence
tosuggestthatthemagistratesplacedtheadvertinAris’sBirmingham Gazette,warning
thatnamesofattendeeswouldbeprinted.Likewise,thereisinsufficientevidencecited
tosuggestthatthecrowdthatgatheredoutsidethedinnerwasthereatthebehestof
the magistrates. Whilst these notions should not be disregarded, more evidence is
requiredforthemtobeconsideredanythingmorethanspeculation.
ItisperhapsunsurprisingthatPriestley’sbiographerscontinuetoshowgreatinterest
intheriots.RobertSchofield,inhiscomprehensivetwovolumebiographyofJoseph
Priestley, paid particularly close attention to Priestley’s arrival in Birmingham and
providedadetailedaccountofhisactivitiesinBirminghamintheleaduptotheriots
(Schofield, 2004). The result is an overly sympathetic account. Whilst Schofield’s
criticism of Priestley’s opponents may not be unjustified, to describe Priestley as
merelydefendinghimselfagainstthosewhochosetocriticisehimwouldappeartobe
asomewhatnaive.Fundamentally,itunderestimatesthelevelofcontroversyPriestley’s
choiceofwordscouldcause,especiallywhenputinthecontextofPriestley’sfamous
Gun-Powderspeech.
OfgreaterinterestisthelevelofcriticismdirectedbySchofieldtowardsPrimeMinister
WilliamPitttheyounger.WhilstnotattemptingtocontradictRose’scontentionthatPitt
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley RiotsJonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
36 37
hadnodirectroleinorganisingtheriots,SchofieldinsteadarguesthatPittsponsored
adverse propaganda in the press which drew parallels between the radicals of the
FrenchRevolutionandthedissenter’sagitationforrepealoftheTestandCorporation
acts(Schofield,2004).Suchconclusionswouldbenefit fromamorecomprehensive
studyofthepressduringthisperiod.Whilstthedebatesurroundingtheoriginsofthe
riotsisnotdirectlyengagedwith,theinferenceoftheroleofPittandBurkeintheanti-
dissentermovementalongwiththecompleteavoidanceofsocialissueswouldatleast
suggestthatSchofieldsupportstheideathattheriotswerefundamentallyreligious.
ThefactthatthePriestleyRiotscontinuetoattractinterestfromhistoriansistestament
tothefactthattheyremainaformativeeventinthehistoryofBirmingham.Inhiswider
discussion of ‘Industrial Enlightenment’ in Birmingham between 1760-1820 (Jones,
2008), Peter Jones revisits the debates surrounding the origins and impact of the
Priestley Riots. The resulting discussion of the Priestley Riots is perhaps the most
balancedassessmentoftheiroriginsyet.
Insteadofexaminingtheriotsinisolation,Jonesplacestheminthecontextofgrowing
tensions between churchmen and dissenters that existed in Birmingham from the
1780sonwards.These includedisagreementsover theestablishmentofaUnitarian
SundaySchoolandBirmingham library’sdecision tostockPriestley’sHistory of the
Corruptions of Christianity,beforemovingon to thedissentersattempt to repeal the
TestandCorporationActswhichwastocausesomuchcontroversybetweenAnglicans
anddissenters.JohnMoneyhadpreviouslyarguedthatthegrowingreligioushostility
wouldhaveexistedregardlessofPriestley’spresenceinBirmingham.Joneshowever
considersPriestley’sarrivalinBirminghamascrucialinexacerbatingreligioustensions.
Inregardstotheoriginsoftheriots,Jonesbelieves‘weshouldprioritisethereawakening
ofreligioustensionsasthemaincausalfactor’(Jones,2008p192).InparticularJones,
likeMoneyandDitchfield,regardstheagitationforrepealovertheTestandCorporation
actsasoffundamentalimportancetothis.LikeMoneyhowever,Jonesiscarefulnotto
disregardtheimportanceofpoliticalandsocialfactorsanddoesnotbelievetheriots
canbeexplainedinthecontextofreligioustensionsalone.Heiscarefultoacknowledge
thatalthoughUnitarianswereobviouslytheprimarytarget,thiscouldbedueasmuch
totheir‘resentmentofinstitutionaldominance’astheir‘indignationattheology’(Jones,
2008p194).
Jones also discusses the impact of the riots upon Birmingham. The tendency of
historianssuchasMoneyandStevensontoplaydownthelongtermsignificanceofthe
PriestleyRiotsisreversed.Jonesarguesthattheriotsseverelyweakenedandthinned
theranksofPresbyterians.SimilartoDavidWykes,Jonesarguesthosemembersof
the dissenting family who elected to stay, continued to suffer marginalisation in the
followingdecadeasadirectresultoftheriots.Furthermore,thosedissenterswhohad
campaignedsoresolutelyfortheremovalofthebarrierstocivilequalitywere,ironically
to suffer, considerable disempowerment at the local level. Birmingham meanwhile,
having been one of the countries leading areas of dissent before the riots, was to
remain‘steadfastlyChurchandKingthroughoutthe1790s’(Jones,2008p198).
The 18th Century Riot in HistoryItwasnotuntilthelate1950sthathistoriansconsideredpopularprotestandpopular
disturbances worthy of scholarly attention. Over the next forty years the subject
has developed a vibrant and elaborate historiography. This is thanks largely to two
historianswhoarguablyfounderedthestudyof‘historyfrombelow’,GeorgeRudéand
E.P.Thompson(Sharpe,1991p25).
GeorgeRudé’sapproachtothecrowdwasinitiallydevelopedinastudyoftheParisian
crowdintheFrenchRevolutionbeforebeingexpandedtocoverpopulardisturbances
in 18th century London and eventually a history of popular disturbances in France
and England during the 18th century (Rudé, 1959/1964). Rudé’s work was heavily
influencedbytheworkofGeorgesLefebvre,whowasthefirsttoseethoseparticipating
in thepopulardisturbancesof theFrenchRevolutionnotasasingleentitybutasa
groupofindividualseachwiththeirownlogicalreasonsforprotesting(Lefebvre,1967).
Rudé’s aim was to understand the crowd ‘from within’, in essence, its behaviour,
composition and how individuals were drawn into its actions (Krantz, 1988 p4).
Abandoningthepreviouslyhostilecategorizationofthecrowd,Rudé’sresearchrevealed
thatthoseparticipatinginpopulardisturbanceswerenotofthecriminalunderclassor
thedregsofsociety. Insteadtheywere‘ordinary’peopleofsettledemploymentwith
rationalbeliefsandvaluesystems(Krantz,1998).Thiswas inpartachievedthrough
theuseofextensiveprimarysourcematerial includingcriminal,policeand judiciary
recordsthathadpreviouslybeenlargelyignoredbyhistorians.
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
38 39
ThemajorsuccessofRudé’sresearchwasthatbysuccessfullyidentifyingthe‘faces
ofthecrowd’,hewasabletorestorethereputationofthoseparticipatinginpopular
protests.Protestorsarenowseenasindividualseachwiththeirownidentity,interests
andaspirations.Thissimultaneouslydemonstratedthatnegativeinsinuationsregarding
theeighteenthcenturycrowdsuchasBurke’s ‘mob’or ‘swinishmultitude’wereno
longerappropriate.
ThereislittledoubtingthatRudé’sworkontheeighteenthcenturycrowdhasproved
tobehugelyinfluential,howeverhisconclusionssurroundingwhypeopleparticipated
in popular disturbances has caused controversy and attracted much interest from
historians.Asa result, critiquesofRudé’s theseson theeighteenthcentury riot are
numerous. Perhaps, the most significant criticism that can be made is that Rudé’s
Marxistperspectiveledhimtoprivilegeeventsthatsupportedthenotionofadeveloping
class conflict, thus those incidents of protest that did not directly demonstrate this
conceptwereoftenignored.Suchanapproachcannowbeseenasanachronistic.
One of the most wide ranging critiques of Rudé’s discussion of the eighteenth
century crowdcanbe found in theworkofNicholasRogers (Rogers, 1998).Whilst
Rogers acknowledges the importance of Rudé’s research to our understanding
of the eighteenth century crowd, he successfully identified certain difficulties with
someofRudé’sbroadergeneralisationsaboutcrowdaction.RogersattacksRudé’s
verydefinitionof thecrowdasbeingatonce tooelasticandrestrictive, forexample
allowingthe inclusionofstreetgangsbutomittingelectoralcrowds,despite the fact
thatmanypoliticaldemonstrationswereabyproductoftheelectoralprocess(Rogers,
1998). Furthermore, it is argued that Rudé’s preoccupation with the most dramatic
forms of social and political protest led him to explain popular disturbances in an
overly simplistic manner. Rogers suggests that to categorize popular disturbances
assimplyreactivetoeventssuchaseconomichardshipunderestimatesotherfactors
includingthesignificanceof‘ideologicalconfigurations’andthe‘crowdsownrelations
with authority’ (Rogers, 1998 p11). Fundamentally, Rudé’s decision to focus on the
crowdinitsmostconfrontationalmodedivorcesthecrowdfromits‘deeperhistorical
context’whichshould,inRogers’sopinionincludenonviolentaswellasviolentforms
ofpopularprotest(Rogers,1998p12).
Individual studies of specific eighteenth century riots have also had significant
ramifications for Rudé’s convictions surrounding the importance of class conflict in
explainingtheoutbreakofeighteenthcenturyriots.ColinHaydon(Haydon,1994)has
provideda convincing refutation of Rudé’s conclusions surrounding London’s 1780
GordonRiots (Rudé,1956).Crucially,Haydondemonstrates thatRudéssources, in
particularhisuseofclaimsfordamagedpropertyaremisleading,inthattheyportray
richCatholicsasthemaintargetsoftherioters,wheninrealityitwasalwaysfarmore
likelythatattacksagainsttherichratherthanthepoorwouldberecorded.Whilstattacks
uponawealthypersonspropertyare likely toshowup inclaims forcompensation,
attacksagainstthoseimpoverishedwerenotconsideredworthyofgoingtocourtand
thusdonotappearinRudé’ssources.
WhilstRudé’sdecisiontoregardclassconflictastheprimarymotivatorineighteenth
centurypopulardisturbanceshasattractedcriticism,therecanbelittledoubtthatthe
interpretationofthecrowdas‘rational’remainstherealvalueofhiswork.Inmanyways
hisconceptofthe‘rational’crowdwasbuiltuponbyE.P.Thompson(Thompson,1971).
Thompson’s approach to eighteenth century popular disturbances is considerably
moresubtlethanthatofRudé.Byanalysingeighteenthcenturyfoodriots,Thompson
rejectedthenotionthatindividualssimplyriotedduetohunger.Instead,hearguedthat
participantsinfoodriotswereinformedbyaclearandsustainedvaluesystem,which
heentitledthe‘moraleconomy’.Thisincludednotonlyawillingnesstoreacttorising
prices,butalsoasensitivity to legitimateand illegitimatepractices inmarketingand
milling.Theresultwasareadinesstoreactifthecustomaryrightsofthecommunity
wereperceivedtohavebeendiscardedinfavoroftheself-centereddesiresofaminority
(Thompson,1971).
Theconceptofamoraleconomyhasprovedtobehighlydurable.Notonlyhasitbeen
usedbyhistoriansofBritishfoodriotsbutalsohasbeenadaptedtoexplainfoodriots
inothercountriessuchasFrance,AmericaandSouthEastAsia.The‘moraleconomy’
hasalsobeenappliedtoothertypesofdisturbancesincludingpoliticalandindustrial
conflicts(Randall,2006).Despitethis,criticismsofThompson’smoraleconomythesis
remainextensive.
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley RiotsJonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
40 41
ThoseeconomichistorianswhoThompsonaccusedof‘grosseconomicreductionism’
(Thompson,1971p76)havecounteredthatThompson’smodelisbuiltoneconomic
ignoranceoftheerahewasstudying.IthasalsobeenpointedoutthatThompson’s
model is constructed in a rural society, thus misunderstanding the comparatively
different world of eighteenth century urban society. Adrian Randall has, however,
contendedthatsuchdifferencesshouldnotbeoverstated,arguingthatinhabitantsof
theeighteenthcenturycountrysideshouldnotbeseenas‘culturallystatic’(Randall,
2006p4).FurthercriticismshavecenteredonThompson’sneglectingof the roleof
women,religionandtheabsenceofaleadingroleforthemiddlingsort(Randall,2006).
PerhapsthemostconvincingcriticismthatcanbemadeofThompson’smoraleconomy
thesis is the difficulties in attempting to utilise a single inclusive model to explain
eventsascomplicatedaspopulardisturbances,whichcanoftenhaveverycomplex
anddiversecauses.Whilstitshouldbenotedthatthenotionofamoraleconomyhas
provedflexible, it shouldnot inanywaybeseenasall encompassing.Attempts to
applythemoraleconomymodeltononfoodriotshaveprovedproblematic.Atypical
example is Colin Haydon’s previously discussed study of the Gordon Riots. Whilst
Haydon’s deconstruction of Rudé’s arguments surrounding the riots is convincing,
his attempt to apply the notion of a moral economy to the Gordon Riots (Haydon,
1991)ismuchlessso.SuchanapplicationisbasedonHaydon’scontentionthatthe
rioterswerefundamentallyconservative,yetthisaloneseemsinsufficientreasoningto
invokeThompson’s‘moraleconomy’andrevealsthedangersinemployingtheterm
tooloosely.ItissignificantthatwhilstthePriestleyRiots(andotherChurchandKing
riots)areseenasfundamentallyconservative,nohistorianhasattemptedtoapplythe
‘moraleconomy’inthisway.
There is little doubting that the subject of eighteenth century popular disturbances
ingeneralandthePriestleyriots inparticularhavegeneratedconsiderablescholarly
interest.ThankslargelytotheworkofRudéthe‘riotingcrowd’isnolongerstereotyped
asmadeupoffelonsorthe‘dregsofsociety’.Studiesofpopulardisturbancesinthe
eighteenthcenturyhaverevealedthatparticipantsincrowdactionscamefromavariety
ofdifferentbackgrounds.Whilstsuchresearchhasextendedourunderstandingofthe
make-up of the crowd, the question over what compelled people to riot remains a
contentious issue.Thesocial interpretationadvancedbyRudéandmoreeloquently
byThompsonremainssteadfast in thestudyofsomeriots,especially foodriotsbut
has increasinglybeenabandonedinthestudyofotherriots.This iscertainlytrueof
thePriestley riots,where the recenthistorical trendplaces religiousand toa lesser
extent political grievances as the primary motivator for four nights of rioting in July
1791.Despite thesedevelopments, noconclusiveagreementhasbeen reachedon
thecausesof thePriestleyriots, this issomethingthat looks likelytocontinuetobe
debatedbyhistorians.
REFERENCES
Allen,B.M.‘PriestleyandtheBirminghamRiots’,Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society,VolV,1931-34,pp113-32.
Creasey,J.‘TheBirminghamRiotsof1791:AContemporaryAccount’,Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society,VolXIII,1963-66,pp111-117.
Ditchfield,G.M.‘Priestleyriotsinhistoricalperspective’,TransactionsoftheUnitarianHistoricalSociety,20,1991-2,pp3-16.
Dixon,R.A.‘WasDrPriestleyResponsiblefortheDinnerwhichstartedthe1791Riots?[withareplybyBernardMeredithAllenandarejoinderbytheauthor],Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society,VolV,1931-34,pp299-323.
Griffith,W.‘PriestleyinLondon’,NotesandRecordsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon,Vol38:1,August1983.
Haydon,C. (1991)AntiCatholicism inEighteenthcenturyEngland,c.1714-1780:A Political and Social Study,Manchester,ManchesterUniversityPress.
Jones, P. (2009) Industrial Enlightenment: Science, technology and culture inBirminghamand theWestMidlands, 1760-1820,Manchester,ManchesterUniversityPress.
Krantz,F.(1988)HistoryfromBelow:StudiesinPopularProtestandPopularIdeology,Oxford,Blackwell.
Lefebvre,G.(1967)TheComingoftheFrenchRevolution,TranslatedbyR.R.Palmer,Princeton,PrincetonUniversityPress.
Lucas,C.(1996)TheCrowdandPolitics,inJONES,P.(ed)TheFrenchRevolutioninSocialandPoliticalPerspective,London,Arnold.
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley RiotsJonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
42 43
Maddison,R.E.W.andMADDISON,F.(1956)‘JosephPriestleyandtheBirminghamRiots’,Notes and Records of the Royal Society,Vol12,No.1,Aug1956,pp98-113.
Martineau,D. ‘PlayingDetective:ThePriestleyRiotsof1791’.Birmingham Historian,No.12,1995,pp15-18,No.13,1996,pp.11-16.
Money,J.(1977)ExperienceandIdentity,BirminghamandtheWestMidlands1760-1800.Manchester,ManchesterUniversityPress.
Randall,A.RiotousAssemblies:PopularProtestinHanoverianEngland,Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress,2006.
Robinson.E. ‘NewLighton thePriestlyRiots’.The Historical Journal,Vol. 3,No.1,1960,pp73-75.
Rogers,N.Crowds,CultureandPoliticsinGeorgianBritain,Oxford,ClarendonPress,1998.
Rose,R.B.ThePriestleyRiotsof1791,PastandPresent,No.18,1960,pp68-88.
Rudé,G.ParisandLondon in the18thCentury:Studies in Popular Protest,London,CollinsSons&Coltd,1959.
Rudé,George.The Crowd in History, 1730-1848.London,JohnWiley&Sons,inc,1964.
Rudé,G.‘TheGordonriots:astudyoftheriotersandtheirvictims’,TRHS.,5thseries,VI,1956,pp93-114.
Schofield,R.TheEnlightenedJosephPriestley:Astudyofhis lifeandwork1773to1804,UniversityParkPA,PennStateUniPress,2004.
Sharpe,J.‘HistoryfromBelow’inNew Perspectives on Historical Writing,editedbyP.Burke,UniversityPark,Pennsylvania,PennsylvaniaUniversityPress,1991.
Sheps,A.‘PublicPerceptionofJosephPriestley,theBirminghamDissenters,andtheChurchandKingRiotsof1791’,Eighteenth Century Life,Vol13,No2,May1989,pp46-64.
Thompson,E.P.‘TheMoralEconomyoftheEnglishCrowdintheEighteenthCentury’,Past and Present,Vol.50(1971)pp76-136.
Upton,C.AHistoryofBirmingham,Chichester,Phillimore,2001.
Wykes,D.‘AfinishedmonsterofthetrueBirminghambreed:Birmingham,Unitarians
andthe1791Priestleyriots’,inSell,A.Protestant nonconformists and the West Midlands of England,Keele,KeeleUniversityPress,1996,pp43-69.
Wykes, David L, ‘The Spirit of Persecutors exemplified: the Priestley riots and thevictimsofthechurchandkingmobs’,Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society, 20(1991-2),pp17-39.
Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots Jonathan Atherton | The Priestley Riots
44 45
A comparison between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint of Jer. 31.31–34 (LXX 38:31–34)
Dr.GeorgWalser
ABSTRACT
Jeremiah31.31–34isthelongestquotationintheNewTestamentanditisquotedtwice
inHebrews:8.8–12and10.16–17.AsmostquotationsinHebrewsthequotationfrom
Jeremiah is takenfromtheGreektranslationof theHebrewScriptures.Whatmakes
thisquotationespeciallyinterestingisthefactthattheHebrewversiondiffersagreat
dealfromtheGreekversionquotedinHebrews.Inthepresentarticlethedifferences
betweentheHebrewtextandtheGreektextquotedinHebrewswillbediscussed.The
starting-pointforthediscussionistheobservationsmadebyAdrianSchenkerinashort
monographpublishedin2006,whichsuggestedchieflythatthedifferencesbetween
thetwoversionsisnotduetothetranslation,buttodifferentHebrewtexts,ofwhichthe
onetranslatedintoGreekisolderandmoreoriginal.
KEYWORDS
Jeremiah,LettertoHebrews,Septuagint,Greek,UseofOTinNT.
IntroductionJeremiah 31.31–34 (in the Greek translation, which is called the Septuagint or just
LXX,andwasfinishedinthelastcenturiesBCE,thetextisfoundinJer.38.31–34)is
thelongestquotationintheNewTestamentanditoccursintwoversionsinHebrews
8.8–12and10.16–17.AswithmostquotationsinHebrewsthequotationfromJeremiah
istakenfromtheSeptuagint.Whatmakesthisquotationespecially interestingisthe
fact that theHebrewversion found in theMasoretic text (MT), i.e. theversionof the
HebrewtextpreservedbytheJewishcommunityanddefinitivelyestablishedinthefirst
centuriesCE,differsagreatdealfromtheGreektextfoundintheSeptuagintandin
Hebrews.Notonlydotheversionsdifferagreatdeal,butthecontentsoftheversions
appear tobe incompatiblewitheachother.TheGreekversion,whichappearstobe
moreoriginalthantheMasoreticone,seemstobequiteoddintheoverallcontextofthe
OldTestament,whiletheMasoreticversionwouldfitpoorlyinthelettertotheHebrews.
The background of the present article is the short monograph of Adrian Schenker
‘Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und
griechischenBibel’publishedin2006.AccordingtoSchenker:
ThepromiseofanewcovenantintheprophetJeremiahintheversionoftheGreek
BibleoftheSeptuaginthasneverbeensystematicallycomparedwiththeHebrew
version,exceptintheexcellentbutshortstudybyPierre-MauriceBogaert,Louvain-
La-Neuve,andthecontradictoryinvestigationbyBernardRenaud(Schenker,2006:
11,translationbythepresentauthor)
Strangelyenough, itseemsas ifSchenker is right, that thedifferencesbetween the
twoversionshavebeendiscussedonlyoccasionallybefore.Further, thedifferences
betweentheversionsrarelyseemtohavebeentakenintoaccountintheinterpretation
ofthequotationinHebrews.Thisisevenmoresurprisingsince,accordingtoSchenker,
therearesubstantialdifferencesbetweenthetextoftheSeptuagintandthetextofthe
Hebrewversion,andthatthesedifferencesappeartobecausednotbytheprocessof
translation,butratherbecausethetextoftheSeptuagintisatranslationofadifferent
Vorlage (i.e. theHebrew textwhichwassubsequently translated intoGreek),which
appears to be older and more original than the version preserved in the Masoretic
Hebrewtext.Moreover,thedifferentversionsofthetextseemtorepresenttwodifferent
theologiesaboutthecovenant. It isalsonoticedbySchenkerthatbothversionsare
found inmostmodern translationsof theBible,sinceJeremiah isusually translated
fromtheHebrewtext,whilethequotationinHebrewsisaquotationfromtheGreektext.
In the present article the differences between the Masoretic text and the text of
the Septuagint will be discussed, and the starting-point for the discussion is the
observationsmadebySchenker.Thecharacterofmostofthesedifferencesappears
tobeofthekindthattheyareveryunlikelytobeattributabletoscribalerrorsortextual
corruptions,sincethetranslationofJeremiahfromtheHebrewisvery literal. In fact,
thetranslationofJeremiahisoneofthemostliteralinthewholeSeptuagint.Thismight
seemacontradiction,sincethedifferencebetweentheMasoretictextofJeremiahand
thetextoftheSeptuagintofJeremiahismoreobviousthaninanyotherbookoftheOld
Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34
46 47
Testament.TheGreektextisactually15%shorterthantheHebrewversion.However,
thedifferencesaremostlyquantitative,andwherethetwoversionscorrespondtoeach
other,theGreektranslationisextremelyfaithfultoitsHebrewequivalent.Thus,ithas
beenarguedthattheVorlageofGreekJeremiahdifferedfromtheHebrewtextknown
today as the Masoretic Hebrew text (Schenker, 2006). That there actually existed a
differentHebrewversionofJeremiah,withaffinitieswiththeGreekversion,hasbeen
confirmedbythemanuscriptsfoundatQumran(e.g.4QJerband4QJerd).Ithasalso
beenarguedthatthedifferencesbetweenthetwoversionsshouldonlybeattributedto
thetranslatorwhentextualvariationcanbeexcluded(Aejmelaeus,2002).Thefollowing
surveywillespeciallytaketheargumentsputforwardbySchenkerintoconsideration.
v.31
The days are הנה ימים באים נאם־יהוה וכרתי את־בית ישראל ואת־בית יהודה ברית חדשה׃
surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and the house of Judah. (NRSV)
ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται φησὶν κύριος καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα
διαθήκην καινήν ‘Seedaysarecoming’,speaksLORD,‘andIwillcovenantanew
covenantwiththehouseofIsraelandthehouseofJudah.’
V.31of theSeptuagintappears tobeavery literal renderingofa textverycloseto,
or identical with, the Masoretic text. Every word in the Hebrew text is represented
byanequivalentword in theGreek text,and theequivalentsappear tobestandard
equivalents.TheonlyminordifferenceistherenderingoftheHebrewparticiple באים
(coming)bythefiniteverb ἔρχονται (theycome),adifferencewhichhardlyaffectsthe
contentoftheverse.NeitherarethereanyvariantsinanyHebrewmanuscriptsofthis
verseindicatedinthestandardeditions.ForthetextoftheSeptuagintthereareonly
a few insignificant variants: ἡμέρα ἔρχεται (a day comes) for ἡμέραι ἔρχονται (days
come), λέγει (hesays)for φησίν (hespeaks),and Ἰακώβ (Jacob)forΙσραηλ (Israel).
v.32
לא כברית אשר כרתי את־אבותם ביום החזיקי בידם להוציאם מארץ מצרים אשר־המה
theirwithmadeIthatcovenantthelikebenotwillIt בריתי ואנכי בעלתי בם נאם־יהוה׃
ancestorswhenItookthembythehandtobringthemoutofthelandofEgypt—a
covenantthattheybroke,thoughIwastheirhusband,saystheLORD.(NRSV)
οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην ἣν διεθέμην τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου
τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ
διαθήκῃ μου καὶ ἐγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν φησὶν κύριος Notaccordingtothecovenant
whichIcovenantedwiththeirfathersindaywhenItookholdoftheirhandtolead
themoutofthelandofEgypt,fortheydidnotabidebymycovenant,andIneglected
them’,speaksLORD.
In verse 32 there are several major differences. All these differences appear in the
relativeclauseattheendoftheverse.Firsttherelativeparticle אשר (which)isrendered
by ὅτι (for). אשר isusuallyrenderedbyrelativepronounsintheSeptuagint,butthere
areacoupleofparallels inJeremiah,where אשר is renderedby ιτὅ: Jer.11:17and
20:17.Inneitheroftheexamplesarethereanytextualvariants(in11:17bothAquila
and Symmachus, who produced alternative translations of the Hebrew Scriptures,
render אשר bya relativepronoun,but in20:17Symmachusretains ὅτι,whileAquila
hasarelativepronoun).Here inverse32Aquilahas ὅτι,whileSymmachushas γάρ
(for)(apparentlyalsochangingthewordorder,since γάρ cannotbethefirstwordin
aclause!).Thus, though therendering is rare, itseems likely that itwasacceptable
bothtotheoriginaltranslatorofJeremiahandtosubsequentreaders.Thusnotextual
corruptionhastobeassumed,buttherendering ὅτι mostprobablyshouldbeattributed
totheoriginaltranslatorofJeremiah.
Next there isadifferencebetweenMT הפרו את־בריתי (theybrokemycovenant)and
LXXαὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου (theydidnotabidebymycovenant).The
verb ωνέμμἐ (abide)isfoundanother20timesintheSeptuagint.In11ofthese ἐμμένω
appearstobearenderingwhichhasanequivalentinMT.Nineofthesearerenderings
oftheHebrewroot קום (stand)(Num.23:19;Deut.19:15;27:26;Is.7:7;8:10;28:18;
Jer.51:25bis(MT44:25)and51:28(MT44:28).Ascanbeseen,threeoftheexamples
arefoundinJeremiah.Thus,giventheliteralrenderinginJeremiah,it isnotunlikely
thatἐνέμειναν tooisarenderingofקום.SchenkerdiscussesallexamplesexceptIs.7:7,
andalsoaddsoneexamplefrom1Macc.10:27–27.Henoticesthatinsomeexamples
(Deut.27:26andJer.51:25(MT44:25)therearecontextualsimilarities,andhecomes
totheconclusionthattheVorlageofαὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μουwas לא הקיםו
.2006)(Schenker,MTinfoundtextthethanrather(covenantmybystoodthey)בבריתי
Itshouldbenotedthat therearenovariantsneitherof theGreeknorof theHebrew
Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34 Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34
48 49
text.Aquilareadsδιεσκέδασαν (theyscattered),whileSymmachushasδιέλυσαν (they
brokeup).Apparently,botharefollowingatextsimilaroridenticaltoMT.Againitseems
asifthetextoftheSeptuagintisarenderingofatextwhichdiffersfromtheMasoretic
Hebrew text. Schenker also points out the difference in meaning between the two
versions;inMTthecovenantisbrokenbyIsraelsincetheexodusfromEgypt,whilein
LXXIsraelisdescribedinamorepassivesense,asnothavingtheendurancetostayin
thecovenant(Schenker,2006).
The following difference is perhaps the most striking in the whole passage. While
MThasואנכי בעלתי בם (thoughIwastheirhusband),LXXhasκαὶ ἐγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν (andIneglectedthem).SchenkerpointsoutthatinJer.3.14averysimilarexpression
by διότι ἐγὼ κατακυριεύσωrenderedis((NRSV)masteryouramIfor) כי אנכי בעלתי בכםὑμῶν (for Iwill ruleyou),andthusdrawstheconclusionthat it isvery likelythatthe
textoftheSeptuagintisarenderingofadifferentHebrewtextthantheMasoretictext
(Schenker,2006).Unfortunately theverbἀμελέω isonly foundonemoretime in the
Septuagint, where it has an equivalent in the Masoretic text, viz. Jer. 4:17. In 4:17 ἀμελέω isarenderingoftheHebrewrootהרמ (rebel).However,accordingtoSchenker
inthecontextofJer.31:32itwouldnotbepossibletohavethetheverb מרה,andhe
thussuggeststhatἀμελέωinJer.31:32couldbearenderingeitherofמאס (reject)or
ofשלח (sendaway, letdown(Schenker,2006)).Schenkeralsopointsout that ithas
beensuggestedthatthereasonforthedifferencebetweenthetwoversionscouldbe
atextualcorruptionintheVorlageoftheSeptuagint,where בעלתי(Iwastheirhusband)
has been corrupted into I) געלתי abhorred them). However, though the difference
between בעלתי and געלתי isquitesmall,Schenkerarguesthatit islesslikelythatthe
differencebetweentheversionsisduetotextualcorruption,sincethechangeinthe
texthasamajorimpactonthemeaningofthetext.InsteadSchenkerarguesthatthe
reason for the difference is a literary/redactional modification of the text (Schenker,
2006).ThereseemstobegoodreasontobelievethatShenkerisright,sincethereare
novariantreadingsneitherfortheHebrewnorfortheGreektext.Aquilahasἐκυρίευσα (Iwasmaster),andSymmachushasκατεῖχον (I ruled), thus followinga text like the
Masoretictext.
Themodificationofthetextchangesthewholemeaningofthetext.Accordingtothe
MasoretictextthecovenantisbrokenbytheIsraelites,butitisnotbrokenbyGod,who
stillisthemasterorhusbandofIsrael.AccordingtotheSeptuagint,ontheotherhand,
thecovenantwasnotkeptby the Israelites,andGoddidnotcare for the Israelites.
AccordingtoSchenkerintheLXXversionthecovenantisnotonlyneglectedbyGod,
but it isevenbrokenbyGod.Schenkerarguesthat ἀμελέω isarenderingofaverb
ofrejection‘einVerbderVerwerfung’,e.g.,מאס (reject)orשלח(sendaway,letdown)
(Schenker,2006).However,itisnotclearhowhecomestothatconclusion,sincethe
onlywaytoknowanythingaboutthis‘VerbderVerwerfung’isbyitsrendering,which
is ἀμελέω. As noted above the only example in the Septuagint, where the Vorlage
of ἀμελέω is known, is Jer. 4:17, and that Vorlage, ,(rebel) מרה would not fit in the
contextofJer.31:32.ThustheVorlageof ἀμελέωcanonlyberetrievedbyitsrendering,
viz.ἀμελέω.Themeaninggivenbythedictionariesofἀμελέω is‘havenocarefor,be
neglectful of’ (Liddell, Scott, 1996: 80), ‘to neglect, to be neglectful’ (Lust, Eunikel,
Hauspie,1992:23),‘tohavenocarefor,toneglect,beunconcerned”(Danker,2000:
52),tobeunconcernedandindifferentto’(Muraoka,2002:23).Apparently,themeaning
givenby thedictionaries isquitediverse from ‘break’.Buthowdid the translatorof
Jeremiahunderstandthemeaningofἀμελέω?OnepossiblecluetothatistheVorlage
ofἀμελέωinJer.4:17,viz.מרה.Though מרהisnotpossibleinthecontextofJer.31:32,
it was still possible for the translator of Jeremiah to render it by ἀμελέω, thus the
meaningof מרהcantellsomethingabouthowthetranslatorofJeremiahunderstood
ἀμελέω.Accordingtothedictionariesthemeaningofמרהis‘becontentious,refractory,
rebellious’(Gesenius,1910:598),‘toberecalcitrant,rebellious’(Koeler,Baumgartner,
2001:632).Themeaninggivenbythedictionariesappearstobecloserto‘break’than
themeaninggiven forἀμελέω,but is still not thesameas ‘break’ (Theverbמרה in
qalisrenderedbyvariousGreekwords:ἀνθίστημι (resist),ἀμελέω(neglect),ἀπειθέω
(disobey) (2), ἀπειθής (disobedient) (2), ἀσεβέω (be impious), ἐρεθίζω (provoke)
(2), ἐρεθιστής (rebellious person), μὴ εἰσακούω (disobey), παραβαίνω (transgress),
παραπικραίνω (provoke)(8),παροξύνω(irritate),πικρός (bitter)).Hence,thereappears
tobegoodreasontocallSchenker’sconclusionintosomedoubt,sincethereseemsto
benogroundforsupposingaVorlageofἀμελέωwithameaningdiffrentfrom ἀμελέω
itself.Consequently,Schenker is right that themeaningof theMasoretic textdiffers
substantiallyfromthemeaningoftheSeptuagint,buthepushestheevidencetoofarby
assumingaVorlageofἀμελέωwithameaningquitedifferentfromἀμελέωitself.Thus
the conclusions drawn by Schenker about how the two versions differ substantially
fromeachotherfromatheologicalperspectiveisdoubtful.AccordingtoSchenkerthe
Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34
50 51
Masoretic perspective presupposes that the covenant still exists between God and
Israeldue to the faithfulnessofGod,even though thecovenant isbrokenby Israel.
FromtheSeptuagintperspectivethecovenantnolongerexists,sinceitisbrokenboth
byIsraelandbyGod.Schenkerrightlypointsoutthatsuchaperspective,withGod
breakingthecovenant,hasveryfewcounterpartsintheOldTestament.InsteadGodis
usuallypresentedasfaithfultohiscovenant.Schenker’sconclusionofhisinterpretation
isthat,sinceitisveryunlikelythatsomeonehaschangedtheHebrewtextaccording
totheGreektext,theGreektextismoreoriginalandithasbeenchangedtowardsthe
textfoundintheMasoreticHebrewversion.Inotherwords:theoriginaltext,whichis
preservedintheSeptuagint,hasatheologywhichisdirectlycontrarytothetheologyof
therestoftheOldTestament,andwasthuschangedinaccordancewiththecommon
theologyoftheOldTestament,andistodaypreservedintheMasoretictext(Schenker,
2006).However,iftheverb ἀμελέω doesnothavethemeaningof‘breaking’,Schenker’s
conclusionfallstotheground,andthecovenantexisitsintheSeptuagintversionaswell
asintheMasoreticversion.Itshouldbenoted,however,thattherestillaredifferences
betweenthetwoversions;intheMasoreticversiontheIsraelitesareactuallybreaking
thecovenant,whileGodisfaithfultoit,intheSeptuagintversiontheIsraelitesarenot
abletokeepthecovenant,whileGodisneglectingit.
v.33
כי זאת הברית אשר אכרת את־בית ישראל אחרי הימים ההם נאם־יהוה נתתי את־תורתי בקרבם ועל־לבם אכתבנה והייתי להם לאלהים והמה יהיו־לי לעם׃But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those
days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on
their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (NRSV)
ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας φησὶν κύριος διδοὺς δώσω νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν ‘Forthisis
mycovenant,whichIwillcovenantwiththehouseofIsraelafterthosedays,’speaks
LORD.‘GivingIwillgivemylawsintotheirmind,andontheirheartIwillwritethem,
andIwillbetotheirGODandtheywillbemypeople.’
Verse33containsseveraldifferencesbetweenthetwoversions,someofwhichhave
amajorimpactontheinterpretationofthepassage.Thefirstone,however,isonlya
smalldetail. InafewmanuscriptsoftheSeptuagintμου (my)isaddedafterδιαθήκη
(covenant).ThesameadditionisfoundinafewmanuscriptsofHeb.8:10.
Thenextdifferenceismoreimportant.Ithasbeennoticedthattheperfectformofthe
Masoretictextנתתי(Ihaveput)almostwithoutexceptionisrenderedbyfutureforms
inmodern translationsandcommentaries (Schenker,2006).According toSchenker,
there are three reasons for this rendering: first, it is an adjustment to the following
parallel clause, which has the verb in the imperfect, אכתב (I will write), second, the
wholecontextsuggeststhatitisafutureevent,andthird,thefactthatHebrewperfect
forms sometimes refer to the future (Schenker, 2006). However, Schenker calls this
interpretation intodoubt.According toSchenker, it is notpossible that I) נתתי have
put)referstothefuture,sincea.)thereisnosemanticorsyntacticindicatoroffuture
(Schenker,2006);b.)thereisnogoodreasontousetwodifferentverbformstoexpress
thesamemeaning;c.)theperfectformmakesgoodsenseinthecontext(forwhich,
see furtherbelow);d.) severalmanuscriptshaveaddedaconsecutive ו before נתתי
(Ihaveput), thuschanging themeaningof theverb form frompast to future. If this
consecutive וissecondary(accordingtoSchenkerthemanuscriptswithconsecutiveו
havenotextcriticalvalue,butallimportantmanuscriptshavetheperfectformwithout
consecutiveו),itconfirmsthatthereadershadsomeproblemininterpretingtheperfect
formasreferringtothefuturewithouttheconsecutiveו.
TheSeptuaginthasδιδοὺς δώσω(givingIwillgive)forנתתי(Ihaveput).Thefutureform
δώσω(Iwillgive)lookslikejustanotherexampleofarenderingofנתתי (Ihaveput)on
aparwithmodernrenderingsoftheperfectform,i.e.,adjustingtensetothecontext.
However,accordingtoSchenker,ωσώδisratherarenderingofanimperfectform אתן
(Iwillput).ThereseemtobeseveralreasonsforassumingaVorlageoftheSeptuagint
different from the Masoretic Hebrew text, rather than assuming that the translator
adjustedthetensetothecontext.First,Greekfutureformsareregularlyrenderingsof
Hebrewimperfectforms.Thisistruenotonlyintheseverses,butinthewholechapter,
andinthewholebookofJeremiah.If δώσωwerearenderingofaperfectform,this
would be an improbable exception (Schenker, 2006). Second, the participle διδούς
isverylikelytobearenderingofaninfinitiveabsolutefollowedbyafiniteverbofthe
sameroot,thusformingafiguraetymologica.Schenkerrightlypointsoutthatthereare
noexamplesinMToftheverbנתן (put)formingthiskindoffiguraetymologica,where
Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34
52 53
thefiniteverbisaperfectformof observationSchenker’sthoughHowever,.(put)נתן
iscorrect, theconclusionshouldbecalled intodoubt.Given the fact that thereare
severalexamplesofthisconstruction(infiniteabsolute+finiteverbofthesameroot)
of other verbs than נתן (put), where the finite form is in the perfect tense (at least
seven in Jeremiah), there is no reason to assume that the verb ןתנ (put) could not
have formed such a figura etymologica (Schenker, 2006). Third, Schenker refers to
Jer.3:14,wheretheMasoretictexthasaperfectform בעלתי(Iamyourmaster),while
the Septuagint has a future form κατακυριεύσω. According to Schenker this shows
thatheretootheVorlageoftheSeptuagintdiffersfromtheMasoreticHebrewtext,and
thatthechangesintheHebrewtexthavebeensystematic,followingsometheological
agenda.However,itseemsasifitcouldaslobearguedthatthisisjustanotherexample
inJeremiah,wherethetranslatorrenderedaHebrewperfect formbyaGreekfuture
form,thususingtheexampletoarguetheotherwayaround(Schenker,2006).Fourth,
andthisisSchenker’smainargument,thisisnottheonlydifferencebetweenthetwo
versions here. In MT it is the law (singular), my) את־תורתי law), which is the object
of theverb,while inLXX it is the laws(plural), νόμους μου (my laws),whichare the
objectoftheverb(forthedifferencebetweentheobjectinsingularorplural,seebelow)
(Schenker,2006).Fifth,Schenker refers to theparallel text inJer.44:10(LXX51:10)
ולא־הלכו בתורתי ובחקתי אשר־נתתי לפניכם ולפני אבותיכם(nor have they walked in my law and my statutes that I set before you and before
yourancestors (NRSV)),καὶ οὐκ ἀντείχοντο τῶν προσταγμάτων μου ὧν ἔδωκα κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν (andtheyhavenotbeencleavingtomyorders,which
Igavebefore their fathers).Apparently, the ‘law’and ‘beforeyou’aremissing in the
Septuagint, i.e., therewas(and is)apublicproclamationof the law in theMT,quite
contrarytotheputtingit‘within’themofJer.38:33intheSeptuagint.Itisratherunlikely
thatsomeoneshouldhaveremovedsuchacentralpartofIsrael’screedasthegiving
ofthelaw,butitisquitelikelythatitshouldhavebeenaddedwheresomeonethought
thatitwasmissing(Schenker,2006).Therefore,theGreekversionappearstobemore
original than theHebrewversion,and thereappears tobesomekindofcoherence
bothintheGreekandintheHebrewversion.Sixth,accordingtoSchenker,itisunlikely
thattherewouldhavebeenachangefrom‘law’(insingular)to‘laws’(inplural),since
thesingular formis thecommonandeasilyunderstandable form,while theplural is
veryrareandanythingbuteasilyunderstandable.Ontheotherhand,thechangefrom
‘laws’ to ‘law’ appears to be very likely. Thus Schenker concludes: first, the Greek
version is a literal rendering of a Hebrew Vorlage, which differs from the Masoretic
Hebrewtext,second,theVorlageoftheSeptuagint ismoreoriginalthantheversion
foundinMasoreticHebrewtext,andthird,thetwoversionsdiffersignificantlyfromeach
other(Schenker,2006).ItshouldbenoticedthatthereissomevariationintheGreek
manuscriptsandintheversions;somehaveonlyδώσω (iwillgive),somehaveonly
διδούς(giving),whichisthereadinginHebrews,andsomehaveδιδούς δώσω(givingI
willgive).Mostimportant,however,isthefactthattherearenoexamplesofpasttense
intheGreekmanuscripts(Ziegler,1957).
Schenker’s interpretation of נתתי (I have put) also has consequences for his
interpretationoftheclosecontext,viz.themeaningofקרב.AccordingtoSchenkerקרב
canbeinterpretedintwoways,eitheritmeans‘midst,among’,i.e.,itisasociological
termreferringtoaplacewithinagroupofpeople,oritcanmean‘middle,within’,i.e.,
itisaanthropologicaltermreferringtoaplacewithinaperson.Thelatterinterpretation
formsagoodparallel toלב(heart) inthefollowingclause,but itrequiresthat I)נתתי
haveput)referstothefuture,i.e.,Godwillputhislawwithinthem,andhewillwriteit
on theirhearts.Ameaningreferring to thepast isnotpossible,because ifGodhas
put the law within them, it is no longer possible to put it into their hearts. The first
interpretation,ontheotherhand,onlymakessense if (puthaveI) נתתי refers to the
past.Thedifference inmeaningbetweenthe twoversions isapparently foundedon
theassumptionthatSchenkerisrightthattheperfectformנתתי(Ihaveput)shouldbe
takeninitscommonsense,denotingapastaction.Ifthisisright,themeaningofthe
Hebrewtextisapproximately:inthepast,atMountSinai,GodgavetheTorahtobein
themidstof(oramong)thepeople,butinthefuturehewillwritethe(same)Torahon
theirhearts(Schenker,2006).
In theSeptuagint εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν (into theirmind) apparently is a rendering
ofבקרבם, andsince theverb δώσω (Iwillgive) is in the future form itmakesgood
senseandformsaniceparallelwiththefollowingἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν (ontheirheart).
Themeaningof theGreek text isapproximately:giving Iwillgivemy laws into their
mind,andontheirheartIwillwritethem.
The last major difference between the two versions in this verse is the difference
between the law (singular), my) את־תורתי law), and the laws (plural), νόμους μου.
Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34
54 55
Schenkerhasashortbutdetaileddiscussionaboutthisdifferenceandcomestothe
conclusion thatνόμους μου isa renderingofa את־תורתי (my laws), i.e., νόμους isa
renderingof thepluralofתורה (law).The reason for thisconclusion is that it isvery
unlikelythatsomeonewouldchangeatextwiththeverycommonsingularofהרותinto
theextremelyrarepluralform,whileitisequallylikelythatsomeonewouldchangethe
extremely rareplural into thecommonsingular. Thushealsodraws theconclusion
thattheVorlageoftheSeptuagintreadapluralatthispoint,andthatitismoreoriginal
thantheversionfoundintheMasoreticHebrewtext(Schenker,2006).Ascanbeseen
thedifferencebetweentheHebrewandGreekversions isonlyonthe levelofvowel
pointing,whilethetranslatorofJeremiah,ofcourse,hadanunpointedtext.However,
thoughthechangebetweensingular‘law’andplural‘laws’isonlyonthelevelofvowel
pointing, the difference between the two versions also includes the following noun
referringbackthelaweitherinthesingularorintheplural,whichalsoimpliesachange
ofconsonants.
Thereareonly twelveexamples inMTof thepluralofתורה,noneofwhich is found
inJeremiah:Gen.26:5(LXXτὰ νόμιμα(thestatutes));Ex.16:28(LXXτὸν νομόν (the
law));18:16(LXXτὸν νομόν(thelaw));18:20(LXXτὸν νομόν (thelaw));Lev.26:46(LXX
ὁ νόμος (thelaw));Is.24:5(LXXνομόν νὸτ(thelaw));Ezek.43:11(LXX τὰ νόμιμα (the
statutes));44:5(LXXτὰ νόμιμα(thestatutes));44:24(LXX τὰ νόμιμα (thestatutes));Psa.
105:45(LXX104:45 τὸν νομόν (thelaw));Dan.9:10(LXXτῷ νόμῳ (thelaw));Neh.9:13
(LXXνόμους (the laws)).Ascanbeseen,only in the lastexamplethepluralofתורה
is renderedby thepluralof νόμος. Inmore thanhalfof theexamplessomeonehas
changedeitherthepluraltothesingularortheotherwayaround,eitherintheVorlage
orintheprocessoftranslationortransmission.Ashasbeenarguedabovethechange
from plural to singular is far more likely. However, there is one example of a plural
ofתורה inJer.32:23,ובתרותך,butthisisfoundonlyintheconsonantaltextwhilethe
vowelsaddedbytheMasoreteshasthesingular,andthusthesingularwasapparently
preferredbytheMasoretes.TheSeptuaginthasκαὶ ἐν τοῖς προστάγμασίν σου(inyour
commands)here.InthetextsoftheSeptuagint,forwhichthereisaHebrewVorlage
extant,thereareonlytwoexamplesof νόμος intheplural,whichrefertotheTorah:2
Kings14:6 (MTתרות (law));Neh.9:13 (MTתורות (laws)). Inoneexample,Esth.3:8,
Hamanreferstotheνόμοι (laws)oftheJews,butthisisarenderingof דתי (decree).
The example in Jer. 38:37 (MT 31:36), οἱ νόμοι (the laws), is a rendering of החקים
(statutes)andclearlydoesnot refer to theTorah.Thesingular formofתורה,on the
otherhand,occursmorethan200timesinMT,11ofwhicharefoundinJeremiah(2:8;
6:19;8:8;9:12;16:11;18:18;26:4(LXXτοῖς νομίμοις(thestatutes));31:33(LXX38:33
νόμους (laws));32:23(LXX39:23 τοῖς προστάγμασιν (commands)),cf.above);44:10
(notinLXX);44:23(LXX51:23).TheexamplesinJeremiahappeartorefertotheTorah
andaremostlyrenderedbyςομόν in thesingular, theexceptionsbeing26:4,31:33,
and32:23.Apparently,Schenkerisrightthatthereareextremelyfewexamplesbothof
thechangedsomeonethatlikelymorefarisitthatandplural,theinof νόμοςand תורה
pluralintosingularthanthatsomeonechangedthesingulartoplural(Schenker,2006).
Asregardsthevariationinthemanuscripts,therearenovariantreadingsinanyHebrew
manuscripts, but in the Greek manuscripts there is quite a bit of variation between
singularandplural.ItshouldalsobenoticedthatAquila,SymmachusandTheodotian
allhavethesingular.
The difference in meaning can be seen in the renderings in the previous example.
Apparently, thepluralνόμουςcanhardly refer to thewrittenTorah, thefivebooksof
Moses.Consequently,accordingtotheMT,thesameTorah,whichwasgivenamong
thepeopleatMountSinai,willbewrittenontheheartsofthepeople.Accordingtothe
Septuagintversion,on theotherhand, theTorah isnot in focus,butonlyanumber
oflaws(includingtheTorahorpartsoftheTorah?)willbewrittenontheheartsofthe
people.
v.34
ולא ילמדו עוד איש את־רעהו ואיש את־אחיו לאמר דעו את־יהוה כי־כולם ידעו
אותי למקטנם ועד־גדולם נאם־יהוה כי אסלח לעונם ולחטאתם לא אזכר־עוד׃
No longershall they teachoneanother,orsay toeachother,“KnowtheLORD,”
for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the
LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more. (NRSV)
καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ
λέγων γνῶθι τὸν κύριον ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με ἀπὸ μικροῦ αὐτῶν καὶ ἕως μεγάλου
αὐτῶν ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ
ἔτι
Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34 Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34
56 57
‘And they shall not everyone teachhis citizenandeveryonehisbrother, saying,
“KnowtheLORD”,forallwillknowme,fromtheirsmall[and]untiltheirgreat,forI
willbemercifultotheiriniquities,andtheirsinsIwillremembernomore.’
Inverse34thereisverylittlevariationbetweentheHebrewandtheGreekversions,and
theGreekversionappearstobealiteralrenderingofatextveryclosetotheMasoretic
Hebrewtext.However,thereareanumberofsmallervariantsintheGreekmanuscripts
(no variants are noted in the apparatus criticus of BHS) that should be mentioned.
Vaticanushasοὐ διδάξoυσιν(teach;futureindicative)insteadof οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν(teach;
aoristsubjunctive),whicharebothpossiblewithoutanychangeofmeaning.Several
manuscriptshaveaddedἔτι (longer),whichappears tobearevisionaccordingtoa
Hebrewtextwithעוד (longer).Somemanuscriptshaveπλησίον(neighbour)insteadof
πολίτην (citizen). πλησίονisastandardrenderingofרע(neighbour)(Hatch,Redpath,
1998), hence this could be another indication of a revision according to a Hebrew
text. The same variant reading πλησίον is also found in some manuscripts of Heb.
8:11.Somemanuscripts (includingAquila) have φήσιν κύριος (speaksLord),which
apparentlyisarenderingofנאם־יהוה(saystheLord). φήσιν κύριοςisnotfoundinthe
quotation in Hebrews. Finally, there are variant readings of ἀδικίαις, ἁμαρτιῶν, and
μνησθῶ,whichseemtohavesomekindofrelationtothetextofHeb.8:12and10:17.
vv.35–37
HereitwillonlybenoticedthattheorderoftheversesisnotthesameintheMTas
inLXX.MTv.35=LXXv.36,MTv.36=LXXv.37,andMTv.37=LXXv.35.The
significanceofthedifferentordersoftheversesisnotclear,butitcannotbeexcluded
thatthereissomekindofconnectionbetweenthedifferencesintheearlierversesand
thedifferenceinorderoftheverses35–37.
Summary and ConclusionA number of major differences have been identified. Some of these appear to be
significant and there is good reason to believe that the differences should not be
attributed to the translatorof theSeptuagint,but itseemsas if thedifferenceshave
already occurred in the Vorlage of the Septuagint. The first difference is v. 32 οὐκ
ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου (theydidnotabidebymycovenant) for הפרו את־בריתי
(they broke my covenant). Here, according to Schenker, the difference in meaning
betweenthetwoversionsisthatintheMTthecovenantisbrokenbyIsraelsincethe
exodusfromEgypt,whileinLXXIsrael isdescribedinamorepassivesense,asnot
havingtheendurancetostayinthecovenant.Theseconddifferenceisv.32καὶ ἐγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν (andIneglectedthem)forואנכי בעלתי בם(thoughIwastheirhusband).
Here Schenker is right that the meaning of the Masoretic text differs substantially
from the meaning of the Septuagint, but he has pushed the evidence too far by
assumingaVorlageof ωέλεμἀwithameaningquitedifferentfromἀμελέωitself.Thus
the conclusions drawn by Schenker about how the two versions differ substantially
fromeachotherfromatheologicalperspectiveisdoubtful.AccordingtoSchenkerthe
Masoretic perspective presupposes that the covenant still exists between God and
Israeldue to the faithfulnessofGod,even though thecovenant isbrokenby Israel.
From the Septuagint perspective the covenant no longer exists, since it is broken
bothby IsraelandbyGod.Leavingthe interpretationofἀμελέω bySchenkeraside,
themeaningofthetext,accordingtotheMasoreticversionisapproximatelythatthe
covenantisbrokenbytheIsraelites,butitisnotbrokenbyGod,whostillisthemaster
orhusbandofIsrael.AccordingtotheSeptuagint,ontheotherhand,thecovenantwas
notkeptbytheIsraelites,andGoddidnotcarefortheIsraelites.Thethirddifferenceis
v.33διδοὺς δώσω forנתתי (Ihaveput).Themaindifferencebetweenthetwoversions
isbasedon theassumption thatSchenker is right that theperfect form נתתי (Ihave
put)shouldbetakeninitscommonsense,denotingapastaction.Ifthisisrightthe
twoversionscouldhavethefollowingmeanings:MT:inthepast,atmountSinai,God
gavetheTorahtobeinthemidstof(oramong)thepeople,buthewillwritethe(same)
Torahontheirheartsinthefuture;LXX:givingIwillgivemylawsintotheirmind,andon
theirheartIwillwritethem.Thefourthandlastdifferenceisv.33νόμους μου (mylaws)
forאת־בריתי (mylaw).Thedifferenceinmeaningcanbeseenintherenderingsinthe
previousexample,wherethepluralνόμουςhardlyreferstotheTorah.Consequently,
accordingtoMT,thesameTorah,whichwasgivenamongthepeopleatmountSinai,
willbewrittenontheheartsofthepeople.AccordingtotheSeptuagintversion,onthe
otherhand,anumberoflaws(includingtheTorahorpartsoftheTorah?)willbewritten
ontheheartsofthepeople.
Therearealsoa fewdifferenceswhichseem tobedue to the interpretationsof the
translatorand/orsubsequentrevisorsoftheSeptuagint,andshouldnotbeattributedto
Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34 Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34
58 59
differentHebreworiginals,e.g.,v.32 ὅτι(for)for אשר (which),andv.33εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν
αὐτῶν (intheirmind)forבקרבם (intheirmidst/withinthem).
ThusSchenkerappearstoberightthattherearesubstantialdifferencesbetweenthe
twoversions,andthatsomeof thesedifferencescanhardlybeexplainedasscribal
errors. Consequently, there seem to have existed at least two Hebrew versions of
Jeremiah,oneofwhichwastranslatedintoGreek,viz.,theSeptuagintversion,while
theotherversionsurvivedastheMasoreticHebrewtext.Schenkeralsoappearstobe
rightthattherearetheologicaldifferencesbetweenthetwoversions,andthatitismore
likelythattheSeptuagintversionismoreoriginalthantheMasoreticversion.
REFERENCES
Aejmelaeus,A.(2002)‘Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1–14 in the Book of Jeremiah’.VetusTestamentum,52.4,459–482.
Danker, F.W. (2000) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature.ThirdeditionrevisedandeditedbyFredrickWilliamDankerbasedon Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des NeuenTestamentsundderfrühchristlichenLiteratur,sixthedition,ed.KurtAlandandBarbaraAland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W.Gingrich,andF.W.Danker(ChicagoandLondon,TheUniversityofChicagoPress).
Gesenius,W.(1910)Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch.SecondEngl.ed.rev.inaccordancewiththetwenty-eighthGermaned.(1909)byA.E.Cowley.Repr.1985(Oxford,ClarendonPress).
Hatch,E.andRedpath,H.A.(1998)A Concordance to the Septuagint; And the Other Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books).Secondedition(GrandRapids,Michigan,BakerAcademic).
Koehler,LandBaumgartner,W.(2001)The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Study edition. Translated and edited under the supervision of M.E.J.Richardson(Leiden,Boston,Köln,Brill).
Liddell,H.G.,andScott,R.(1996)A Greek-English Lexicon. Compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott. Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry StuartJones,withtheassistanceofRoderickMcKenzieandwiththecoorperationofmanyscholars.Witharevisedsupplement(Oxford,ClarendonPress).
Lust,J.,Eunikel,E.andHauspie,K.(1992)A Greek - English Lexicon of the Septuagint.PartI, Α - Ι (Stuttgart,DeutscheBibelgesellschaft).
Muraoka,T.(2002)A Greek-English Lexicon to the Septuagint; Chiefly to the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets (Louvain,Paris,Dudley,Ma.Peeters).
Schenker,A. (2006)Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten: Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel.ForschungenzurReligionundLiteraturdesAltenundNeuenTestaments.Band212(Göttingen,Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht).
Ziegler, J. (1957) Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Societatis Gottingensis editum, XV: Ieremias, Baruch, Threni Epistula Ieremiae (Göttingen,Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht).
Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34 Dr. Georg Walser | Jer. 31.31–34
60 61
Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses to Competition Under Ego or Task-Orientation
PeterRobertAustinBurgess
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to investigate the psycho-physiological responses of
competitors while performing a task individually or as a team member under the
conditions of task-oriented or ego-oriented competition. Thirty-two participants
completed the taskandego-orientation insportquestionnaireand then tookpart in
fourmatchesof table footballduringwhichheart rateandheart ratevariabilitywere
recorded. The results indicated heart rate was significantly higher (p<0.001) whilst
heart rate variability was significantly lower (p<0.001). These responses indicate
that stress levels were higher in the ego condition compared to the task condition.
Theheart ratevariability results revealed that therewere twosignificant interactions
betweentheparticipants’orientation(taskvs.ego),thecondition(individualvs.team)
(p=0.01)whichindicatedtheindividualegoconditionwasthemoststressfulcondition.
Additionally,when thebetween-subjects factorofhigh/low taskorientation (p=0.04)
was introduced results indicated that competing individually with an ego-oriented
focuswas themoststressfulconditionespecially for thoseparticipantshigh in task-
orientation.Theseresultsdemonstratethatcompetingasamemberofteamandwith
task-orientationcauses lessstressandanxiety thancompeting individuallywithego
orientation.
KEYWORDS
Competition,ego-orientation,task-orientation,heartratevariability.
IntroductionCompetinginsporthasthepotentialtoinducehighlevelsofanxietyandstress(Ringetal,
2005).However,ithasbeensuggestedthatwhenanathleteiscompetingasamemberof
ateam,theanxietyexperiencedislessthanthatexperiencedwhencompetingindividually
(FlowersandBrown,2002).BrayandMartin(2003)explainthisphenomenonasdiffusion
ofresponsibility.Terryetal (1996), inastudyofone-hundredtennisplayers,supported
these claims by demonstrating that players exhibited higher levels of anxiety prior to
performanceinsinglesthanindoublesmatches.Itappearsthatwhenathletescompete
inateamsituation,theresponsibilityforlosingissharedamongallmembersoftheteam
(MartinandHall,1997).However,whencompetingasanindividual,theblameforlosing
isnormallybournbytheindividualcompetitor,andthereforetheathletemayexperience
muchmorepressureandanxiety(Craftetal,2003).
Althoughthereisextensiveresearchinvestigatingtheeffectsofcompetitiononindividual
performersandtheirpsycho-physiologicalresponses(Harrisonetal,2001),verylimited
research has compared these responses during individual and team competition.
Additionally,fewattemptshavebeenmadetoconductstudiesinecologicallyvalidsport
settings. However, in a study by McKay et al (1997) athletes performing individually
experienced significant increases in heart rate and both systolic and diastolic blood
pressure.Thesefindingswere reproduced in laboratorysettings;however,nochanges
indiastolicbloodpressurewerefoundinlaboratory-basedtests(VeldhuijzenVanZanten
etal,2002).Additionally,ithasbeenhighlightedthatthemorecompetitivethesituation,
thegreaterthepsycho-physiologicalresponse(Harrisonetal,2001).Furtherresearchhas
suggested thatcompetition influences thecardiovascularsystem in the followingways;
increasesbloodpressure, increasesheart rateandalso leads toshorteningof thepre-
ejectionperiod(Sherwoodetal,1989).McKayetal(1997)explainthatthislineofresearch
hasbeencriticisedfortypicallyonlyemployingmeasuresofheartrateandbloodpressure
asan indicationofpsycho-physiological responsestocompetition.However,onestudy
byVeldhuijzenVanZantenet al (2002) showed thatheart rate variability (fluctuation in
themeanheartrate)decreasedwhencompetitionwasexperienced.Watkinsetal(1999)
claim this decrease in heart rate variability reflects an increase in anxiety. Patterson et
al (1998)alsostate thatbloodcompositionaltersduringhighstresssituationsbecause
psychologicalstressleadstoincreasesinthenumberofredbloodcellsanddecreases
plasma.Furthermore,Thyeretal(1984)reportthatwhenindividualsexperiencedstressful
situations,skintemperaturedecreased.
Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses
62 63
Papaioannou and Kouli (1998) suggest that another aspect may be responsible for
reducing anxiety during competition is being task-oriented. This requires placing the
focusonimprovingskillsandtakingpartforsheerenjoymentasopposedtotakingpart
towinrewardsor tobeatanopponentwhichwouldbeego-orientedcompetition(Cox,
1994).Despitetheseclaims,littleisknownabouthowcompetingasamemberofateam
and under task-oriented competitive conditions affects the physiological indicators of
anxiety.Generally,questionnaireshavebeenthepreferredmeasureofassessinganxiety
andstressinthesesituations,butthesemeasuresofstateanxietyfailtoaccountforthe
observed variance that occurs in performance (Terry et al, 1996). Therefore, this study
seekstoinvestigatehowcompetingindividuallyorasateammemberinbothtaskand
ego-orientedcompetitionaffectsphysiologicalindicatorsofstress.Itispredictedthatwhile
performingasateammember,stresswillbelowerthanwhenperformingasanindividual;
equally,performingwithatask-orientedfocuswillbelessstressfulthancompetingwithan
ego-orientedfocus.
Methods
ParticipantsThirty-twouniversitystudents(27malesand5females)volunteeredtoparticipateinthis
study.Theirmeanage,heightandweightwere22.13yrs±3.55,175.9cm±10.5and76.5
kg±13.6respectively.Allparticipantswerenovicesatthetask.
Measures and Procedures Each participant provided written informed consent prior to any data collection being
conducted.Allprocedureswerereviewedandapprovedbytheinstitutionalresearchethics
committeeinadvanceofthefirsttestingsession.Priortotesting,participantsattended
abriefingsession inorder toselecta teammate.Thiswasdone inorder tocreate the
atmosphereofateam,whichmaynothavebeenachievediftheparticipantswererandomly
paired together. Prior to the start of testing, the participants were fitted with heart rate
monitors(PolarS610iPolar,Kempele,Finland)toassessheartrateandheartratevariability
andallparticipantscompletedthetaskandego-orientationinsportquestionnaire(Duda
andNicholls,1992).DudaandNicholls(1992)explainthatthetaskandego-orientationin
sportquestionnairehasshownconstructvalidity(0.91)andinternalconsistencyreliability
(task0.87andego0.89).Thisquestionnairewasusedtomeasuretheparticipants’task
andego-orientation,inorderforthemtobeplacedintohigh/lowtaskandego-orientation
groupstobeusedasabetween-subjectsfactor.Theparticipantswereplacedintogroups
basedonthemediansfortaskandego-orientation.Anyindividualscoringover4.10on
thetasksubscalewasdiagnosedashighintask-orientation,whileindividualsscoringover
2.80ontheegosubscalewerediagnosedashighinego-orientation.Followingthis,the
participantsundertookathreeminutefamiliarisationtrialoftablefootball.
Following familiarisation, the participants were given five minutes to read instructions.
Followingafivesecondcountdown,allheart ratemonitorswerestartedsimultaneously
withacountdowntimer.Participants thentookpart ina table footballmatchoverafive
minuteperiod,withheartratebeingrecordedeveryfiveseconds.Attheendofthisperiod
abuzzersoundedonthetimerandeachparticipantstoppedplaying.Heartrateandheart
ratevariabilitywererecordedthroughoutthefiveminuteperiod.Oncethebuzzersounded
attheendofthefiveminutes,allheartratemonitorswerestopped.Allparticipantstookpart
inthefollowingfourconditionsinarandomisedorder:
Task-oriented competition:Participantswereaskedtofocusondevelopingtheirskills.All
participantswereinformedthattheirperformancewouldnotbemonitoredorrecordedand
itwasemphasisedthatthescorewasnotimportant.Thisconditionwasperformedtwiceby
eachparticipant,individuallyandasateammember.
Ego-oriented competition:Participantswereinformedthatthescorefromthematchthey
wereabouttoundertakewouldberecordedandenteredintoaleaguetablewhichwould
bedisplayedtoallparticipants.Different leaguetableswereproducedfortheindividual
andteamconditions.Additionally,participantswereinformedthewinnersoftheindividual
andteamcompetitionswouldreceivegiftvouchersandatrophy.Toensurethesamelevels
ofpressureandmotivationwereexperiencedbyallparticipants,scoreswasplacedina
leaguetablepriortothefirstroundofcompetition.
Data analysisHeartratevariabilitydatawascalculatedviaspectralanalysisandbyrootmeansquareof
thedifferencesbetweenheartbeats(rMSSD).Between-subjectfactorswerealsoanalysed
with theparticipantsbeing labelledhighor low in taskandego-orientation,whichwas
determined by calculating the median. Both heart rate and heart rate variability data
wasanalysedusingaseparate2-way repeated-measuresANOVA,withorientationand
conditionasthewithin-subjectfactorsforeach.
Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses
64 65
Results
Heart rateTheresultsoftheANOVAshowedthataverageheartratewassignificantlydifferentbetween
thetaskandego-conditions(F1,24=30.93,p<0.0001,partialη2=0.56)(refertotableIfor
descriptiveheartratedata).However,therewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenthose
participantsperformingasateammemberandthoseperformingindividually(F1,24=2.36,
p=0.14,partialη2=0.09).Also,thebetween-subjectfactorsofhightask-orientationvs.low
task-orientationandhighego-orientationvs. lowego-orientationrevealednodifferences
(p>0.05).
Table 1
TableIMean(±SD)HeartRatesforEachCondition(BPM).
Individual Team
Task 95.26±16.95 93.18±14.30
Ego 103.33±17.26 98.96±18.16
BPM=Beatsperminute
Heart rate variability Therewerenosignificantdifferences(p>0.05)betweenthetwomaineffects(individual
vs.team;taskvs.ego)andtheirinteractionsforthespectralanalysisdata.Yet,therewere
twosignificantdifferenceswithintherMSSDdata.TheANOVAshowedthattherewasa
significantdifferencebetweenrMSSDofthoseparticipantsperformingwithatask-oriented
focusandthosewithanego-orientedfocus(F1,20=16.96,p<0.0001,partialη2=0.43).
Themeanswere41.19ms,30.71ms,40.90msand37.96msforthetask/individual,ego/
individual, task/team and ego/team conditions respectively. Additionally, there was an
interactionbetweentaskvs.egoandindividualvs.teamconditions(F1,20=4.99,p=0.01,
partialη2=0.23)(Figure1).ThisInteractionmeansrMSSDwaslowestwhenperforming
individuallyduringtheego-orientedcompetition.Therewasalsoaninteractionbetween
taskvs.egoandindividualvs.teamconditionswhenthebetween-subjectsfactorofhigh
task-orientationvs. lowtask-orientationwas introduced(F1,19=4.99,p=0.04,partialη2=
0.21)(Figure2).Thisinteractionmeansthatcompetingindividuallywithanego-oriented
focusledtothelargestdecreasesinrMSSD,especiallyforthoseparticipantshighintask-
orientation. However, no significant difference was evident between the individual and
teamconditionsevenwhenparticipantsweresplitintohighego-orientationandlowego-
orientation(p>0.05).
Figure 1: The interaction between orientation (task vs. ego) and condition (individual vs. team) on rMSSD
Figure 2: The interaction between orientation (task vs. ego) condition (individual vs. team) and high task orientation on rMSSD
Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses
66 67
Discussion Previousresearchhassuggestedthatbeingpartofateamislessstressfulthanperforming
asanindividualbecausethereislessfocusoneachsingleperformer(Craftetal,2003).
Furthermore,ifamistakeoccurs,theperformerhassomeonewhocanpotentiallyamend
thiserrororalternativelythereissomeoneelsetoshifttheblametosothattheresponsibility
oftheoutcomeisdiffusedamongstmembersoftheteam(Terryetal,1996).However,at
firstglancethedatasuggeststhatcompetingwithataskorego-orientedfocusinfluences
heartratefargreaterthancompetingindividuallyorasamemberofateam.Thisisbecause
significantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenthetaskandego-orientedconditionsinheart
rate,butnotbetweentheindividualandteamconditions.Thissignificantdifferencewas
foundacrossthevariablesofheartrateandheartratevariability.Resultsshowedthatheart
ratewas lowestduring the task-orientedconditions.The reducedheart rateduring the
task-orientedconditionsmayreflectareductioninanxietyinrelationtotheego-oriented
conditions.Thisissupportedbythefactthatincreasedlevelsofanxietyareassociatedwith
anelevatedheartrate(Harrisonetal,2001).Furthermore,ithasbeenreportedthatwhen
takingpart in task-orientedactivities,participants tend to report lower levelsof somatic
anxiety(PapaioannouandKouli,1998).Additionally,partialetasquaredshowsthatfifty-
sixpercentof thevariation inheart ratecanbeexplainedbythetaskandego-oriented
competition.Theresultsofthisstudyoffersomesupportforpreviousfindingsthatindicate
thattakingpartintask-orientedcompetitionislessstressfulthantakingpartinego-oriented
competition.
The Spectral analysis data of heart rate variability showed no significant difference in
regards tocompeting individually, asamemberof a teamordue to theorientationof
thecompetition.Despite this the rMSSDdata revealedasignificantdifferencebetween
theathleteswhocompetedwithatask-orientedfocusandthosewhocompetedwithan
ego-oriented focus.Themeans indicate thatheart ratevariabilitywas lowestduring the
ego-oriented conditions. These results seem to concur with those previously reported
whichshowedheartratevariability,ascalculatedviarMSSD,waslowestwhencompetitive
stresswashighest(VeldhuijzenVanZantenetal,2002).Theheartrateandtheheartrate
variabilitydataindicatethatlessstressisexperiencedwhenaparticipantcompeteswitha
task-orientedfocus.Partialetasquaredshowsthatforty-threepercentofthechangethat
occurredinrMSSDwasduetothetaskandego-orientedcompetition.Furthermore,the
ANOVAshowedtherewasaninteractionbetweenthetaskversusego-orientedconditions
andindividualversusteamconditions.Thisinteraction(figure1)suggeststhatheartrate
variabilitydecreasedwhilecompetingwithanego-orientedfocusanddeclinedevenfurther
(implyingevengreater levelsofstress)whencompeting individually.This indicates that
competitorsweremoststressedintheindividualandego-orientedcompetitioncondition.
Halletal(1998)explainthatduetoenhancedselfregard,competingwithtask-orientedgoals
islesslikelytocauseincreasesinanxiety.Eisenbarth(2007)claimscompetingwithego-
orientedgoalsleadstoincreasedselffocusandsocialcomparison,resultinginheightened
levels of anxiety. This accounts for how ego-oriented competition decreases heart rate
variability,aswellas indicatingpotentiallyhowego-orientedcompetition interactedwith
individual competition tocreate thehighest levelsof stress.However,whencompeting
asateammember,thefeelingofbeingindividuallyrecognisedislostandasaresultthe
competitor’sanxietyisreducedastheyarelessconcernedaboutsocialcomparison(Hall
etal,1998).
The truenatureof this interactioncanonlybeseenwhen thebetween-subjectvariable
of high/low task-orientation is introduced. The results revealed that those participants
with low levelsof task-orientationexperienced little change in rMSSDwhencompeting
individuallyinego-orientedcompetition.Yet,theparticipantswhoreportedhighlevelsof
task-orientationexperiencedasteepdecline in rMSSD.AchtenandJeukendrup (2003)
claimthisdecreaseinheartratevariabilitymayrepresentadecreaseintheinfluenceofthe
parasympatheticnervoussystem(thepartofthenervoussystemresponsibleforslowing
heartrate),whichisalsolinkedwithanincreaseinanxiety.Theseresultsappeartosuggest
thatonlyindividualswhoarehighlytask-orientedwillexperienceasignificantdecreasein
heartratevariability,whereasthosecompetitorswhoreportlowlevelsoftask-orientation
appearrelativelyunaffected.Thisfindingisinterestingandwarrantsfurtherexplorationas
previous researchhadreportednodifference inanxiety in thoseparticipantswithhigh/
lowlevelsofselfreportedtask-orientation(Panda,2006).However,morerecentresearch
hasclaimedthatdespitelimitedstudies,acompetitor’sorientationwillinfluencethestress
andanxietytheyexperience(Eisenbarth,2007).Therefore,itispossiblethatcompetitors
withhightask-orientationexperiencehigherlevelsofstresswhenaskedtocompetewith
anego-orientationcomparedtothosewithlowtask-orientation.Theseresultssuggestthat
athleteswhoarehighintask-orientationmayrequireinterventionstoreducestresswhen
competingindividuallyinanego-orientedenvironment.
Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses
68 69
Theresultsofthisstudydemonstratethatcompetingasateammembertendstocauseless
stressandanxietycomparedtocompetingindividually.Theseresultssupportthenotion
that competingasa teammemberallowsgreater latitude fordiffusionof responsibility
compared to when competing individually. Additionally, task-oriented competition
appearstobelessstressfulthanego-orientedcompetition.Thesefindingsprovidefurther
evidenceontheimpactofthenatureofcompetitionontheperformerandthecomplexity
of interactionsbetweenthepsycho-physiologicalaspectsrelatingtosportscompetition.
Further research is required toexplorehowcompetition interactswith thenatureof the
task, the environmental conditions and the individual characteristics of the competitor.
Furthermore, investigation of additional physiological measures of stress is needed in
futureresearch.Specificattentionshouldbeappliedtoneuroendocrineresponsessuchas
cortisol.Cortisolcanbecollectedunobtrusivelyandisaspecificindicatorofphysiological
andpsychologicalstress.Yet,currentresearchoncortisolresponsestocompetitionwithout
controllingfortheinfluenceofphysicalactivity,whichcaninfluencecortisolconcentration,
islimited.
REFERENCES
Achten, J. and Jeukendrup, A.E. (2003) ‘Heart Rate Monitoring Applications andLimitations.’Sports Medicine,33(7),517-538.
Bray,S.R.andMartin,K.A. (2003) ‘TheEffectofCompetitionLocationon IndividualAthletePerformanceandPsychologicalStates.’Psychology of Sport and Exercise,4(2),117-123.
Cox,R.(1994)Sport Psychology, Concepts and Applications (Dubuque:WBrown).
Craft,L.L,Magyer,T.M,Becker,B.J,andFeltz,D.L.(2003)‘TheRelationshipBetweentheCompetitiveStateAnxiety Inventory-2andSportPerformance:AMeta-Analysis.’Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,25(1),44-65.
Duda,J.L,andNicholls,J.(1992)‘DimensionsofAchievementMotivationinSchoolworkandSport.’Journal of Educational Psychology,84(3),290-299.
Eisenbarth,C.A.(2007)‘TaskandEgoOrientationasPredictorsofSportCompetitionAnxietyinYoungAdultAthletes.’Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,78(1),81-82.
Flowers,R.A.andBrown,C.(2002)‘EffectsofSportContextandBirthOrderonStateAnxiety.’Journal of Sport Behaviour,25(1),41-56.
Hall, H.K. Kerr, A.W. and Matthews, J. (1998) ‘Precompetitive Anxiety in Sport: TheContributionofAchievementGoalsandPerfectionism.’Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,20(2),194-217.
Harrison, L.K, Denning, S, Easton, H.L, Hall, J.C, Burns, V.E, and Ring C. (2001)‘The Effects of Competition and Competitiveness on Cardiovascular Activity.’Psychophysiology,38(4),601-606.
Martin,K.AandHall,C.R. (1997) ‘Situationaland IntrapersonalModeratorsofSportCompetitionStateAnxiety.’Journal of Sport Behaviour,20(4),435-446.
McKay,J.M,Selig,S.E,Carlson,J.S,andMorris,T.(1997)‘PsychophysiologicalStressinEliteGolfersDuringPracticeandCompetition.’Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,29(1),55-61.
Panda,Y.(2006)‘TheRelationshipBetweenTaskandEgoorientation,SportConfidence,TraitAnxietyandGoalSettingStylesinEliteIndianAthletes.’Journal of Organizational Behaviour,5(1),38-47.
Papaioannou, A. and Kouli O. (1998) ‘The Effects of Task Structure, PerceivedMotivationalClimateandGoalOrientationsonStudentsTaskInvolvementandAnxiety.’Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,69(2),178-87.
Patterson,S.M,MarslandA.L,Manuck,S.B,KamenevaM.andMuldon,M.F. (1998)‘AcuteHemoconcentrationDuringPsychologicalStress:AssessmentofHemorheologicFactors.’International Journal of Behavioural Medicine,5(3),204-212.
Ring, C, Carroll, D, Hoving, J, Ormerod, J, Harrison, L.K, and Drayson, M. (2005)‘EffectsofCompetition,ExerciseandMentalStressonSecretory Immunity.’Journal Sports Science,23(5),501-508.
Sherwood, A, Light, K,C. and Blumenthal, J,A. (1989) ‘Effects of Aerobic ExerciseTraining on Hemodynamic Responses During Psychosocial Stress in Normotensiveand Borderline Hypertensive Type A Men: A Preliminary Report.’ Psychosomatic Medicine, 51(2),123–136.
Terry,P.C,Cox,J.A,Lane,A.M.andKarageorghits,C.I. (1996) ‘MeasuresofAnxietyAmongTennisPlayers inSinglesandDoublesMatches.’Perceptual Motor Skills,83(2),595-603.
Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses
70 71
VeldhuijzrnVanZanten,J.J.C.S,DeBoer,D,Harrison,L.K,Ring,C,Carroll,D,Willemens,G. and De Geus, E.J.C. (2002) ‘Competitiveness and Hemodynamic Reactions toCompetition.’Psychophysiology,39(6),759-766.
Watkins,L.L,Grossman,P,Krishan,RandBlumenthal,J.A.(1999)‘AnxietyReducedBaroreflex Cardiac Control in Older Adults with Major Depression.’ Psychosomatic Medicine,61(3),334-340.
The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
PeterCollins
ABSTRACT
Thepurposeofthisstudywastodeterminewhetherthephysical(built)environment
influenceschildren’sphysicalactivity(PA)levels,focusinginparticularonhowaccess
torecreationalamenities,meansofcommutingtoschoolandperceivedneighbourhood
safety may influence children’s PA. Thirty children (15 girls and 15 boys) from two
urbansecondaryschoolslocatedinDudley(meanage:12.43years)andBirmingham
(meanage:14.81years)tookpartinthisstudy.Children’sactualphysicalactivitylevels
weremeasuredovera fourdayperiodusingpedometers,whilst theirperceivedPA
wasalsomeasuredusingaself-reportdailyactivitylog.Dataonhowchildren’saccess
to local amenities, transport to school and perceptions of their neighbourhood was
gathered from the physical activity questionnaire. The results revealed that access
to recreational amenities and perceived neighbourhood safety had no influence on
children’sphysicalactivitylevels.However,childrenwhoactivelycommutetoschool
aregenerallymorephysicallyactiveandhealthy.Thesefindingsprovideaninsightinto
theinfluencesofthebuiltenvironmentonchildren’sPAandhighlighttheimportanceof
activecommutingtoschoolandregularparkusebychildren.Theimplicationsofthese
findingsarediscussed.
KEYWORDS
Physical activity,built environment,perceivedsafety, activecommuting, recreational
amenities.
IntroductionResearchfindingssuggestthatanincreaseinasedentarylifestyleandareductionof
physicalactivity(PA)amongstchildrenhasalmostcertainlycontributedtothecurrent
Peter Robert Austin Burgess | Heart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses
72 73
childobesityepidemic(BorehamandRiddoch,2001;Biddleetal,2004).Subsequently,
research focusing on what factors of children’s lives influence their PA levels is
monumental ingainingagreaterunderstandingofwhathinderschildren’sPA levels
andwhatcanbedonetohelpincreasechildren’sPAasapreventativestrategyagainst
childhoodobesity.Recent informationhasstronglysuggested thatcertainattributes
of thephysicalenvironmenthaveasignificant influenceonchildren’sPA(Ferreiraet
al,2006;Sallisetal,2000;Krahnstoever-DavisonandLawson,2006).Consequently,
researchintotheinfluenceofthebuiltenvironmentonchildren’sPAlevels,isextremely
valuableintermsofunderstandingandcreatingpreventionstrategiesforthecurrent
childhoodobesityepidemic.
The childhood obesity epidemic and the role of physical activityOverthepastthirtyyearstheobesityprevalencehasdramaticallyincreasedtoepidemic
proportions(Wilmore,2003).Obesity itselfdoesnotkill,but it isstronglyassociated
withotherdiseasesthathavehighmortalityratessuchashypertension,coronaryartery
diseaseandcancer(Wilmoreetal,2008).Researchominouslyhighlightsanescalating
obesitytrendinchildren(Seidell,2000;CrespoandSmit,2003;Ogdenetal,2006)with
Britishchildhoodobesityincreasingfrom14%to24%forboysandfrom15%to26%
forgirls,between1995and2004(DepartmentofHealth,2006).Obesechildrenarenot
onlyincreasingtheirriskindevelopingmanydiseasesinlaterlife(e.g.stroke,cancer
andasthma)buttheyarenowalsobeingdiagnosedwithmanyconditionspreviously
onlythoughttooccurinadulthood,suchashighbloodpressureandtype2diabetes
(ActiveLivingResearch,2007).
Whilsttherearemultiplefactorswhichcaninfluenceanindividual’sweightstatus(Salbe
andRavussin,2000;Faithetal,2003;Heyward,2006),thephysical,psychologicaland
socialbenefitsofPAcannotbeoverestimated (Pateetal,1995;Biddleetal,2004;
Cavilletal,2001;HEA,1998).ResearchsuggeststhatgenerallychildreninBritaindo
notpartakeinenoughPAtogainthesubstantialbenefitsandmeettherecommended
PA amounts (Duncan et al, 2007a; Riddoch et al, 2007). Guidelines on what is an
acceptable level of PA for children can vary, with certain researchers supporting a
12,000and15,000steps/dayguidelineforgirlsandboysrespectively(Tudor-Lockeet
al,2004;RowlandsandEston,2005),whilstotherssupportthemoretraditional10,000
stepsperdayguideline(Bastosetal,2008).Intermsoftimescale,acut-offpointof
onehourper dayof moderate to vigorousPA is recommended (Cavill, Biddle, and
Sallis,2001;HealthEducationAuthority,1998;Jagoetal,2006a;Strongetal,2005;
DepartmentofHealth,2004).
The influence of the built environment on children’s physical activityResearch suggests that children today spend far less time playing in the local
neighbourhood,comparedtopreviousgenerations(TranterandDoyle,1996;Karsten,
2005; Hillman, 2006). Considering the strong association that playing outdoors has
withincreasedPAlevels(Sallisetal,2000;Klesgesetal,1990;Sallisetal,1993),this
isaconcerningtrendemerging,which ismorethan likelycontributingtotheoverall
decreaseinchildhoodPAlevelsoverthepastfortyyears.Givenresearchclaimsthat
increasedpopularindooractivitiessuchaswatchingthetelevisionandplayingonthe
computerisstronglyassociatedwithanincreasedriskofobesity(Dennisonetal,2002;
Gortmakeretal,1996;Obarzaneketal,1994;Robinson,1999),theculturalmovement
of children from active outdoor to sedentary indoor environments has strongly
contributedtothecurrentchildhoodobesityepidemicanddecreasingPAlevels.Inlight
ofthisconcerningtrend,therehasbeenasuddenrecent influxofresearchoverthe
pastfewyearsfocusingonhowthebuiltenvironmentinwhichchildrenliveimpactson
theirPAlevels(Krahnstoever-DavisonandLawson,2006).Suchresearchhasrevealed
thatthesurroundingphysicalenvironmentinwhichpeoplelivehasagreatimpacton
allofthedimensionsofPA(Krahnstoever-Davisonetal,2006;Ferreiraetal,2006).
Children’s physical activity and the availability of local recreational amenitiesTheavailabilityofplacestoengageinexerciseandPAisanimportantcharacteristic
of theenvironmentwhichpotentiallyhasamajor impactonPA levels (Babeyet al,
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical ActivityPeter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
74 75
2008;Jagoetal,2006b;Brownsonetal,2001;Hustonetal,2003).Parksandother
localrecreationamenitiesareespeciallyimportantastheyareanessentialcommunity
resourcefornurturingincreasedPA,healthandactiveliving(KaczynskiandHenderson,
2008;Bedimo-Rungetal,2005;Godbeyetal,2005).Previousliteraturehasrevealed
contrastingfindingsbetweenstudieswhich foundanassociation (Sallisetal, 2000;
Paxtonetal,2005;Estabrooksetal,2003;Boothetal,2000;Brownsonetal,2001;
Boehmer et al, 2006) and studies which found no association between children’s
PA and proximity to recreational facilities (Ferreira et al, 2006; Zakarian et al, 1994;
Romero,2005).
Aschildrenfromsocio-economicallydisadvantagedneighbourhoodsareatagreater
riskofobesityandotherrelateddiseases(Wang,2001;Linetal,2004;Storeyetal,
2003), it ishighlyplausible that theprovisionandqualityofneighbourhood facilities
impactsonchildren’sPA.Researchsupportsapositiveassociationbetweenaccessto
PAfacilitiesandPAlevels(Kahnetal,2002;Sallisetal,1998;Humpeletal,2004;Sallis
etal,1990;Humpeletal,2002;Babeyetal,2008).
Theavailability thatchildrenhaveto localpublicrecreational facilitiessuchasparks
andplaygroundsdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatchildrenusethesefacilities,andany
useofsuchfacilitiesdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobeactive,butcanalsobesedentary
(McKenzieetal,2006).Thus,thisemphasisestheimportanceofmeasuringPAasthe
strongassociationbetweenPAandproximitytorecreationalfacilities(Sallisetal,2000;
Normanetal,2006;Garciaetal,1995)alone isnotenough toassume thatpeople
livingnearparksactivelyusethem.Despitethishowever,parks,trailsandotherpublic
recreationalfacilitiesdohavesomeofthemostconsistentrelationshipsfoundwithPA
(KaczynskiandHenderson,2007and2008).
Commuting to school and levels of children’s physical activityActivetransporttoschooliswidelyidentifiedasanopportunityforchildrentoparticipate
in regular habitual PA (Tudor-Locke et al, 2001). Previous research highlights that
walkingorcyclingtoschoolhasapositiveaffectonchildren’shealth(McDonald,2008;
Schofield et al, 2005; Blair et al, 2001; Tudor-Locke et al, 2003). Considering these
healthbenefits, it isofgreat concern that researchhighlightsadecreasing trendof
activeschoolcommutingoverrecentdecadeswithinthedevelopedworld(Carveretal,
2008;Hillman,1993).Forexample,thenumberofBritishchildrenwhowalktoschool
decreasedbyapproximately20%between1970and1991(Hillman,1993).Additionally,
researchbytheDepartmentoftheEnvironment,TransportandtheRegions(2000)also
revealedthattheproportionofchildrentravellingtoschoolbycarincreasedfrom16%
to 30% between 1985 and 1998. It is widely perceived that ‘being driven to school
compromisesPA’(Metcalfetal,2004:832).Despitethis,childrentravellingtoschool
bycarisnowlargelyperceivedasthenorm(Salmonetal,2005;Hillmanetal,1990).
Thedeclineinactiveschoolcommutingunsurprisinglymirrorstheincreasedobesity
prevalenceanddecreasedchildPAtrends(Dollmanetal,2005;Koplanetal,2005).
Whilewalkingorcycling in itself isamorehealthyway to travel toand fromschool
(comparedtotravellingviamotorizedtransport),literaturealsosuggeststhatchildren
whoactivelycommutetoschoolhavehigheroverallPAlevels,andarebothhealthier
andmorelikelytoparticipateinmorePAintheirfree-time(Alexanderetal,2005;Cooper
etal,2005;Cooperetal,2003;Tudor-Lockeetal,2002).Withthisinmind,thereare
anumberofgovernmentschemesfocusedontryingtoencouragechildrentowalkto
school,suchasthe‘CaliforniaSafeRoutestoSchool’,‘KidsWalk-to-School’and‘Safe-
Routes-To-School’schemes(Davisonetal,2008;Boarnetetal,2005).Despitesuch
projects,astudybyMetcalfetal(2004)concludedthatthemodeoftraveltoschoolhas
noimpactonthechildren’sweeklyPAlevelsandevensuggestedthatwhilewalking
toschoolmayhavemanybenefits,‘PAdoesnotappeartobeoneofthem’(Metcalfet
al,2004:833).
Thereareawidevarietyoffactorswhichinfluencethewayinwhichchildrencommuteto
school,suchasindividual,family,school,communityandenvironmentalcharacteristics
(Davisonetal,2008).Thedistancethatchildrenlivefromschoolunderstandablyhasa
majorbearingonthewaytheytraveltoandfromschool,withusuallychildrenwholive
closertotheschoolthemostlikelytoactivelycommute(Davisonetal,2008;Heelanet
al,2005;McMillan,2007;Merometal,2006;SjolieandThuen,2002).
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical ActivityPeter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
76 77
Children’s perceived neighbourhood safety and its influences on children’s physical activityIthasbeenhighlightedinanarrayofliteraturefocusingonchildren’sPAthatperceived
crimeandneighbourhoodsafetyisamajordeterminantinchildren’sPAlevels(Farley
etal;2007;Molnaretal,2004;ValentineandMcKendrick,1997;Gomezetal,2004).
Furthermore, a significant proportion of walking, cycling and exercising takes place
inpublicspacessuchas localneighbourhoods,andifpeopleperceivethesepublic
places tobecrime-riddenorunsafe, theywillnotwant toexercise there (Center for
DiseaseControlandPrevention,1999;Loukaitou-Sideris,2006).Children’sperceived
safetyof their localneighbourhood (Gomezetal,2004;Adkinsetal,2004)and the
parents’perceivedsafetyfortheirchildren(Weiretal,2006;Sallisetal,1997;Lumeng
etal,2006;Kerretal,2006)canbothhaveamonumentalimpactonthechildren’sPA
level.Infact,ithasbeenreportedthatparentsratesafetyasthemostimportantfactor
indecidinguponchildren’sPAlocations(Sallisetal,1997).Thisnotonlyimpactsthe
children’sfree-livingPA,butalsoimpactsthemannerinwhichtheycommutetoschool
(Evensonetal,2006).
The Youth Risk Behaviour Surveillance System reported that 4.4% of school pupils
missedat leastoneday (from the last 30daysof school)because they felt unsafe
travellingtotheirschool(Kannetal,1995).Thisemphasizestheimportanceofensuring
school walking/cycling routes are safe to encourage children to actively commute.
Researchhighlighting theeffect thatperceivedsafetyhasonchildren’sPA levels is
essentialinproducingpotentialstrategiestoencouragechildrentobephysicallyactive
inoutdoorenvironments.Forexample,an interventionstrategystudyconductedby
Farley et al (2007) found that children were 84% more active in the safe play area
(withsafetyattendants)comparedtowheninthecomparisonplaygroundwhichhad
no safety attendants. Whilst such intervention strategies would be impractical and
expensivetorunonalarger(i.e.nationalscale)basis,thishighlightsthepositiveimpact
thatprovidingasafeenvironmentcanhaveonchildren’sPA.
Justification for the Present StudyFrompreviousliteraturetheneedtofurtherexploretheinfluenceofthebuiltenvironment
onchildren’sPAisclear,toestablishwhichfactorsmajorlyinfluencechildren’sPAand
subsequentlyaid thedevelopmentofeffective interventionstrategies topromotePA
and tackle obesity in children. With this in mind, the current study aims to explore
howaccessible localamenitiessuchasparksandplaygroundsare tochildrenand
attempttouncoverwhatfactorsaffectthechildren’suseofsuchavailablefacilities.In
recognitionofthewiderangeoffactorsaffectingchildren’sPA,thecurrentstudywill
alsolookathowchildrencommutetoschoolandhowperceivedsafetyinfluencestheir
PAbothinfreeleisuretimeandwhencommutingtoschool.
Research hypothesesFrom previous literature the following hypotheses have been established for the
currentstudy.
• Childrenwhohavegreateraccesstoparksandotherlocalamenitieswillbemore
physicallyactive.
• ChildrenwhoactivelycommutetoschoolwillhavehigherPAlevelsthanchildren
whotravelbycarorbus.
• Children’s PA levels will be inversely affected by their perceptions of an unsafe
physicalenvironment.
Method and Research Design
ParticipantsFollowingtheapprovaloftheresearchproposalbytheUniversityCollege’sResearch
EthicsCommitteethenecessaryconsentwasgained(school,parentandchild)andan
opportunitysampleof30participants(15girlsand15boys)wastakenfromtwourban
secondaryschoolslocatedinDudleyandBirmingham,England.Researchaccesswas
limitedduetoanumberofrestrictions(suchastimeandparticipantnumbers)fromthe
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
78 79
school’sheadteachersandparents.FromtheschoolbasedinDudleytherewere14
participants,nineofwhichweregirlsandfiveboysfromYear8(meanage:12.43±0.51
years).TheschoolbasedinBirminghamprovided16participants,sixofwhichwere
girlsandtenboysfromYear10(meanage:14.81±0.34).Bothschoolsweresimilarin
size(averageschoolpopulationof850pupils).
Measurements and Procedures
PedometersThepedometerusedinthisstudywastheNewLifestylesNL2000ActivityMonitor(US).
Thisisapopulardevicewhichrecordsdataatdailyintervalsanditsautomaticmemory
has thecapacity tostoredata fromtheprevioussevendays.Thispedometerhasa
similaraccuracyandbetterprecisionthanthecommonlyusedYamaxDigiwalkerseries
(Duncanetal,2007b).Unlikemanypedometers,theNL2000canrecordmultipledays
of data, provide estimate gross and net energy expenditure and is not affected by
height or BMI variance (Crouter et al, 2003; Crouter et al, 2005). The high level of
constructvaliditymakestheNL2000pedometerssuitableforappliedphysicalactivity
research(Schneideretal,2004;Crouteretal,2003;Schneideretal,2003;Crouteret
al,2005).
Physical Activity logThe PA Log being used in this current study is an adapted version of the ‘PA Log’
producedbyHeyward(2006).Thisself-reportmeasureofPArecordsqualitativedata
inanon-invasivemanner.Theactivitylogsimplyrequiresparticipantstofilloutdetails
aboutwhattheyhavedonethroughouttheday.Morespecificallythecurrentactivity
logrequiresparticipantstoself-reportfoursections;typeofactivity,intensityofactivity,
timespentonactivity,andlengthoftimewearingthepedometer.Thisdataprovides
theresearcherwitheachparticipant’stype,timeandintensityofPAandcanbeused
to cross compare with the pedometer scores of each participant to ensure internal
consistencyandconcurrent validitybetween thesubjectiveandobjectivemeasures
ofPA.
QuestionnaireAPAquestionnairewasusedtoestablishthechildren’scurrentPAlevelandpotential
environmentalfactorswhichinfluencetheircurrentlevelsofexercise.Thequestionnaire
isamodifiedversionofpreviousPAquestionnaires(Sallisetal,2000;Heyward,2006)
andtakesnolongerthanfiveminutestocomplete.Thequestionnaireconsistsoffive
sections;personalprofile,schoolrelated,afterschool,environment,andneighbourhood
safety.Foranalysispurposesandtoensureeaseofuseandunderstanding,themajority
ofquestionsweremultiplechoice. In total, thequestionnairehas19multiplechoice
(quantitative)questionsand6open-endedquestions(qualitative).Previousresearch
foundthatsimilarnon-occupationalPAquestionnaireshavegoodreliability(Kimseyet
al,2003).
Height, weight and Body Mass Index (BMI)Eachparticipant’sheightandweightwererecorded(withoutshoes) tocalculate the
BMI. Weight was measured using digital floor scales (SECA 770, Germany) while
height was recorded using the SECA Leicester Portable Height Measure. BMI was
calculated as kg/m2 (ACSM, 2005) and used to identify the weight status of each
child,toestablishtheproportionofchildrenwhowereclassifiedasobese,overweight,
healthyorunderweight(Heyward,2006;Coleetal,2000).
Waist Circumference (WC)Thewaistcircumferenceofeachparticipantwasassessed.MeasuringWCisrecognised
asanindicatorofabdominalobesity(ACSM,2005)andprovidesfurtherinformationof
theweightclassificationofparticipantsandthepotentialhealthriskstheymayface.The
validityandobjectivityofmeasuringcircumferences(suchasthewaist)asameasure
of assessingbody fat is stronger thanmeasuringBMI (ACSM,2005; Janssenetal,
2004).ThereisalsoresearchwhichstatesthatcombiningWCwithBMIpredictshealth
risksfarbetterthanwhenusingjustBMIonitsown(Ardenetal,2003;Zhuetal,2004).
Quantitative Data CollectionThe pedometers were distributed on the Thursday afternoon and collected on the
proceedingTuesdaymorning.ThisenabledfourfulldaysofPAdatatoberecorded,
twoweekdays(FridayandMonday)andtheweekend.Beforebeingdistributed,aquick
step-count testwasconducted tocheck the functionalityof eachpedometer,which
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
80 81
confirmedthereliabilityofthepedometer.Keydatasuchastheparticipant’sheight,age,
weightandgenderwas inputtedby theresearchadministrator into thepedometers,
sothateachpedometerwaspersonalisedtoaccuratelymeasureeachindividual.All
childrenreceivedademonstrationandinstructionsonhowtowearthepedometer(i.e.
nearrighthip)andwhentheyshouldandshouldnotwearthepedometer.
ThePhysicalActivityQuestionnairewasalsocompletedbyparticipants.Allparticipants
answeredthequestionnaireontheirowninsilenceandweresupervisedtoensurethat
thedatareceivedwasavalidandfairreflectionoftheindividuals’ownopinions.The
researcherwaspresentatall times toansweranyquestionsand itwasalsostated
to all pupils that their answers were confidential and that they could withdraw from
participating in the study at any time. The completion of the questionnaire took no
longerthanapproximately5minutes.
Bothheight andweightdatawas recorded,onan individualbasis. Tomeasure the
children’sheight,shoeswereremovedandthechildrenwere instructedtostandup
straight,lookstraightahead,andholdtheirbreath(ACSM,2005).TheWCmeasurement
wasalsodiscretelyrecordedbymeasuringthenarrowestpartofthechildren’swaists,
usuallyapproximatelyone-to-twoinchesabovethenavel(ACSM,2004).
Qualitative Data CollectionPupils were given the PA log sheet for the proceeding four days on the Thursday
afternoon. Each log sheet was clearly labelled with the correct day to ensure that
the participants knew which days to record their PA and instructions were given to
everyparticipantonhowtocompletetheactivitylogsheet.WithinthequantitativePA
questionnairetherearesixqualitativequestions.Thus,thesewerealsocompletedat
thesametimeastherestofthequestionnaire,underthesameconditions.
AnalysisAll inferential statistical analysis carried out in this study was performed using the
StatisticalPackageforSocialSciences(SPSS,version16).Thiswasusedtoconduct
both Pearson’s correlations and paired t-tests to establish what factors of the built
environment impact on children’s PA. The following further data analyses were
used;descriptivestatistics,Cohen’sd,andrsquared,toestablishtheeffectsizeand
magnitude of any differences (or percentage shared variance of any relationships)
respectively.
ResultsDue to thewidespectrumofdatacollectionmethodsused in thecurrentstudy, the
analysisofresultscontainsbothqualitativeandquantitativeaspects.Thecurrentstudy
ascertainsthecurrentconditionofthechildrenwhotookpartinthestudy,highlighting
how the children compare to the recommended health guidelines. These findings
revealed that the children’s general physical health and condition is very positive,
ashighlightedbythemeanscoresfor theoverallgroupsuggestingthatonaverage
childrenachievedtherecommended10,000stepsperday(Bastosetal,2008),andone
hourperdayofmoderatetohighintensityphysicalactivityguidelines(Cavill,Biddle,
andSallis,2001;HealthEducationAuthority,1998;Jagoetal,2006b;Departmentof
Health,2004)(seetableI).
Table I – Descriptive Statistics and percentage of children meeting health guidelines.
Participant Group
Statistic Pedometers (Daily Steps)
Activity Log (mins)
(Perceivedtime
ofmoderate/high
intensityPA)
BMI (kg/m2)
Overall group Mean 10092 75 20.79
SD 4246.77 55.88 3.20
% meet normal/ acceptable guidelines
43.33% 56.67% 60%
Males
Mean 10563 86 21.24
SD 5005.68 63.49 3.14
% meet normal/ acceptable guidelines
42.86% 60% 80%
Females
Mean 9622 64.17 20.34
SD 3439.00 46.67 3.30
% meet normal/ acceptable guidelines
50% 40% 40%
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
82 83
Despitethemeanvaluessuggestinghealthyandactivechildren, infactonly50%of
thechildrenareachievingtherecommendedlevelsofdailyphysicalactivity.Thelarge
devianceshowninthemeanPAscoressupportsthesefindingsfurther.
The result of a Pearson’s correlation coefficient supported the concurrent validity
of thepedometers(dailysteps)andPA log(perceivedPA)as theresults revealeda
moderatepositiverelationshipbetweenthetwomethods(r=0.585,p<0.0001,r2=0.34,
percentagesharedvariance=34.22).Thissignificantpositivecorrelationissupported
by the r squared and percentage shared variance which revealed that 34.22% of
sharedvarianceoftheperceivedPAscoresfromtheactivitylogcanbeexplainedby
thepedometersPAscores.Furthersupport for theconcurrentvalidityof the twoPA
measurementmethodsisprovidedbythescattergraph(figure1).
Figure 1 - The relationship between children’s daily average steps and perceived duration of moderate to high PA.
Thispositivecorrelationshowsthatgenerallyifchildrenfailedtomeetthestepsguideline,
theyalsofailedtomeetthePAdurationguideline,andvice-versa.Resultsalsorevealed
thattherewasastrongpositiverelationshipbetweenBMIandWC(r=0.820,p<0.0001,r2=
0.67,percentagesharedvariance=67.24).Alargepercentagesharedvarianceof67.24%
underlinesthestrongrelationshipbetweenthesetwobodycompositionmethods.
Intacklingthemainfocusofthestudy,theresultsofhowchildren’sPAisinfluencedby
thephysicalenvironmentarepresentedinthreesections;Children’sphysicalactivity
andtheavailabilityoflocalrecreationalamenities,commutingtoschoolandlevelsof
children’sphysicalactivity,andchildren’sperceivedneighbourhoodsafetyandlevels
ofphysicalactivity.
The effect of the proximity of local parks on children’s PA.FromconductingaPearson’scorrelation,thecurrentstudyrevealedthattherewasno
significantrelationshipbetweenthedistancethatchildrenlivefromthelocalparkand
theirphysicalactivitylevels(r=-0.241,p=0.216).Thislackofasignificantcorrelation
wasunderlinedbythesmalleffectsize(r2=0.06)andonly5.90%ofsharedvariance
of thechildren’sPA levelsbeingexplainedby theirproximityof thepark.Themean
physicalactivityvaluesshowthat83%ofchildrenlivewithinatenminutewalkfroma
localparkandevenmoreimportantly,showthatchildrenwholiveclosertotheparks
aremorephysicallyactive.Thisisillustratedinthebarchartbelow(figure2).
Figure 2 – The mean PA of children depending on their proximity to a local park.
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
84 85
The effects of local parks proximity on PA and their use by children.The current study revealed that the proximity of the local park had no significant
influenceonhow regularlychildrenuse thepark.Thiswasunderlinedby the result
of thePearson’scorrelation (r=0.251,p=0.181)while theeffectsize (r2=0.06)also
highlightedalackofassociationbetweenhowclosechildrenlivetotheparkandhow
oftentheyusethefacilities.Furthermore,only6.30%ofsharedvarianceoftheregularity
ofchildren’sparkusecanbeexplainedbythedistancechildrenlivefromthepark.This
suggestedthatparkaccessibilitydidnotinfluencechildren’sphysicalactivityoruseof
recreationalfacilitiessuchasparks.
The effects of regular use of parks on children’s PATheresultsofthecurrentstudyrevealthatchildrenwhousetheparkmoreoftenare
morelikelytobephysicalactive.Thiswasindicatedbyasignificantmoderatepositive
relationshipbetweenregularityofparkuseandchildren’sPAlevels(r=0.439,p=0.015,
r2=0.19,percentagesharedvariance=19.27%).
Table II – Mean PA scores of children in relation to how often they visit the park.
Regularity of
Park use
Number of
Children
Percentage of
total group (%)
Mean PA (Steps
taken)
Never 3 10 9,773
Yearly 4 13 6,312
Monthly 11 37 8,866
1-2 days per week 8 27 11,789
3-5 days per week 4 13 14,092
6-7 days per week 0 - -
ThemeanPAvaluesshownintableIIdemonstratethatthemorethechildrengotothe
park,themorephysicallyactivetheyare(withtheexceptionof3childrenwho‘never’
gotothepark).Thispositivecorrelationwasfurtherillustratedbythebargraph(shown
inFigure3).Evenwiththeanomalous‘never’categoryincluded,themeanPAvalues
stillhighlightthatonaverageonlychildrenwhovisittheparkatleastonceperweek
achievethe10,000stepsperdayhealthguidelines(Bastosetal,2008).
Figure 3 - The relationship between mean PA and children’s regularity of park use.
Commuting to school and levels of children’s physical activityTheresultsrevealedthatonly47%ofthechildren(14children)activelycommutedto
school(allofwhomwalked),withthemajorityofchildren(53%)usingmoresedentary
modes of transport (e.g. bus or car). When comparing the children who actively
commutetoschoolwiththechildrenwhotravelbymoresedentarymodes,theresults
clearlyrevealsubstantialdifferencesinbothbodycompositionandPA(seetableIII).
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
86 87
Table III - Differences between children who actively commute to school and children who do not actively commute to school.
Measure Actively Commute Mean(SD)
Don’t Actively
Commute Mean(SD)
tvalue
pvalue
Cohen’s d
Effect size
Percent change
BMI (kg/m2)19.44(2.20)
kg/m2
21.53(3.59)
kg/m2-2.247 0.043 0.72 medium
-10(small
decrease)
Waist Circumference (cm)
56.16
(17.46)cm
67.01(21.79)
cm-5.799 <0.001 0.56 medium
-16
(medium
decrease)
Pedometers (meandailysteps)
11,721
(4286.93)
8,434
(2860.80)2.703 0.015 0.95 large
39(large
increase)
Log manuals (perceivedtimeofPA)(mins)
98(46.06)
mins
54(55.63)
mins2.480 0.028 0.89 large
81(huge
increase)
The results of the paired t-tests strongly suggest that active commuting to school
hasstronghealthbenefitsasitisassociatedwithsignificantlylowerBMIandWCand
positivelyimpactschildren’slevelsofPA(seetableIII).Thisishighlightedbymedium
effect sizes and a decrease in the percentage change, indicating that those who
activelycommutetoschoolhavedecreasedBMIandsmallerwaistgirths.Additionally,
by reverting to the mean values (in table III) there is a substantial difference in the
pedometerandactivity logscoresbetweenchildrenwhowalk(activelycommute)to
schoolandthosewhotravelbybusorcar.ThelargeeffectsizesshownbytheCohen’s
d equations (d=0.95 in pedometers and d=0.89 in log manuals) strongly indicates
thatactivecommutingtoschoolcanplayamajorroleinchildrenachievingthedaily
PAhealthguidelines(seetableIII).Thisisemphasizedbythegraphbelow(figure4).
Figure 4 - A graph revealing the percentage of children who meet the PA national guidelines based on if they have active or sedentary means of travel to school.
Whenassessinghowlongittakesthechildrentotraveltoschoolthemajority(72%)of
childrenwhotravelbycarhaveajourneytimeofovertenminutes,andthismayexplain
whytravellingbycarisnecessary.Amajorreasonwhyalargepercentageofchildren
whowalk toschoolmeet thedailyPAhealthguidelinesmaybedue to the fact that
57%oftheseactivecommuterswalkforaminimumof10minutestogetfromhometo
school.
Children’s perceived neighbourhood safety and levels of physical
activity Theresultsofthecurrentstudyrevealedthatthevastmajorityofchildrenfeelsafein
theirneighbourhoodwithintheday.Infact,onlyoneparticipantclaimedtofeelunsafe
intheirlocalneighbourhoodduringdaytimes.Whencomparingchildrenwhofeltsafe
to those who felt ‘a little unsafe’, the independent t-test revealed that there was no
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
88 89
significantdifference(t=0.560,p=0.580).Thisisemphasisedbythesmalleffectsize
(Cohen’sd=0.22)andminimalpercentagechange(9%smallincrease).Despitethis,
themeanscoresshowthatchildrenwhofeelsafeareslightlymoreactive(10,609mean
dailysteps)thanthosewhofeelalittleunsafe(9,699meandailysteps).Furthermore,
over 50% of all children claimed that neighbourhood crime affects the amount of
exercisetheyparticipateinatleast‘alittle’.Thisisillustratedinthepiechart(figure5).
Figure 5 - The different child responses to the question; “Does neighbourhood crime affect amount of exercise you participate in?”
Discussion
Children’s current health and physical activity levelsThecurrentstudydoesnotreflectthecurrentobesityepidemic(Seidell,2000;Wilmore,
2003),withnoobesechildrenandonly13%ofchildrenbeingclassifiedasoverweight
(according to BMI classifications). This contradicts statistics stating that over 23%
of childrenwereobese (DepartmentofHealth,2006).Thus, it canbestated that in
termsofweightclassification,theparticipantsinthecurrentstudywerebetterthanthe
nationalaverage.
According to the 10,000 daily average steps health guideline (Bastos et al, 2008)
43.3%ofchildrenmetthePAhealthguidelines.ThisfindingisexpectedasmostBritish
childrendonotpartakeinenoughPAtomeettherecommendedguidelines(Duncan
etal,2007a;Riddochetal,2007).Whilstthereisconflictingdeclarationsfromprevious
literature regarding the most appropriate PA daily steps guidelines for children, the
currentstudyadoptedthe10,000stepsperdayguideline.Thereasonforthisisthat
althoughithasbeenstronglyrecommended(Tudor-Lockeetal,2004;Tudor-Lockeand
Bassett,2004)thatchildren’sdailystepsguidelineshouldbehigherthanadults,with
Tudor-LockeandBassett(2004)proposingguidelinesof12,000steps/dayforgirlsand
15,000steps/dayforboys,theseguidelineswereaimedatchildrenaged‘6-12years
old’(Tudor-Lockeetal,2004:857).Thus,studiesfocusingonolderadolescentaged
children,suchasthatbyBastosetal(2008)andthecurrentstudy,havepursuedwith
the10,000stepsperdayguidelines.
The concurrent validity of the two PA measures used in the current study was
moderately high, ensuring that children’s PA data was consistent between both
methods(thepedometersandPAlog)andsupportingpreviousliterature(Crouteret
al,2005;Schneideretal,2003;Crouteretal,2003).However,apossibleexplanation
foronlyamoderatepositiverelationshipbetweenthetwomethodsofmeasuringPA
isthatchildrenmayperceivephysicalactivitydifferentlyandalsosomechildrenmay
forget or exaggerate certain physical activities when recalling what they have done
(HarroandRiddoch,2000).Thisagainsupportsthecurrentstudy’suseoftwoPAdata
collectionmethodstoeradicatediscrepanciesfoundfromchildren’sselfreportedPA.
Theconcurrentvaliditybetween theBMIandWCscores ishighlysupportedby the
currentstudy’sfindings,andsupportsprevioussimilar researchfindings (Elobeidet
al,2007).
Children’s physical activity and the availability of local recreational
amenitiesThecurrentstudy’sresultsrejectedthestudyhypothesis,whichstatedthat‘children
whohavegreateraccess toparksandother localamenitieswillbemorephysically
active’. The studyestablishedno significant relationshipbetweenchildren’sPA and
either theiraccess toor frequencyofusing the localparkor recreational facilities in
general. This thereforecontradicts the findingsof severalprevious researchstudies
(Kahnetal,2002;Sallisetal,1998;Humpeletal,2004;Sallisetal,1990;Humpeletal,
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
91
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
Thecurrentstudyfindingsalsosupport literaturethatstateswalkingtoschoolhasa
positiveinfluenceonchildren’shealth(McDonald,2008;Schofieldetal,2005;Blairet
al,2001).Thecurrentstudy’sresultsrevealedthatchildrenwhowalkedtoschoolare
healthier(intermsoflowerBMIandWCresults)thanchildrenwhoweredriventoschool
byeitherabusorcar.Thisishighlightedbythefactthatalloftheoverweightchildren
didnotactivelycommutetoschooland71%ofchildrenwhowalkedtoschoolfellwithin
the‘normal’BMIclassificationcomparedtoonly50%ofchildrenwhotravelledbycar
orbus.Tudor-Lockeetal(2003)claimedthatchildrenexpendbetween33to44kcalper
daymorethancartravellers.Thecurrentstudy’sloweractualandperceivedPAvalues
ofcar travellers(comparedtowalkers)supports thesefindingsandmorethan likely
explainstheBMIandWCscoredifferences.Inlightofsuchfindingsthecurrentstudy
fullysupportsgovernmentschemespromotingactivecommuting(Davisonetal,2004).
Despitethemajorityofresearchfindings,Metcalfetal(2004)previouslyconcludedthat
thewaychildrentraveltoschoolhasnoimpactontheiroverallPAlevels.Apossible
explanationforthecontrastinfindingscouldbebecauseMetcalfetal(2004)focused
theirstudyonfiveyearolds,whereasthecurrentstudyfocusedonolderchildrenand
adolescents.Meanwhile,previousliteraturehashighlightedthatchildrenwholiveclose
totheschoolaremorelikelytoactivelycommute(McMillan,2007).Thiswassupported
with themajorityofchildrenwhowalked toschool (64%) living relativelyclose,with
less thana20minute travel time (by foot).Overall, thecurrentstudysupported the
vastmajorityofpreviousliteraturebyrevealingthatchildrenwhoactivelycommuteto
schoolaregenerallymorephysicallyactiveandhealthy.
Children’s perceived neighbourhood safety and levels of physical
activity Thecurrentstudy’sresultsdonotsupport thehypothesis,whichbasedonprevious
literaturestatedthat‘children’sPAlevelswillbeinverselyaffectedbytheirperceptions
ofanunsafephysicalenvironment’.Onemajor reason for this is thatonlyonechild
claimedtofeelunsafeintheirlocalneighbourhoodandwhilesheclaimedthatcrime
affectsherPAlevels,whichwerewellbelowthedailyhealthguidelines(6040stepsper
day),thissub-sampleofjustoneparticipantdoesnotprovidestrongenoughgrounds
tosupporttheclaimsofseveralresearcherswhostatethatperceivedcrimeisamajor
determinant inchildren’sPA levels (Farleyetal; 2007;Molnaretal, 2004;Valentine
2002;Babeyetal,2008).Apotentialexplanationforthiscouldbethatunlikeseveral
previousstudies,thecurrentstudyhadalimitedsamplesizeofthirtychildrenfromtwo
secondaryschools.Althoughtherearenostatisticallysignificantrelationships,themean
valuesindicateanegativetrendbetweenchildren’sPAanddistancetothelocalpark.
Thisofferspartialevidenceofchildrenwholiveclosertotherecreationalfacilitiesbeing
more physically active. The current findings also highlight the importance of public
parksinencouragingchildrentobephysicallyactive,asaclearpositiverelationshipis
foundbetweenchildren’sregularityofparkuseandPA.Thissupportssimilarfindings
fromprevious literature (KaczynskiandHenderson,2008;Bedimo-Rungetal,2005;
Godbeyetal,2005)andindicatesthatbeingoutdoorspositivelyinfluenceschildren’s
PAlevels(Sallisetal,2000;Klesgesetal,1990;Sallisetal,1993).
Areasonforthelackofassociationbetweenaccesstoparksandrecreationalfacilities
andchildren’sPA isstatedbyMcKenzieetal (2006)whoclaimedthat justbecause
peoplehaveaccesstoapark,thisdoesnotnecessarilymeantheywillusethepark
orthatparkusewillbeactive.However,despitethefindingsofMcKenzieetal(2006)
thecurrentstudydoesshowthatparkuseisassociatedwithincreasedPAlevels,and
thereforechildrenwhodogototheparkaregenerallymorephysicallyactive.
Thecurrentstudysupportsthefindingsfrompreviousresearchthatfoundnoassociation
between thechildren’sPAand theiraccess toparksorother recreationalamenities
(Zakarian et al, 1994; Romero, 2005; Ferreira et al, 2006). Therefore, despite the
researchhypothesis,themixedfindingsofpreviousliteraturemakethecurrentstudy’s
resultsunsurprising.Overall,whiletheaccesstoparkandrecreationalamenitieshas
noimpactonchildren’sPAlevels,thecurrentstudystillhighlightstheimportanceof
localrecreationalfacilitiessuchasparks,inencouragingPAinchildren.
Commuting to school and levels of children’s physical activityThestudyhypothesizedthat‘childrenwhoactivelycommutetoschoolwillhavehigher
PA levels than children who travel by car or bus.’ The results strongly support this
hypothesis by revealing that children who actively commute are significantly more
physically active, than children who travel by more sedentary means to school.
Subsequently, these findings strongly support the vast majority of literature, which
cametosimilarconclusions(Schofieldetal,2005;Blairetal,2001;Tudor-Lockeetal,
2003).
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
90
92 93
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical ActivityPeter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
school)hashighlightedtheimportanceofactivecommutingtoschoolandregularpark
useasissueswhichcansignificantlyinfluencechildren’sPA.
Limitations
Thepresentstudyishowevernotwithoutitslimitations.Forexample,asonly13%of
childreninthecurrentstudywereclassifiedasoverweight(andnoneobese),itcould
bearguedthatthecurrentsampleofchildrenusedinthestudydoesnotfairlyreflect
thegeneralpopulation(atthisagegroup)orthecurrentobesityepidemic.Thereason
forthelackobeseandoverweightchildrencouldeitherbecoincidentalorpotentially
reflect thereluctanceofoverweightchildrentoparticipate in thestudy.Furthermore,
thecurrentstudyduetotimeandaccessibilityrestrictions,usedanopportunitysample
of thirty children from two schools, limiting the studies ability to reflect the general
populationonanationalscale,whichwouldrequirealarger,random,nationalsample.
Some children were inaccurate when completing the activity log. For example, one
childclaimedbeing‘asleepinbed’isaphysicalactivity,andfurthermoreclaimedthat
theintensitywas‘verytiring’.Childrenmisinterpretingthephysicalactivitylogisastudy
limitation,althoughthisonlyoccurredonafewoccasions.
Whilsthighlypracticalforepidemiologicalstudies,thevalidityofBMItoassessbody
compositionhasbeenquestionedbypreviousliterature(HeywardandWagner,2004)
and therefore more accurate weight classification methods could be used, such as
skinfoldmeasuresorbioelectricimpedanceanalysis.Anotherpotentiallimitationofthis
studymayhavebeenreactivity fromtheparticipantswhenwearingthepedometers.
Previous research has highlighted that pedometers were deemed as a motivational
tool and encouraged participants to perform more exercise than normal (Bassett
etal.,1996;Tudor-Locke,etal,2002;Tudor-Locke,2002;Jagoetal,2006a). Thus,
whileencouraginggreaterPAcanbeseenasapositive, itdoeshindertheabilityto
record participant’s normal amount of PA. Despite this limitation, the current study
limitedparticipantreactivitybysealingthepedometersandbythechildrenwearingthe
pedometersforapracticeday(Clemesetal,2008).Despiteitslimitations,thecurrent
studyhasprovidedintriguinginformationonthepotentialimpactthatfactorsofthebuilt
environmenthaveonchildren’sPA.
etal,1997;Gomezetal,2004).Furthermore, thecurrentstudyprovidessupport for
similarliteraturewhichalsofoundthatperceivedsafetydoesnotimpactchildren’sPA
(Krahnstoever-DavisonandLawson,2006;Zakarianetal,1994;Sallisetal,2002).
Thecurrentfindingsaresurprising,giventhatthemajorityofresearchidentifiedthat
perceivedsafetydoesimpactPAlevelsinchildren(Ferreiraetal,2006).Areasonfor
thiscouldbedue to thecurrentstudyonly recordingdata from twourbanschools,
which while being approximately 12 miles apart, do share striking resemblances in
neighbourhood characteristics. Thus, the reason for low rates of children citing the
neighbourhood as unsafe may be because both urban areas are similarly widely
perceivedassafecommunities.
There is however limited support provided by the current study for a relationship
betweenperceivedsafetyandPAwhichisprovidedbythemeanPAscoresrevealing
thatchildrenwhofeelsafe intheirneighbourhoodmeetthe10,000stepdailyhealth
guideline,whilechildrenwhofeel ‘a littleunsafe’ fall justbelowthisguideline(9,669
dailysteps).Thismayhintthatwithalargersamplesize,anassociationmaybefound
which supports previous literature (Adkins et al, 2004; Gomez et al, 2004; Cordon-
Larsenetal,2000).Withover50%ofallofthechildrenclaimingthatneighbourhood
crime influencestheamountofexercisetheyparticipate inat least ‘a little’, thisalso
providesaglimmerofsupportfor literaturerevealingapositiverelationshipbetween
children’sPAandperceivedsafety.Overall, thecurrent studycontradictedprevious
literature by revealing no relationship between children’s perceived neighbourhood
safetyandchildren’sPAlevels.
ConclusionThecurrentstudyindicatedthatcertainelementsofthebuiltenvironmentappearedto
havenoeffectonchildren’sPA(e.g.,accesstorecreationalamenitiesandperceived
safety).However,itshouldbeacknowledgedthatthestudydidnotmeasureallelements
ofthebuiltenvironment,andassuchcannotconcludethatthebuiltenvironmenthas
no impactonchildren’sPA levels.Furthermore, theanalysisof threeenvironmental
factors (access to localamenities,perceivedneighbourhoodsafetyand transport to
94 95
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical ActivityPeter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
REFERENCES
ACSM Guidelines (2004). ‘ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription.’ Media,PA:WilliamsandWilkins.
ACSMGuidelines(2005)‘ACSM’s Health-related Physical Fitness Assessment Manual.’ Media,PA:WilliamsandWilkins.
ActiveLivingResearch(2007)‘Designing for Active Living Among Children.’RobertWood
JohnsonFoundation:SanDiegoStateUniversity.
Adkins, S., Sherwood, N.E., Story, M., and Davis, M. (2004) ‘Physical activity among
AfricanAmericanGirls:Theroleofparentsandthehomeenvironment.’Obesity Research. 12:38-45.
Alexander,L.M.,Inchley,J.,Todd,J.,Currie,D.,Cooper,A.R.,andCurrie,C.(2005)‘The
broader impact of walking to school among adolescents: seven day accelerometry
basedstudy.’ British Medical Journal.331:1061-1062.
Arden, C.I., Katzmarzyk, P.T., and Ross, R. (2003) ‘Discrimination of health risk by
combinedbodymassindexandwaistcircumference.’ Obesity Research.11:135-142.
Babey, S.H., Haastert, T.A., and Yu, H., Brown E.R. (2008) ‘Physical Activity Among
Adolescents:WhenDoParksMatter?’American Journal of Preventative Medicine.34(4):
345-348.
Bassett D. R., Ainsworth B.E., and Leggett S.R. (1996) ‘Accuracy of five electronic
pedometers for measuring distance walked.’ Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.28(8):1071-1077.
Bastos,J.P.,Araujo,C.L.P.,Hallal,P.C.(2008)‘PrevalenceofInsufficientPhysicalActivity
andAssociatedFactorsinBrazilianAdolescents.’ Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 5:777-794.
Bedimo-Rung, A.L., Mowen, A.J., and Cohen, D.A. (2005) ‘The Significance of Parks
toPhysicalActivityandPublicHealth.’American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 28(2):
159-168.
BiddleS.J.H,GoreleyTandStenselD.J(2004)‘Health-enhancingphysicalactivityand
sedentarybehaviourinchildrenandadolescents.’Journal of Sport Sciences. 22:679-701.
Blair,S.N.,Cheng,Y.,Holder, J.S. (2001) ‘Isphysical activityorphysical fitnessmore
important in defining health benefits?’ Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 33(6):379-99.
Recommendations for future studiesAsactivecommutingratesarereportedlysignificantlyhigherinboys,comparedtogirls
(Rosenbergetal,2006;Evensonetal,2003;HartenandOlds,2004),futureresearch
shouldconsidergenderdifferences.Furtherresearchshouldincludealarger,random
sampleofparticipants.Furthermore,researchshouldalsouseparticipantsfrommore
schoolsnationallysotheresultscanbefairlyreflectedonanationalscale.Inlightof
previousresearchbyBabeyetal(2008),whofoundastrongerassociation inurban
areas compared to rural areas, future research should compare children’s PA from
urbanandruralneighbourhoods.Whenmeasuringhowperceivedsafetyaffects the
children’sPA,thecurrentstudyonlymeasuredperceivedsafetyanddidnot include
variousotherfactorssuchasconditionofpaths,poorpedestrianfacilities,numberof
roadcrossingsandvolumeoftraffic,allfactorswhichhavebeenhighlightedinprevious
literatureashavingamajoreffectonchildren’sperceivedsafetyandlevelofPA(Zhu
andLee,2008).Suchfactorsshouldbeaddressedinfutureresearch.
Bothperceivedandobjectivelymeasuredcrimecaninfluencechildren’sPA(McGinn
et al, 2008) and therefore should both be assessed in future research. Despite this
however, the current perceived data collected is still valuable, as perceptions are
important predictors of PA (Giles-Corti and Donovan, 2002). It may be beneficial
for future research to also consider the children’s parents’ perceptions of the local
environmentasthiscanhaveamajorimpactonchildren’sPAlevels(Trostetal,2003;
Sallisetal,2000;Miles,2008;Molnaretal,2004).Withthisinmind,recordingparents’
opinionsmaybeworthwhileinfuturesimilarmindedstudies.Also,thecurrentstudy
when assessing how factors of the built environment affect children’s PA, does not
takeintoaccountage(HalvariandThomassen,1997)andsocioeconomicdifferences
(Mooreetal2008).Bothofthesefactorshavebeenhighlightedinpreviousliterature
as issueswhichcan influencesuchepidemiological research results. Inconclusion,
theresearchresultsprovideafoundationforfuturestudiestobuilduponinincreasing
knowledgeandunderstandingoftheaffectsofthebuiltenvironmentonchildren’sPA.
96 97
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical ActivityPeter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
Cooper,A.R.,AndersenL.B.,WedderkoppN.,PageA.S.,andFroberg,K.(2005)‘Physical
activitylevelsofchildrenwhowalk,cycle,oraredriventoschool.’American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 29(3):179-184.
Cordon-Larson,P.,McMurray,R.G.,andPopkin,B.M.(2000)‘Determinantsofadolescent
physicalactivityandinactivitypatterns.’Paediatrics.105(6):83.
Crespo,C.J.,andSmit,E.(2003)‘PrevalenceofOverweightandObesityintheUnited
States.’In,Anderson,R.E.(Ed.),Obesity: Etiology, Assessment, Treatment and Prevention. (p.3-16).Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics.
Crouter, S.E., Schneider, P.L., and Bassett, D.R. (2005) ‘Spring-levered versus piezo-
electricpedometeraccuracyinoverweightandobeseadults.’Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.37:1673-1679.
CrouterS.E.,SchneiderP.L.,KarabulutM,andBassettD.R.(2003)‘Validityof10electronic
pedometersformeasuringsteps,distance,andenergycosts.’Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 35(8):1455-1460.
Davison,K.K.,Werder,J.L.,andLawson,C.T. (2008) ‘Children’sActiveCommuting to
School:CurrentKnowledgeandFutureDirections.’Preventing Chronic Disease. 5(3):
1-11.
Dennison,B.A.,Erb,T.A.,andJenkins,P.L.(2002)‘TelevisionViewingandTelevisionin
Bedroom Associated With Overweight Risk Among Low-Income Preschool Children.’
Paediatrics.109(6):1028-1035.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. (2000) ‘National travel
survey:update1997/99.’London:HerMajesty’sStationaryOffice.
DepartmentofHealth(2004)‘AtLeastFiveaWeek—EvidenceoftheImpactofPhysical
ActivityanditsRelationshiptoHealth:AReportFromtheChiefMedicalOfficer.’London,
UK:StationeryOffice.
DepartmentofHealth(2006) ‘HealthSurveyforEngland,1995-2004.’Obesitybulletin.
May2006,Issue1.
Dollman,J.,Norton,K.,andNorton,L.(2005)‘Evidenceforseculartrendsinchildren’s
physicalactivitybehaviour.’British Journal of Sports Medicine.39(12):892-7.
DuncanM.J.,Al-NakeebY.,WoodfieldL.,andLyonsM.(2007a)‘Pedometerdetermined
physical activity levels in primary school children from central England.’ Preventative Medicine. 44:416-420.
Boarnet,M.G.,Anderson,C.L.,Day,K.,McMillan,T.,andAlfonzo,M.(2005)‘Evaluation
oftheCaliforniaSafeRoutestoSchoolLegislation:UrbanFormChangesandChildren’s
ActiveTransportation toSchool.’American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 28(2S2):
134-140.
Boehmer,T.K.,Hoehner,C.M.,Wyrwich,K.W.,BrennanRamirez,L.K.,andBrownson,R.C.
(2006)‘CorrespondenceBetweenPerceivedandObservedMeasuresofNeighbourhood
EnvironmentalSupportsforPhysicalActivity.’Journal of Physical Activity and Health.3:
22-36.
Booth,M.,Owen,N.,Bauman,A.,Clavisi,O.,andLeslieE.(2000)‘Social-cognitiveand
perceivedenvironmentalinfluencesassociatedwithphysicalactivityinolderAustralians.’
Preventative Medicine.31:15-22.
BorehamC,andRiddoch,C.(2001)‘ThePhysicalactivity,FitnessandHealthofchildren.’
Journal of Sport Sciences.19:915-929.
Brownson, R.C., Baker, E.A., Housemann, R.A., Brennan, L.K., Bacak, S.J. (2001)
‘EnvironmentalandpolicydeterminantsofphysicalactivityintheUnitedStates.’American Journal of Public Health.91(12):1995-2003.
Carver,A.,Timperio,A.,andCrawford,D.(2008)‘PerceptionsofNeighborhoodSafety
andPhysicalActivityAmongYouth:TheCLANStudy.’Journal of Physical Activity and Health.5:430-444.
Cavill,V.,Biddle,S.andSallis,J.(2001)‘HealthEnhancingPhysicalActivityforYoung
People: Statement of the United Kingdom Expert Consensus Conference.’ Pediatric Exercise Science13(1):12–25.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (1999) ‘Neighbourhood safety and the
prevalenceofphysicalactivity–selectedstates,1996.’MorbidityandMortalityWeekly
Report.47:143-146.
Clemes,S.A.,Matchett,N.,andWane,S.L. (2008) ‘Reactivity:an issue forshort-term
pedometerstudies?’British Journal of Sports Medicine.42:68-70.
Cole,T.J.,Bellizzi,M.C.,Flegal,K.M.,andDietz,W.H. (2000) ‘Establishingastandard
definitionforchildoverweightandobesityworldwide:internationalsurvey.’British Medical Journal.320:1240-1245.
Cooper,A.R.,Page,A.S.,Foster, L.J.,Qahwaji,D. (2003) ‘Commuting toSchool:Are
ChildrenWhoWalkMorePhysicallyActive?’American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 25(4):273-276.
98 99
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical ActivityPeter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
Godbey,G.C.,Caldwell,L.L.,Floyd,M.,Payne,L.(2005)‘Contributionsofleisurestudies
andrecreationandparkmanagementresearchto theactive livingagenda.’American Journal of Preventive Medicine.28(2):150–158.
Gomez,J.E.,Johnson,B.A.,Selva,M.,andSallisJF(2004)‘Violentcrimeandoutdoor
physicalactivityamonginner-cityyouth.’Preventive Medicine39(5):876-881.
Gortmaker,S.L.,Must,A.,Sobol,A.M.,Peterson,K.,Colditz,G.A.,andDeitz,W.H.(1996)
‘TelevisionviewingasacauseofincreasingobesityamongchildrenintheUnitedStates,
1986–1990.’Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.150:356–62.
Halvari H, and Thomassen T. (1997) ‘Achievement motivation, sports-related future
orientation,andsportingcareer.’Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs. 123(3):343-365.
HarroM,andRiddochC.(2000)‘PhysicalActivity.’In:ArmstrongN,andVanMechelen
W. (eds) Paediatric Exercise Science and Medicine. (pp.77-85) Oxford UK: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Harten,N.,andOlds,T.(2004)‘Patternsofactivetransportin11-12yearoldAustralian
children.’Australian and New Zealand’s Journal of Public Health.28(2):167-72.
HEA–HealthEducationAuthority(1997)‘YoungPeopleandPhysicalActivity:ALiterature
Review.’London:HEA.
HealthEducationAuthority(HEA)(1998).‘Youngandactive?’London:HEA.
Heelan,K.A.,Donnelly,J.E.,Jacobsen,D.J.,Mayo,M.S.,Wasburn,R.,andGreene,L.
(2005)‘ActivecommutingtoandfromschoolandBMIinelementaryschoolchildren–
preliminarydata.’Child Care Health Development.31(3):341-349.
Heyward,V.H.(2006)‘AdvancedFitnessAssessmentandExercisePrescription.’5thEd.
Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics:347.
Heyward,V.H.andWagner,D.R.(2004)‘AppliedbodycompositionAssessment.’2ndEd.
Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics.
Hillman,M.(1993)‘Children,transport,andthequalityoflife.’London:PoliciesStudies
Institute.
Hillman,M. (2006) ‘Children’s rightsandadults’wrongs.’Children’s Geographies. 4:
61–67.
Hillman,M.,Adams,J.,andWhitelegg,J.(1990)‘OneFalseMove...AStudyofChildren’s
Duncan,J.S.,Schofield,G.,Duncan,E.K.,andHinckson,E.A.(2007b)‘Effectsofage,
walkingspeed,andbodycompositiononpedometeraccuracyinchildren.’Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.78:420-428.
Elobeid,M.A.,Desmond,R.A.,Thomas,O.,Keith,S.W.,andAllison,D.B.(2007)‘Waist
Circumference Values Are Increasing Beyond Those Expected From BMI Increases.’
Obesity. 15(10):2380-2383.
Estabrooks, P., Lee, R., and Gyurcsik, N. (2003) ‘Resources for physical activity
participation:doesavailabilityandaccessibilitydifferbyneighborhoodsocioeconomic
status?’Annals of Behaviour Medicine. 25(2):100-104.
Evenson,K.R.,Birnbaum,A.S.,Bedimo-Rung,A.L.,Sallis,J.F.,Voorhees,C.C.,andRing,
K.(2006)‘Girls’perceptionofphysicalenvironmentalfactorsandtransportation:reliability
andassociationwithphysicalactivityandactivetransporttoschool.’International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 3:28.
Evenson,K.R.,HustonS.L.,McMillen,B.J.,Bors,P,andWard,D.S. (2003) ‘Statewide
prevalenceandcorrelatesofwalkingandbicyclingtoschool.’Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.157(9):887-92.
Faith, M.S., Matz, P.E., and Allison, D.B. (2003) ‘Psychosocial Correlates and
Consequences of Obesity.’ In, Anderson, R.E. (Ed.), Obesity: Etiology, Assessment, Treatment and Prevention.(p.17-32).Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics.
Farley,T.A.,Meriwether,R.A.,Baker,E.T.,Watkins,L.T.,Johnson,C.C.,andWebber,L.S.
(2007) ‘Safe Play Spaces to Promote Physical Activity in Inner-City Children: Results
FromaPilotStudyofanEnvironmentalIntervention.’American Journal of Public Health.97:1625-1631.
Ferreira,I.,VanderHorst,K.,Wendel-Vos,W.,Kremers,S.,VanLenthe,F.J.,andBrug,
J.(2006)‘Environmentalcorrelatesofphysicalactivityinyouth–areviewandupdate.’
Obesity reviews.8:129-154.
Garcia,A.W.,Broda,M.A.,Frenn,M.,Coviak,C.,Pender,N.J.,andRonis,D.L. (1995)
‘Genderanddevelopmentaldifferencesinexercisebeliefsamongyouthandprediction
oftheirexercisebehavior.’Journal of School Health.65:213–219.
Giles-Corti,B.,andDonovan,R.J.(2002)‘Therelativeinfluenceofindividual,socialand
physicalenvironmentdeterminantsofphysicalactivity.’Social Science and Medicine. 54:
1793–812.
100
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
withenvironmentandparentalconcerns.’Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 38:787-794.
Kimsey,C.D.,Ham,S.A.,Macera,C.A.,Ainsworth,B.E.,andJones,D.A.(2003)‘Reliability
of moder¬ate and vigorous physical activity questions in the behavioral risk factor
surveillancesystemBRFSS.’Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.35:114.
Klesges,R.,Eck,L.,Hanson,C.,Haddock,C.,andKlesges,L.(1990)‘Effectsofobesity,
socialinteractions,andphysicalenvironmentonphysicalactivityinpreschoolers.’Health Psychology.9:435–449.
Koplan,J.,Liverman,C.,andKraak,V.(2005)‘Preventingchildhoodobesity:healthinthe
balance.’Washington(DC):TheNationalAcademiesPress.
Krahnstoever-Davison, K., and Lawson, C.T. (2006) ‘Do attributes in the physical
environmentinfluencechildren’sphysicalactivity?Areviewoftheliterature.’International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 3(19):1-17.
Lin,B.H.,Huang,C.L.,andFrench,S.A.(2004).‘Factorsassociatedwithwomen’sand
children’sbodymassindicesbyincomestatus.’International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorders.28:536–542.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2006) ‘Is it safe to walk? Neighbourhood safety and security
considerationsandtheireffectsonwalking.’Journal of Planned Literature.20:219-232.
Lumeng, J.C., Appugliese, D., Cabral, H.J., Bradley, R.H., and Zuckerman, B. (2006)
‘Neighbourhoodsafetyandoverweightstatus inchildren.’Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 160:25-31.
McDonald,N.C.(2008)‘CriticalFactorsforActiveTransportationtoSchoolAmongLow-
IncomeandMinorityStudents.’American Journal of Preventive Medicine.34(4):341-344.
McGinn,A.P.,Evenson,K.R.,Herring,A.H.,Huston,S.L.,andRodriguez,D.A.(2008)‘The
associationofperceivedandobjectivelymeasuredcrimewithphysicalactivity:Across-
sectionalanalysis.’Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 5:117-131.
McKenzie,T.L.,Cohen,D.A.,Sehgal,A.,Williamson,S.,andGolinelli,D.(2006)‘System
forObservingPlayandRecreationinCommunities(SOPARC):reliabilityandfeasibility
measures.’Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 3(1):208–222.
McMillan,T.E. (2007) ‘Therelative influenceofurban formonachild’s travelmodeto
school.’Transportation Research Part A.41(1):69-79.
Merom,D.,Tudor-Locke,C.,Bauman,A.,andRissel,C. (2006) ‘Activecommuting to
IndependentMobility.’London,UK:PSIPublishing.
Humpel,N.,Marshall,A.L.,Leslie,E.,Bauman,A.,andOwen,N. (2004) ‘Changes in
neighbourhoodwalkingarerelatedtochangesinperceptionsofenvironmentalattributes.’
Annals of Behavioural Medicine.27:60–7.
Humpel,N.,Owen,N.,andLeslie,E.(2002)‘Environmentalfactorsassociatedwithadults’
participationinphysicalactivity:areview.’AmericanJournalofPreventiveMedicine.22:
188–99.
Huston,S.L.,Evenson,K.R.,Bors,P.,andGizlice,Z.(2003).‘Neighbourhoodenvironment,
accesstoplacesforactivity,andleisure-timephysicalactivityinadiverseNorthCarolina
population.’American Journal of Health Promotion.18:58–69.
Jago,R.,WatsonK.,BaranowskiT.,ZakeriI.,YooS.,BaranowskiJ.,andConryK.(2006a).
‘Pedometerreliability,validityanddailyactivity targetsamong10to15-year-oldboys.’
Journal of Sport Sciences. 24(3):241-251.
Jago,R.,Baranowski,T.,andHarris,M,(2006b)‘RelationshipsbetweenGISenvironmental
features and adolescent male physical activity: GIS coding differences.’ Journal of Physical Activity and Health.3:230-242.
Janssen,L.,Katzmarzyk,P.T.,andRoss,R.(2004)‘WaistcircumferenceandnotBody
MassIndexexplainobesityrelatedhealthrisk.’American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 79:
379-384.
Kaczynski,A.T.,Henderson,K.A.(2007)‘Environmentalcorrelatesofphysicalactivity:a
reviewofevidenceaboutparksandrecreation.’Leisure Science. 29:315–354.
Kaczynski,A.T.,andHenderson,K.A.(2008) ‘Parksandrecreationsettingsandactive
living:a reviewofassociationswithphysicalactivity functionand intensity.’Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 5:619-632.
Kahn,E.B.,Ramsey,L.T.,andBrownson,R.C.(2002)‘Theeffectivenessofinterventionsto
increasephysicalactivity:asystematicreview.’American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 22(4):73–107.
Karsten,L.(2005)‘Itallusedtobebetter?differentgenerationsoncontinuityandchange
inurbanchildren’sdailyuseofspace.’Children’s Geographies. 3(3):275–290.
Kann,L.,Warren,C.W.,andHarris,W.J.(1995)‘Youthrisksurveillance–UnitedStates
1993.’Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 44(1):1-55.
Kerr,J.,Rosenberg,D.,andSallis,J.F.(2006)‘Activecommutingtoschool:associations
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
101
103
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
S.NandNess,A.R.(2007). ‘Objectivemeasurementof levelsandpatternsofphysical
activity.’Archives of Disease in Childhood. 92(11):963-969.
Robinson, T.N. (1999) ‘Reducing Children’s Television Viewing to Prevent Obesity: a
randomized controlled trial.’ Journal of the American Medical Association. 282: 1561-
1567.
Romero,A.J.(2005)‘Low-incomeneighbourhoodbarriersandresourcesforadolescents’
physicalactivity.’Journal of Adolescent Health.36:253-259.
Rosenberg,D.E,Sallis, J.F,Conway,T.L,Cain,K.L,andMcKenzie,T.L. (2006) ‘Active
transportationtoschoolover2yearsinrelationtoweightstatusandphysicalactivity.’
Obesity. 14(10):1771-6.
Rowlands,A.V.,andEston,R.G.(2005)‘Comparisonofaccelerometerandpedometer
measuresofphysicalactivityinboysandgirls,ages8-10years.’Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 76(3):251-257.
Salbe,A.D.,andRavussin,E.(2000)‘TheDeterminantsofObesity.’In,Bouchard,C.(Ed.)
Physical Activity and Obesity(p.69-102).Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics.
Sallis,J.F.,Bauman,A.,andPratt,M.(1998)‘Environmentalandpolicyinterventionsto
promotephysicalactivity.’American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 15:379–97.
Sallis, J.F., Hovell, M.F., and Hofstetter, C.R. (1990) ‘Distance between homes and
exercisefacilitiesrelatedtofrequencyofexerciseamongSanDiegoresidents.’Public Health Reports. 105:179–85.
Sallis, J.F., McKenzie, T.L., Elder, J.P., Broyles, S.L., and Nader, P.R. (1997) ‘Factors
parentsusewhenselectingplayspacesforyoungchildren.’Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.151:414-417.
Sallis,J.F.,Nader,P.,andBroyles,S.(1993) ‘Correlatesofphysicalactivityathomein
Mexican-AmericanandAnglo-Americanpreschoolchildren.’Health Psychology. 12:390–
398.
SallisJ.F,ProchaskaJ.J,andTaylorW.C.(2000)‘Areviewofcorrelatesofphysicalactivity
ofchildrenandadolescents.’Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 32(5):963-
975.
Sallis,J.F.,Taylor,W.C.,Dowda,M.,Freedson,P.S.,andPate,R.R.(2002)‘Correlatesof
vigorousphysicalactivityforchildreningrades1through12:Comparingparent-reported
andobjectivelymeasuredphysicalactivity.’Pediatric Exercise Science.14:30-44.
schoolamongNSWprimaryschoolchildren:implicationsforpublichealth.’Health Place. 12(4):678-687.
Metcalf,B.,Voss,L.,Jeffery,A.,Perkins,J.,andWilkin,T.(2004)‘Physicalactivitycostof
theschoolrun:impactonschoolchildrenofbeingdriventoschool(EarlyBird22).’British Medical Journal.329:823-833.
Miles,R.(2008)‘Neighbourhooddisorder,perceivedsafetyandreadinesstoencourage
useoflocalplaygrounds.’American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 34(4):275-281.
Molnar, B.E., Gortmaker, S.L., Bull, F.C., and Buka, S.L. (2004) ‘Unsafe to play?
Neighbourhood disorder and lack of safety predict reduced physical activity among
urbanchildrenandadolescents.’American Journal of Health Promotion.18(5):378-386.
Moore, L.V., Diez Roux, A.V., Evenson, K.R., McGinn, A.P., and Brines, S.J. (2008)
‘Availabilityofrecreationalresourcesinminorityandlowsocioeconomicstatusareas.’
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 34(1):16-22.
Norman, G.J., Nutter, S.K., Ryan, S., Sallis, J.F., Calfas, K.J., and Patrick, K. (2006)
‘Community design and access to recreational facilities as correlates of adolescent
physicalactivityandbody-massindex.’Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 3(1):118–
128.
Obarzanek,E.,Schreiber,G.B.,andCrawford,P.B.(1994)‘Energyintakeandphysical
activity inrelationto indexesofbodyfat: theNationalHeart,LungandBloodInstitute
GrowthandHealthStudy.’American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 6:15–22.
OgdenC.L.,CarrollM.D.,CurtinL.R.,McDowellM.A.,TabakC.J.,andFlegalK.M.(2006)
‘Prevalenceofoverweightandobesity intheUnitedStates,1999-2004.’Journal of the American Medical Association. 295(13):1549-1555.
Pate R.R., Pratt M, and Blair S.N, (1995) ‘Physical Activity and public health: a
recommendationfromtheCentersforDiseaseControlandPreventionandtheAmerican
CollegeofSportsMedicine(ACSM).’Journal of the American Medical Association. 273:
402-407.
Paxton, R.J., Sharpe, P.A., Granner, M.L., and Hutto, B. (2005) ‘Associations of
sociodemographicandcommunityenvironmentalvariablestouseofpublicparksand
trailsforphysicalactivity.’International Journal of Health Promotion Education.43(4):108-
116.
RiddochC.J.,MattocksC.,DeereK.,SaundersJ.,KirkbyJ.,TillingK.,LearyS.D.,Blair
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
102
104 105
Peter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical ActivityPeter Collins | The Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
overlookedsourceofchildren’sphysicalactivity?’Sports Medicine. 31:309–313.
Tudor-Locke, C., Ainsworth, B. E., Thompson, R. W., and Matthews, C. E. (2002).
‘Comparisonofpedometerandaccelerometermeasuresoffree-livingphysicalactivity.’
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 34:2045–2051.
Tudor-Locke,C.,andBassett,D.R.(2004)‘Howmanysteps/dayareenough?preliminary
pedometerindicesforpublichealth.’Sports Medicine. 34(1):1–8.
Tudor-Locke,C.,Pangrazi,R.P.,Corbin,C.B.,Rutherford,W.J.,Vincent,S.D.,Raustorp,
A.,Tomson,L.M.,andCuddihy,T.F.(2004)‘BMI-referencedstandardsforrecommended
pedometer-determinedsteps/dayinchildren.’Preventive Medicine.18(6):857-864.
Valentine,G.,andMcKendrick,J.H.(1997)‘Children’sOutdoorPlay:exploringparental
concernsaboutchilden’ssafetyandchangingnatureofchildhood.’Geoforum.28:219-
235.
Wang,Y. (2001). ‘Cross-nationalcomparisonofchildhoodobesity:Theepidemicand
the relationship between obesity and socioeconomic status.’ International Journal of Epidemiology. 30:1129–1136.
Weir, L.A.,Etelson,D., andBrand,D.A. (2006) ‘Parentsperceptionofneighbourhood
safetyandchildren’sphysicalactivity.’Preventative Medicine. 43(2):212-217.
Wilmore,J.H(2003)‘Foreword.’In,Anderson,R.E.(Ed.)Obesity:Etiology,Assessment,
TreatmentandPrevention.Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics.
Wilmore,J.H.,Costill,D.L.andKenney,W.L.(2008).‘PhysiologyofSportExercise’(5th
Ed).Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics
Zakarian, J.M., Hovell, M.F., Hofstetter, C.R., Sallis, J.F., and Keating, K.J. (1994)
‘Correlatesofvigorousexercise inapredominantly lowSESandminorityhighschool
population.’Preventive Medicine. 23:314-321.
Zhu,S.,Heshka,S.,Wang,Z.,Shen,W.,Allison,D.B.,Ross,R.,andHeymsfield,S.B.
(2004)‘CombinationofBMIandwaistcircumferenceforidentifyingcardiovascularrisk
factorsinwhites.’ Obesity Research.12:633-645.
Zhu,X.,andLee,C.(2008)‘WalkabilityandSafetyAroundElementarySchools:Economic
andEthnicDisparities.’American Journal of Preventive Medicine.34(4):282-290.
SalmonJ,TimperioA,ClelandV,andVennA.(2005)‘Trendsinchildren’sphysicalactivity
andweightstatusinhighandlowsocio-economicstatusareasofMelbourne,Victoria,
1985–2001.’Australian and New Zealand’s Journal of Public Health. 29(4):337–342.
Schneider P.L., Crouter S.E., Bassett D.R. (2004) ‘Pedometer measures of free-living
physicalactivity:comparisonof13models.’Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.36(2):331-335.
Schneider,P.L.,Crouter,S.E.,Lukajic,O.,andBassett,D.R.(2003)‘Accuracyandreliability
of 10 pedometers for measuring steps over a 400-m walk.’Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.35:1779-1784.
Schofield,G.,Schofield,L.,andMummery,K.(2005)‘Activetransportation:animportant
partofadolescentphysicalactivity.’Youth Studies Australia.24(1):43-7.
Seidell,J.C.(2000) ‘TheCurrentEpidemicofObesity.’ In,Bouchard,C.(Ed.)Physical Activity and Obesity(p.21-30).Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics.
Sjolie,A.N.,andThuen,F.(2002)‘Schooljourneysandleisureactivitiesinruralandurban
adolescentsinNorway.’Health Promotion International.17(1):21-30.
Storey,M.L.,Forshee,R.A.,Weaver,A.R.,andSansalone,W.R.(2003).‘Demographics
andlifestylefactorsassociatedwithbodymassindexamongchildrenandadolescents.’
International Journal of Food, Science, and Nutrition. 54:491–503.
Strong,W.B.,Malina,R.M.,Blimkie,C.J.R.(2005)‘Evidencebasedphysicalactivityfor
school-ageyouth.’Journal of Paediatrics.146:723–727.
Tranter, P., and Doyle, J. (1996) ‘Reclaiming the residential street as play space.’
International Play Journal.4:91–97.
Trost,S.G.,Sallis,J.F.,Pate,R.R.,Freedson,P.S.,Taylor,W.C.,andDowda,M. (2003)
‘Evaluatingamodelofparentalinfluenceonyouthphysicalactivity.’American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 25:277–282.
Tudor-Locke, C. (2002) ‘Taking steps towards increased physical activity: Using
pedometers to measure and motivate.’ President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest. 3(17):1-8.
Tudor-LockeC,Ainsworth,B.E,Adair,L.S,Popkin,B.M.(2003)‘Objectivephysicalactivity
of Filipino youth stratified for commuting mode to school.’ Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise. 35(3):465-71.
Tudor-Locke C, Ainsworth B.E, Popkin B.M. (2001) ‘Active commuting to school: an
106 107
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
Thesekindsofquestionsseemparticularlypertinentwhenappliedtoaconsideration
ofthedevelopmentofrepresentationsofthelandscapesofpostcolonialIndia.Since
Independence,anincreasingbarrageofsocial,economicandenvironmentalpressures
(precipitatedinpartbycoloniallegaciesofexploitation,andexacerbatedbythemarch
to globalisation) have placed huge pressures on the Subcontinent’s wild spaces.
Inhisessay ‘WildFictions’,AmitavGhosh(2005b:1)describes Indiaas ‘oneof the
most importantbattlegrounds in thecurrentconflictover themeaninganddefinition
ofNature’,andintheintroductiontoEnvironmental Issues in IndiaMaheshRangarajan
(2007:xx)assertsthatthecountryis,
[…]alandscapeinturmoil.Contestsoverwaterandfisheries,grazinglandsand
commons,cityspacesandmountainsareafeatureof21stcenturyIndia…thereis
disagreementonwhatconstitutesaresourceandforwhom.Thereareclashesand
conflictsoverwhoseinterestsshouldgetpriorityandhow.
It is against this background that literary constructions of the landscapes of the
Subcontinent are negotiated between a complex and diverse set of cultural and
epistemologicalstandpoints.Inordertomakesenseofthismatrixofrepresentationit
willbenecessarytoutiliseinsightsfromotheracademicfields,includingenvironmental
scienceandenvironmentalhistory,andtoadoptatheoreticalapproachthatcombines
andmodifiesaspectsofecocriticalandpostcolonialtheory.
The first section of this article will map some of the problems and possibilities
associatedwithacombinedecocriticalandpostcolonialapproachthroughareviewof
relevanttheoreticalliterature,beforemovinginthesecondsectiontoadiscussionof
themanagementofnationalparksandforestreservesinIndiaandanexplorationofthe
constructionofliteraryandculturalrepresentationsofIndianwilderness.
The Problems and Possibilities of EcocriticismEcocriticism is defined in the Ecocriticism Reader as ‘the study of the relationship
between literature and the environment [offering] an earth-centred approach to
literarystudies’(Glotfelty,1996:xviii).Atthissimplelevel,ecocriticismseemstooffer
anaturaltheoreticalframeworkforanystudythattakesanylandscapeasitsprimary
Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World: Postcolonial Representations of the Wild Landscapes of India in Global Literature
RichardFisk
ABSTRACT
This article attempts to draw together a diverse range of secondary materialfrom a number of disciplines including literary studies, environmental history,environmental scienceandcultural studies inorder toprovideaconceptual andcontextualframeworkthroughwhichitmaybepossibletoattemptanassessmentofthemultiplicityoffactorsthatinfluenceliteraryrepresentationsofthewildlandscapesofpost-IndependenceIndia.Thetheoreticalbasisofthisarticlewillbenegotiatedthroughadialoguebetweencontemporaryecocriticalandpostcolonialtheoryandpractice,andsomeof the intersectionsanddivisionsbetween theseschoolsaresketchedoutinthefirstsectionwhichexaminestheproblemsandpossibilitiesofecocriticism.Thesecondsectionofthearticlefollowsonfromthisgeneralintroductionandappliessomeofthemajortheoreticalpointsalreadyoutlinedtoadiscussionofliteraryandculturalrepresentationsof‘wilderness’,andthemanagementofnationalparks and forest reserves in the Subcontinent. This article is not intended as adefinitivedocumentbutrepresentsapreliminaryinvestigation,anditishopedthatthisdiscussionmayactasacatalystforfurthercriticalinquiry.
KEYWORDS
India,postcolonialism,ecocriticism,literature,landscape.
IntroductionTheconceptofthe natural worldishighlyproblematic.Wheredoesnaturebeginand
end?Isnatureinsomewayseparatetothehumanrealm?Doesnatureexistinitsown
right,orisitculturallyconstructed?
108 109
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
Thecontemporaryfigurationofwildernessisinmanywayslinkedtothecolonialconcept
of terra nullius,whichasNixon(2005:235)stateshadtheeffectof‘…erasingthehistory
ofcolonisedpeoplesthroughthemythof theempty lands’. InanAmericancontext,
early ecocriticism can therefore be seen tobe complicit in promoting ahegemonic
viewof thenaturalworld thateffectivelywroteNativeAmericansoutof thephysical,
culturalandliterarylandscapeandpropagatedatopographyimpregnatedwithEuro-
centricsymbolismthatjustifiedownershipofthenaturalworld.Initsmodernformthis
ideaofwildernesshashadfarreachingimplicationsfortheimplementationofglobal
conservationpoliciesandtheproblemsassociatedwiththisconceptinrelationtoIndia
willbeexaminedinfurtherdetaillaterinthisdiscussion(seesubsection‘Wilderness’
and the National Park: An Indian Perspective).
By[re]placingNativeAmericansinthephysical landscapeandwithinthetheoretical
contextoftheReader,Allen(1975)revealsanatural worldthatwasalreadypopulated
withamatrixofalternative[hi]storiesandmeaninglongbeforethearrivalofEuropeans
through the complex relationship between Native American cultures and the[ir]
landscapes;astancethatchallengesecocriticalorthodoxyand invitesandengages
a postcolonial and subaltern-orientated response. Silko’s (1986) contribution to the
Ecocriticism Reader develops this symbiosisbetween land,history and imagination
anddemonstratesjusthowdramaticallydifferentworldviewscanbeassheexplains
the complex relationship between humans, stories and places that defines Pueblo
imagination.InPuebloculture,historyasitisunderstoodintheWestdoesnotexist;it
isinsteadwrittenintothetextofthelandscapeandretoldthroughtheancientcontinuity
oftheoraltradition.Thisearlyexplorationofother (non-Western)viewsofthenatural
worldwithin theecocriticalmovementprovidesan important theoreticalparallelwith
someofthecentralconcernsofpostcolonialstudiessuchasorality,alternatehistories
andculturalhegemony.
Reflecting on the future of ecocriticism in the introduction to the Reader, Glotfelty
(1996:xxv)encouragesscholarstoexpandtheirconceptionofplaceandspace,and
widentheir focusfromthelocal totheglobal,envisioningan‘interdisciplinary,multi-
culturalandinternational’fieldthatmaybecapableofopeningupamultitudeofcritical
possibilitieswithinthediscipline;
focus, but until the mid-1990s (the Ecocriticism Reader was published in 1996) the
disciplinestilllargelyconcentratedmuchofitsanalyticaleffortsonaverylimitedcanon
ofmainstreamAmericanliteratureandconfineditsconsiderationstowritingwhichtook
natureovertlyasitsprimaryfocus(bio-centricandeco-centrictexts).CheryllGlotfelty
acknowledgesinherintroductiontothisseminalcollectionthatthepotentialscopeand
usefulnessofthedisciplinehasattimesbeensomewhatrestrictedbythisrootedness
in the intellectual traditions of the Western academy. Indeed, Glotfelty (1996: xxv)
goesontoconcedethatasaresultofthisinstitutionalmyopia,‘Ecocriticismhasbeen
predominantlyawhitemovement’.
ClearlysomethinghadtochangeandalthoughtheReader isstillarathercanonical
work,concentratinglargelyonAmericanissues,Glotfelty’sintroductionandanumber
ofessaysinthecollectioncarefullyconspiretoopenadiscursivespacefortextsfrom
other literary and cultural traditions and epistemological backgrounds, providing
an importantplatform tobring to the foreasecondwaveofenvironmentalcriticism
capableofnegotiatingthemanifoldchallengesofaglobalisedandmulticulturalworld
andofaddressingtheissuesthatariseoutofthefield’sinitialisolationfromalternate
conceptionsoftherelationshipbetweennatureandculture.
An important part of this process was the inclusion in the Reader of ‘The Sacred
Hoop’ by Paula Gunn Allen (1975) and Leslie Marmon Silko’s ‘Landscape, History
and the Pueblo Imagination’ (1986) which both focus on the relationship between
NativeAmericangroups,culturesandthe[ir]landscape.Allen(1986:241)beginsher
contributionbymakingaveryobviousandpertinentpoint,
Literature is one facet of culture. The significance of a literature can be best
understood in terms of the culture from which it springs, and the purpose of
literatureisclearonlywhenthereaderunderstandsandacceptstheassumptions
onwhichtheliteratureisbased.
Thisapparentlysimplestatementraisesanimportantchallengetothepreviouslymono-
culturalvisionofmainstreamecocriticismwhichvalorisedandclaimedasuniversala
conceptionofthenaturallandscapeasanun-peopled‘virginwilderness’(Nixon,2005:
234)withoutcriticallyaddressingtheimperialistviolencethataccompaniedwestward
expansionintheUnitedStatesandtheoriginal purpose ofthisconceptofwilderness.
110 111
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
GreenRevolutiononruralPunjabinthe1990s)ofthehavocthatthisneo-colonialist
imperativehaswroughtonmarginalisedpeoplesandtheenvironment,andsuggests
that these ‘serve as twin reminders that ecological disruption is coextensive with
damagetothesocialfabric;andthatenvironmentalissuescannotbeseparatedfrom
questions of social justice and human rights’ (Huggan, 2008: 66). This statement
resonateswithCheryllGlotfelty’s (1996:xxv)view that, ‘[ecocriticism]willbecomea
multi-ethnicmovementwhenstrongerconnectionsaremadebetweentheenvironment
andissuesofsocialjustice,andwhenadiversityofvoicesareencouragedtocontribute
tothediscussion’.
In‘GreenPostcolonialism’,co-authoredbyHugganandHelenTiffin(2007),twenty-first
centuryenvironmentalconservation isexaminedthroughthepostcolonial lens.Tiffin
andHuggan(2007)tracethedevelopmentofenvironmentalawarenessinrecentyears
andnote that theaccompanyingchange in theassumptions thatunderpinWestern
viewsoftherelationshipbetweenhumanandenvironmenthavedonelittletochange
theneo-colonialiststatusquo.Theyobservethat,
Ironically […] this shift in emphasis from anthropocentric to environment-based
(ecocentric) philosophies and practices generally failed to benefit those very
peoples whose pre-colonised apprehension of being-in-the-world had not only
been systematically denigrated by Europeans, but had consistently provided
justification for Western conquest, the ‘primitive’ being distinguished from the
‘civilised’preciselybyitsproximitytothenaturalworld(HugganandTiffin,2007:3).
Theproblemisthatenvironmentalconservationhasbecomesofixedontheimportance
ofnaturethatthereisnospaceforhumanbeings,solocalandindigenouspeopleare
essentiallyignoredorremovedfromtheequationaltogether.Thishascertainlybeen
thecasewithmanyofthenationalparkprojectsthroughouttheglobe.Inevitablymany
of the examples of this pristine nature that environmentalists seek to conserve and
controlare,‘areaswhichhavebeenrelativelyunaffectedbydevelopment…thoseparts
oftheglobewhereindigenouspeoplesarestrugglingtopreservetheirlivelihoodsand
culturesagainstexternalencroachment’ (HugganandTiffin,2007:3-4).Echoingthe
concernsexpressedabouttheneo-colonialinterventionsoftheIndiangovernmentin
‘GreeningPostcolonialism:EcocriticalPerspectives’,TiffinandHuggan(2007:4)note
[Ecocriticism]willbecomeamulti-ethnicmovementwhenstrongerconnectionsare
madebetweentheenvironmentandissuesofsocialjustice,andwhenadiversityof
voicesareencouragedtocontributetothediscussion…environmentalproblems
are now global in scale and their solutions will require worldwide collaboration
(Glotfelty,1996:xxv).
This dual commitment to the environment and social justice is one of several focal
pointsoutlinedinthecontentoftheReaderwhereecocriticismincreasinglyconverges
with aspects of postcolonial theory, and this developing relationship between the
disciplinesisexaminedindetailinthechapter‘GreeningPostcolonialism:Ecocritical
Perspectives’fromGrahamHuggan’s(2008)book Interdisciplinary Measures,andinan
earlierarticle,‘GreenPostcolonialism’,co-authoredbyHugganandHelenTiffin(2007).
In his chapter ‘Greening Postcolonialism: Ecocritical Perspectives’, Huggan (2008)
draws specifically on the example of the Indian Subcontinent to suggest ways in
which these theories may converge to offer a critical framework through which
to understand the massive environmental changes wrought by colonialism and,
more importantly, the current pressures of globalization on the natural world of the
Subcontinent. IndeedHuggan(2008:65)goesas faras to insist that ‘currentcrises
of ecological mismanagement [cannot be separated from] historical legacies of
imperialist exploitation and authoritarian abuse’. In India many of the government’s
policiestowardstheenvironment,andthedepartmentsthatenforcethem,appearto
havechangedlittleintheiroutlookfromtheformercolonialauthorities,andaccording
toHuggan(2008:67)formanyIndiantheorists‘[the]primaryconcernislesswiththe
WestandWesternimperialismper se thanwiththeneo-colonialistimperativesofthe
post-IndependenceIndianstate’.TheIndianenvironmentalcriticVandanaShiva(1991:
12),suggeststhatthegovernmentanditsnationalistprojectareguiltyofpursuing‘a
policyofplanneddestructionofdiversityin[both]natureandculture’andRamachandra
Guha(1989:195-6)contendsthatsuccessiveregimeshave‘activelysoughttoimpose
ahomogenisinglate-capitalistvisionofeconomicprogressmostobviouslybeneficial
tothenation’srulingelite’.
Huggan(2008)notesthatthehistoryoftheIndiannation-stateisstrewnwithexamples
(suchastheChipkoresistancemovementinthe1970sorthedevastatingeffectsofthe
112 113
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
thattheBibleclearlyestablishesahierarchybetweenmanandthenaturalworld,
Mannamedtheanimals,thusestablishinghisdominanceoverthem.Godplanned
allofthisexplicitlyforman’sbenefitandrule:noiteminphysicalcreationhadany
purposesavetoserveman’spurpose.And,althoughman’sbodyismadeofclay,
heisnotsimplypartofnature:heismadeinGod’simage.
AccordingtoWhite(1967:4)thisintransigentlyanthropocentricviewthatcreatesnature
asOtherdidnotrealiseitsfullydestructivepotentialuntilthe1850swhenamarriage
between science and technology conspired to create ‘a union of the theoretical
and empirical approaches to our natural environment (that lead to) the emergence
in widespread practice of the Baconian creed that scientific knowledge means
technologicalpowerovernature’.Thisextensionofthepowerrelationshipreinforces
thedividebetweenhumanandnature,andfurtherplacesscienceandtechnologyin
oppositiontothenaturalworld.
Fromapostcolonialpointofview,amajoromissionfromWhite’sarticle isanyovert
reference to theprojectofEmpire.He locates thestartof thecrisis in the1850s,a
timewhenEuropeancolonialistswere involved inwholesaleenvironmentalplunder;
imperialistexpansionsimultaneouslysupportedtheecologicaldegradationofboththe
colony(throughthestrippingofresources)andthemetropole(throughthepollution
and waste generated by rapid industrialisation). It has been well documented in
postcolonialcriticismthatbyconvenientextensionofdualistlogic,theWestwasable
to extend its definition of nature to include the populations of the former colonies,
therebyseamlesslyjustifyingimperialdominanceoverglobalresources.Intheiressay
‘EnvironmentalOrientalisms’,SuzanaSawyerandArunAgrawal(2000:92)includea
quotationfromAlbertSarraut,governor-generalofFrenchIndo-chinaattheendofthe
nineteenthcentury,thatconciselypresentstheimperialistperspective,
While inanarrowcornerof theworld,Naturehasconcentrated inwhiteEurope
the powers of invention, the means of progress, and the dynamics of scientific
advancement,thegreatestaccumulationofnaturalwealthislockedupinterritories
occupiedbybackwardsraces,whonotknowinghowtoprofitbyitthemselves,are
evenlesscapableofreleasingittothegreatercircularcurrentthatnourishesthe
ever-growingneedsofhumanity.
thatthereisafurthersourceofneo-colonialinfluenceatplayinglobalenvironmental
politics,
[…] the continuing vulnerability of marginalised peoples is no longer simply a
question of the colonised throwing off the shackles of colonialism, so particular
groups can find themselves targeted by their own governments- on behalf of
multinational companies, but also or alternatively on behalf of international
environmentalandanimalconservationNGOs.
It is clear that environmentalism must reappraise the way in which it views all
humans as antagonistic to nature, and extend its philosophical remit to include an
acknowledgementoftheneedtomaintainandprotecthumanculturaldiversityalong
withbiodiversity.OutofthisimperativecomesHugganandTiffin’s(2007:9)callforthe
developmentofgreenpostcolonialism,afieldthattheytentativelysuggest,
[…] might be defined in terms of those forms of environmentally orientated
postcolonialcriticismwhich insistonthe factoringofculturaldifference intoboth
historicalandcontemporaryecologicalandbioethicaldebate’.
Inattemptingtounderstandtheneo-colonialforcesthatlurkbehindmuchcontemporary
environmental thought, it isperhapsnecessary to return to theoriginsofecological
debate.Oneof theearliestandmost influentialpieces in theEcocriticism Reader is
LynnWhiteJr.’s (1967) ‘TheHistoricalRootsofOurEcologicalCrisis’.White (1967:
5)ispragmaticinhisassessmentofthegravestateoftheglobalenvironmentandits
potentiallycatastrophicfuture,
Ourpresentconsumptionoffossil fuelsthreatenstochangethechemistryofthe
globe’satmosphereasawhole[…]withthepopulationexplosion,thecarcinomaof
planlessurbanism,thenowgeologicaldepositsofsewageandgarbage,surelyno
creatureotherthanmanhaseverfouleditsnestinsuchshortorder.
In order to understand how ‘we’ (the viewpoint is distinctly Western) arrived at this
disastroussituation,Whitegoeson toset thecurrentecologicalcrisis intohistorical
context through an explication of the development (and subsequent hegemony) of
Western Judaeo-Christian perceptions of man’s relationship with the natural world,
andthehistoryof therelationshipbetweenscienceandtechnology.White(1967:9)
acknowledgesthedifficultyofgeneralisingaboutallbranchesofChristianitybutnotes
114 115
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
Thetimehascometoactbeforethedeclineofspeciesbecomescrisissituations.
Weneed tostrengthenendangeredspecies lawworldwide,butwealsoneed to
supplementthemwithequallystrongbiodiversitylegislation.Weneedtoinventory
biological resources and their status, and to identify species and ecological
communitiesofoutstandingvalue.Withthisknowledgewecanbegintoplanforthe
sustainablemanagementofour resources,wecantakemeasurestoprotect‘hot-
spots’containingsensitivespeciesofcriticaleco-systems(Myemphasis,Sawyer
andAgrawal,2000:92-3).
Sawyer and Agrawal (2000: 88) accuse conservation science of ‘deploy[ing] the
coloniser’stoolsofnaming,appropriating,andordering,andseek[ing]togeneralise,
predict,andultimatelycontrol’,andthispoint isdifficulttocounter;thereisclearlya
sinisterandfamiliarneo-colonialresonanceinScheuer’suseofthepossessive‘our.’
Theauthorsfurthercontendthatthisattitudeof‘environmentalorientalism’isbacked
upbythe‘rhetoricofglobalpatrimony-ofNaturebeingeveryone’sbirthright’(Sawyer
andAgrawal,2000:93).Thisimperialisttropelegitimatesanenvironmentaldiscourse
that,‘allowsFirstWorldelitestodismissasgeographicalaccidentthefactthatNature’s
wealthresidesinthetropics[and]legitimisesconservationistdiscoursesthatlayclaims
tocontroltropicalnatureanddisplacesblameonThirdWorldoverpopulation’(Sawyer
and Agrawal, 2000: 93). Contemporary Western attitudes either employ directly, or
modifypreviousimperialistrepresentationalmodelstoassertneo-colonialdominance
overwildspaces.
Over-populationisoneofthefirstthreatstoglobalecologymentionedbyWhite(1967:
5),andSawyerandAgrawal(2000:88)arguethatsuchattitudestowardspopulation
growthareasevergovernedbyenvironmentalorientalisms,
Whilestillrepresentingthelabyrinthdis-coveredbyEurope’sexplorers,Natureno
longerexudesdanger.Itis,rather,itselfendangered.Stillembodyingthefeminine,
Nature is raced differently. Today she represents the threatened and vulnerable
whitewomanwhoneedsprotection.ThirdWorldpopulationsincarnateherBlack
Peril.
The West’s simultaneous horror and revulsion at the ever-expanding ‘black peril’ is
implicit inPaulEhrlich’sseminaltextThe Population Bomb(1968).Onahotnight in
It can be seen that ‘not knowing how to profit by it’ is almost an analogue of ‘not
beingable toname’ (and thereforeestablishdominionover) in theAdamic,biblical
sense. Taxonomy, and therefore knowledge and power, are naturally the exclusive
tools of a Western hegemonic model that conflates science/ technology/ human to
assertcolonialdominance,thuscondemningthecolonisedsubjecttoaperipheralnon-
humanexistenceasamutepartofnature.Interestinglythiskindofimperialistrhetoric
stillinformsWesternattitudestoenvironmentalstewardship.White(1967:5)illustrates
theseinherentlyracistandimperialistundertoneswithagooddegreeofirony,butalso
without acknowledging the implication of his pronouncement that until we achieve
ecologicalenlightenment,
There (will be) many calls to action, but specific proposals, however worthy as
individual items, (will) seem too partial, palliative, negative: ban the bomb, tear
down the billboards, give the Hindus contraceptives and tell them to eat their
sacredcows.
The neo-colonial implications of this final statement about India are immediately
apparent. It establishes a stark divide between the West (the givers and arbiters of
scienceandtechnology)andthegratefulrecipientsofthispatronageintheEastwhoare
figuredassuperstitious,andincapableofsolvingtheirownproblems.Westernscience
andtechnologyisrepresentedasapanaceaforglobalproblems;thecontraceptiveis
therestorativeagainstIndia’sperceivedpopulationexcessesandrationalismnaturally
dictatesthattheirsacredcowsarethesolutiontofoodshortage.Theideathatacow
can be sacred is clearly anathema to Western logic and therefore becomes part of
anotherdivisivedyadthatplacesHinduviewsoftherelationshipbetweenhumanand
natureclearlyatoddswithWesternconstructions,andsubsumessuchextra-cultural
considerationstotherealmoffolkloreandfiction.
ThedisturbingparallelsbetweencolonialandcontemporaryWesternattitudestonature
andtheenvironmentaredemonstratedconvincinglybySawyerandAgrawal(2000).It
isnogreatleapoftheimaginationtoplacethefindesiècleimperialistlogicofSarraut
inthesamecategoryasthefollowingstatement,whichtheypresentalongsideit,made
byJamesScheuer(formerchairmanoftheSubcommitteeontheEnvironmentinthe
USHouseofRepresentatives)almostexactlyacenturylater,
116 117
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
Are-imaginingandreconfigurationofboththenatureofthehumanandtheplaceof
thehumaninnature–thatis,apostcolonialenvironmentalethic’[that]necessitates
an investigationof thecategoryof the ‘human’ itself,andof themultipleways in
which the anthropocentrist construction has been, and is, complicit in racism,
imperialismandcolonialism,fromthemomentofconquesttothepresentday.
The necessity for the establishment of a ‘postcolonial environmental ethic’ that is
ableto‘re-imagin[e]andreconfigure[e]thenatureofthehumanandtheplaceofthe
humaninnature’isparticularlypoignantwhenonecomestoconsidertheconflictover
wildernessandnatureintheIndianSubcontinent.
‘Wilderness’ and the National Park: An Indian Perspective
InUmbertoEco’s(1986)Travels in Hypereality,theauthormakessomeratherintriguing
observationsaboutthenature ofnaturethatareparticularlypertinenttothewilderness
debateinIndia.WhilstonavisittotheSanDiegozoo,Eco(1986:49)marvelsatthe
achievementsofthisbeaconofconservationandeducation,‘…eachenclosureisthe
reconstruction, on a vast scale, of an original environment […] of all existing zoos,
thisisunquestionablytheonewheretheanimalismostrespected’(Myemphasis).It
canbeseenthatthereisverylittledifferencebetweenthewaysinwhichboththezoo
andthewildernessareculturallyconstructed,astheyattempttorecreateavisionof
thenaturalworldthatispurelyconceptual.Inhisessay,‘WildFictions’,AmitavGhosh
(2005b:8) sharesEco’sconcernsabout the ‘performance’of thenaturalworldand
relatesthemspecificallytoIndianenvironmentalissues,
When urban middle class people visit India’s forests they have little conception
that their experienceof thewilderness isnotunlike thatof spectatorsat aplay:
rarelyifeveraretheyprovidedaglimpseofthestagemachinerythatproducesthe
conditionsoftheirviewership.Theyareinthissense,partnersintheproductionof
awildfiction:itistheirwillingsuspensionofdisbeliefthatmakestheadministrative
exclusivityofforestspossible.
Delhiinthe1960s,hetakesataxiridethroughthecity,
Aswecrawledthroughthecity,weenteredacrowdedslumarea.Thetemperature
waswellover100˚F;theairwasahazeofdustandsmoke.Thestreetsseemed
alivewithpeople.Peopleeating,peoplewashing,peoplesleeping.Peoplevisiting,
arguing,screaming.Peoplethrustingtheirhandsthroughthetaxiwindowsbegging.
Peopledefecatingandurinating.Peopleclingingtobuses.Peopleherdinganimals.
People,people,people,people.Aswemovedslowlythroughthemob,handhorn
squawking, thedust, thenoise,heatandcookingfiresgave thesceneahellish
aspect.Wouldweevergettoourhotel?Allthreeofuswere,frankly,frightened.It
seemedthatanythingcouldhappen-but,ofcourse,nothingdid.OldIndiahands
willlaughatourreaction.Wewerejustsomeover-privilegedtourists,unaccustomed
tothesightsandsoundsofIndia.Perhaps,butsincethatnightI’veknownthefeel
ofover-population(Ehrlich,1968:15-16).
Ehrlich(1968)isutterlyterrifiedbythismassof‘people’goingabouttheirdailylives;
humans are transformed through his Western lens into a ‘mob’ creating a ‘hellish’
aspect.Thereis,however,aseeminglycompellingargumentbehindtheover-population
theory.TheWest represents theview thatwithafiniteamountof resources,wewill
inevitably runout if thepopulationkeepsgrowing,but thissimple logicdeliberately
ignoresmanyfactorssuchas,‘ananalysisofthedistributionofconsumptionandwaste
production,andthesocioeconomiccausesofpopulationgrowthanddecline’(Sawyer
andAgrawal,2000:91).TheWestisthebiggestconsumerofresourcesanduntilthis
isaddressed,theglobalenvironmentwillcontinuetobecomedegradedanddepleted.
Ultimately themain thrustofbothWhite’s (1967) andSawyerandAgrawal’s (2000)
arguments are very similar and based on an understanding that unless a new
philosophical conception of the relationship between human and nature can be
established,thereisunlikelytobearesolutiontotheworld’senvironmentalproblems,
‘morescienceandtechnologyarenotgoingtogetusoutofthepresentecologiccrisis
untilwefindanewreligionorrethinkouroldone’(White,1967:12).Inmanywaysthese
articlesarecallingforthesamesea-changeinenvironmentalphilosophythatHuggan
andTiffin(2007:6-7)areseekingintheirarticle‘GreenPostcolonialism’,
118 119
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
multiplied.Thegroundwaslitteredwithhutsandrubbishforafewyards,andthen
theplainresumed;tocontinueinitsgentleconfusionasfarastheeyecouldsee.
Thenarratorfindshimselfsituatedinanimperfectwildernessscenewhere‘theplains
lacktheromanceofsolitude’becauseofthedisruptingpresenceofconcealed‘brown
bodies’. The inhabitants are represented as a sinister force and as an aberration
inan idealisedandnaturally empty landscape.Theshockof thepresence of these
‘numberlessgroupsofa fewmen’disturbs thenarrator’s visionof theperfectionof
thenaturalvista.Their ‘brownbodies’bar thepaths thatshouldoffer the imperialist
observerunhinderedaccesstothetextofthelandscapeandtheirvillageisconcealed
asa‘clumpoftrees’,emphasisingthatthese‘numberlessmen’areinbutarenotpart
of this transplanted Westernpicturesque. For the narrator, the village represents an
unintelligibletangleofsignsatoddswithhisculturalconstructionofthenaturalworld.
It is ‘a sort of’, ‘kind of’, ‘littered’ ground where ‘gods multiplied’ in defiance of the
monotheist, imperialist framework throughwhich thenarratorattempts todefine the
scene.
InanIndiancontextthepostcolonialresonancesofBritishImperialistconceptionsof
wildernessarejoinedinacontemporarycontextbymuchearlierculturalandliterary
influencesthatalsoassertanun-peopledwildernessdatingbacktotheRamayana and
Mahabharata.Thesetextsformapre-Europeancolonialistdiscoursewhichhelpedto
writethedominanceofHindureligiousandcastehierarchyontotheIndianlandscape.
DN(1990:795-6)notesinthearticle‘WomenandForests’that,
Various streams have contributed to India civilisation, but that which dominates
it,oritsmainstream,isclearlytheculturethatcamewithsettledagricultureinthe
Ganga-Jamunadoab.ThisistheseatofthecastesystemandtheHindureligious
order[…]ThismainstreamIndiancivilisationwassetupbysubjugatingtheforest
dwellersandclearingtheforestsforsettledcultivation.
TheRamayana and Mahabharata andthediscourseofimperialistculturalpowerthey
invokestill informandinfluencecontemporaryrepresentationsofthewildlandscape
and form the symbolic framework in many contemporary narratives of resistance.
Thisancientconflictbetweencoloniserandcolonisedisaseverresource-driven,and
oneoftheculturalfunctionsofthesereveredHinducastetextsistojustifyimperialist
Inthecaseof theIndiannationalreserve,nature isnotsomuchtrained(althoughit
doesbecomeaccustomedtotheconstantdemandsoftouristvehiclesandcameras)
as contained and surveyed, and of course isolated from the wrong kind of people.
Either way the privileged observer of wilderness ultimately experiences a hypereal
versionofnaturewhere,‘theoscillationbetweenthepromiseofuncontaminatednature
andaguaranteeofnegotiatedtranquillityisconstant’(Eco,1986:51).
An argument often forgotten by deep ecologists who argue for the preservation of
untouched wildernessesand theneed toprotect theseareas fromhumanactivity is
demonstratedbySimonSharma(1995:9)inLandscape and Memory whonotesthat
‘thelandscapesthatwesupposetobemostfreeofourculturemayturnout,oncloser
inspection,tobeitsproduct’,andthispointisdevelopedbyAndreaParra(1999:1100)
in the introductory letters to thePMLA Forum on Literatures of the Environmentwho
contendsthat,
The prevailing conception of nature is informed by racial and class bias, often
resulting in thepreservationist stance thathas “noplace forpeople, evenwhen
theyareahistoricalcomponentoftherurallandscapeandhabitat.
As has been previously noted, this ‘no place for people’ conception of wilderness
developedintheWestoutof imperialist ideologyto justifyexpansionanddominion.
ThecolonialoriginsofthisethosareclearlyenunciatedinliterarytermsinE.M.Forster’s
(2005[1936]:63) Abinger Harvest whenthenarratorbecomesdisorientatedandfears
hewillbecomelostonthevastexpanseofthecentralIndianplains,
“Takecare;weshallallloseoneanother”,Ishouted.Butdisintegrationhadbegun,
andmyexpeditionwasfrayingout,likethetrack,likethefields.
Uncharioted,unattended,Ireachedthetrees,andfoundunderthem,aseverywhere,
a few men. The plains lack the romance of solitude. Desolate at first glance, it
concealsnumberlessgroupsofafewmen.Thegrassesandthehighcropssway,
the distant path undulates, and is barred with brown bodies or heightened with
saffronandcrimson.Intheeveningthevillagesstandoutandcalltooneanother
acrossemptinesswithdrumsandfires.Thisclumpoftreeswasapparentlyavillage,
fornearthefewmenwasasortofenclosuresurroundingakindofstreet,andgods
120 121
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
Devi’stextinvokesKhandavainacontemporarycontexttodemonstratethecontinuity
oftheancienttenetsofcastehegemonyandviolence.In‘PaddySeeds’alowcaste
village is destroyed by fire and its inhabitants are massacred in a dispute between
twoRajput(high-caste)landlords.Asthevillageburns,Devi’s(1990:169)protagonist
Dulanmusesonthetimelessnatureofthesceneofdestruction,
Itwasnotthefirsttimeandwouldnotbethelast.Fromtimetotime,withtheflames
andthescreamsofthemassacredleapingintothesky,thelowlyuntouchablemust
bemade to realise that itmeantnothingat all that thegovernmenthadpassed
laws and appointed officers to enforce them […] they must not forget that the
Rajputs remain rajputs, the brahmans remain brahmans and the [adivassi and
untouchables]remainundertheirfeet.
That thisextremeactof indiscriminategenocide (eradicatinganentire tribal village)
meant ‘nothing at all’ to the appointed officers of an Independent India indicates a
lineage of violent cultural hegemony towards tribal groups that traces an historical
arc back to the progenitors of Hindu imperialist brutality in early mythological and
religious texts. The effect of this caste violence in Devi’s story, as in the tale from
theMahabharata, is that indigenousgroupsarepurged fromthenatural landscape,
creatinganunpeopledspacewhichbecomesaresourceundertheabsoluteauthority
ofthedominantcastes.
This situation is replicated in the management of India’s national parks, where un-
peopledspacesarecreatedattheexpenseoftribalgroups.Theflagshiporganisation
forthemaintenanceofwildernessinIndiaisProjectTigerandaccordingtotheirwebsite,
[The] tiger is[a]symbolofwildernessand[is indicativeof the]well-beingof the
ecosystem. By conserving and saving tigers the entire wilderness ecosystem is
conserved. In nature, barring human beings and their domesticate[d] [animals],
[the]restoftheecosystemiswild.Henceconservingwildernessisimportantand
crucial to maintain the life support system… saving tiger amounts to saving the
ecosystemwhichiscrucialforman’sownsurvival(ProjectTigerwebsite,2009).
There isanobviousdouble-meaning inherent in thephrase ‘barringhumanbeings’;
ontheonehandthelocalpopulationisphysically‘barr[ed]’fromthereserveandon
expansion into the wilds through a supporting cultural discourse that generates a
dyadicrelationshipofpowerbetweenthecultivatedandthewild,andthecivilisedand
primitive;arecognisableothering processthatisveryfamiliartopostcolonialscholars.
Anotableexampleofpre-Europeanattitudestowildernessisthestoryofthedestruction
oftheKhandavaforestinMahabharata.Arjuna,oneofthefivepandavas,andhisally
KrishnameetaBrahmanasceticintheforestwhoasksthemforfood,beforerevealing
himselfasthefiregod,Agni.ThedeitystrikesadealwherebyArjunaandKrishnaburn
theforestforhisfoodinreturnforweaponsandchariots.Withtheforestablazethetext
describeshowtheythen,
[…] guarded all sides so tightly that the creatures fleeing from the blaze found
not a single chink to escape through…the creatures driven back into the forest
wereburnedalive.Thosewhoranoutfellundertheirweapons[…]Finallyhaving
consumed the flesh and fat of every last creature in the forest, Agni went away
satisfied(Karve,1969:138).
Whatisimmediatelynoticeableaboutthelanguageisthecomprehensivebrutalityof
themassacreasArjunaandKrishna(symbolsoftheauthorityofcaste)killany‘creature’
that tries to escape. What is perhaps not so noticeable initially is that ‘creature’ is
heredeployedasacollectivenoun that includes the tribal inhabitantsof the forest.
JenniferWenzel(1998:138)discussesthisnarrativeinthearticle‘EpicStrugglesover
India’sForests’ andnotes thecontinuitiesevident amongst representationsof tribal
groupsthroughouttheIndianepics,‘forestdwellers[…]-theNagasorrakshasas-are
oftendehumanisedanddescribedeitherassupernaturaldemonsorasanimals’.The
extremenatureofthisotheringprocessisdemonstratedbythetransformationofthe
tribalinhabitantsofKhandavaintobestial‘fleshandfat’tobeconsumedordiscarded
atthewhimofcasteauthority.Wenzel(1998:138)concludesthat‘fromabrahmanical
perspective,episodessuchastheKhandavaforestburningarepestcontrolratherthan
genocide’andtheneteffect,asinWesternImperialistdiscourse,isthecreationofan
un-peopledlandscape.
Theseepicsoftenformareferentialframeworkforcontemporaryresistancewritingin
IndiaandWenzelobservesthattheburningoftheKhandavaforestformsthesubtext
of theshortstory ‘PaddySeeds’bytribalactivistandwriterMahaswetaDevi(1990).
122 123
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
concernedaboutthedeclineinthepopulationoflions.Theavailabilityofpreyand
water for lions, their ability tomove freelywithin the forest, everything is closely
monitored in order to improve their survival. But the movements of pastoralists
andtheirbuffaloesarepolicedsoastocurtail theirrights.Thepeopleareunder
pressure from forest officers to reduce the size of their families and their herds
(Randeria,2007:20).
In his novel The Hungry Tide, Ghosh (2005a) dramatises the cultural and physical
violence of modern environmental hegemony through his fictional recreation of the
massevictionofsettlersfromtheislandofMorichjhapiinanareaofSundarbansunder
thecontrolofProjectTiger.The islandhadbeencolonisedbyBangla refugeesand
becauseoftheinternationalprestigeattachedtoProjectTigerthenationalgovernment
has no qualms about acting forcefully to remove this human aberration from the
wilderness. As police and hired thugs rampage outside her hut, Kusum muses on
modernconceptionsofsocialandenvironmentaljustice,andherwordsresonatevery
stronglywiththoseabovefromChandrasinhMahida,
Whoarethesepeople,Iwondered,wholoveanimalssomuchthattheyarewilling
tokillus for them?Do theyknowwhat isbeingdone in theirnames?Wheredo
theylive,thesepeople?Dotheyhavechildren,dotheyhavemothers,fathers?AsI
thoughtofthesethings,itseemedtomethatthiswholeworldhasbecomeaplace
ofanimals,andourfault,ourcrime,wasthatwewerejusthumanbeings,tryingto
liveashumanbeingsalwayshave,fromthewaterandthesoil.Noonecouldthink
thisacrimeunlesstheyhaveforgottenthatthisishowhumanshavealwayslived
–byfishing,byclearinglandandbyplantingthesoil’(Author’semphasis,Ghosh,
2005a:261-2).
There are clearly echoes in Ghosh’s text of the brutality of Khandava as the forces
of civilised society enthusiastically attack the island’s inhabitants and destroy their
homes.Ghoshreversesthetraditionalrepresentationoftheinhabitantsofwildspaces
asanimals,andaccusescivilisedIndiainsteadofbeingthetrue‘placeofanimals’,a
pointthatisre-enforcedbyKusum’sstatementthat‘wewerejusthumanbeings’and
hersubsequentrepetitionof‘human’.
TheerasureofKusum’svillage in thenameofmodernenvironmentalismcompletes
theotheritsetsupatheoreticaldivisionthatbarshumansfrombeingpartofnature.
It is clear from this statement that contemporary Indian environmental philosophy
entirelyreproducesaconceptionofwildernessasdevoidofhumans(tribalpeoples)
andseamlesslydemonstratesacontinuityofrepresentationofun-peopledspacesthat
beganinancientHindutextsandwasperpetuatedbyWesternimperialistdiscourse.
Curiouslydespitethissegregation,savingthetiger‘amountstosavingtheecosystem
whichiscrucialforman’sownsurvival’.Itisclearthatwildernessasitisconstructed
inneo-colonialenvironmentalphilosophyhasadevastatingeffecton the local tribal
populations who are denied access to land they have occupied for generations.
Thisstoryofdisplacementandconflict isrepeatedacrosstheSubcontinent, leaving
marginalised groups homeless, resource-less and criminalised. Ghosh (2005b: 8)
notesthescaleoftheproblem,
TodaytheinstitutionalsuccessortothecolonialForestDepartmentcontrolssome
twentypercentofIndia’slandsurface-arealmthatwouldbetheenvyofmanyan
Emperor…itcontinuestowieldanear-imperialauthorityoveritsvastdominions.
ThedoctrineofNature’sexclusivityhasallowedittopullacurtainofsecrecyaround
India’sforests,behindwhichcorruptionandexploitationflourish.
This‘near-imperialauthority’isthesubjectofShaliniRanderia’s(2007)article‘Global
DesignsandLocalLifeworlds’.Herstudy(2007)concentratesontheGirforestreserve
in Gujarat and explores the vast national and international bureaucratic machinery
(from state government to global NGOs) that is ranged against the displaced and
disadvantagedlocalpopulation.Randeria’s(2007:17)articlerepeatsthenowfamiliar
mantra that the biocentric views of national and international organisations are
complicitinimposingandmaintainingahegemonicandneo-colonialistrepresentation
ofnatureasa‘…self-regulatingpristinewildernessthatisthreatenedbyunsustainable
resourceuseand(the)ecologicallyharmfullifestyleofthelocalpopulation’.Randeria
(2007)offersararespaceinenvironmentaldiscourseforthesubalterntospeakinthis
overwhelminglyone-sideddebate;ChandrasinhMahidaisalocalGiractivistandher
wordseloquentlyexpresstheever-presentinequityofcurrentecologicalthought,
ItisbettertoberebornasalionthanahumanbeingintheGirforest.Lionshave
more rights, better international funding and support. Even the World Bank is
124 125
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ WorldRichard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
in India’. InRangarajan,M. (ed)Environmental Issues in India: A Reader. NewDelhi:Longman/DorlingKindersley,pp.385-428.
Ghosh,A.(2005a)The Hungry Tide.London:HarperCollins.
Ghosh,A. (2005b) ‘Wild Fictions: Narratives of Nature and the Politics of Forests (VanderLeeuw-lezingLecture)’.UniversityofGroningen.[Online].Availableat:http://www.vanderleeuwlezing.nl/2005/Wild%20Fictions%20-%20Ghosh.pdf. (Accessed: 3rdFebruary2009).
Glotfelty,C.(1996)‘Introduction’.InGlotfelty,C.andFromm,H.(eds) The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,pp.xv-xxxii.
Guha,R.(2005) Environmentalism: A Global History.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.
Guha,R.(1989)The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalayas. NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress.
Huggan,G.(2008) Interdisciplinary Measures: Literature and the Future of Postcolonial Studies. Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress.
Huggan,G.&Tiffin,H.(2007)‘GreenPostcolonialism’.Interventions,9(1),pp.1-11.
Karve,I.(1969) Yuganta: The End of an Epoch.Poona:DeshmukhPrakashan.
Nixon, R. (2005) ‘Environmentalism and Postcolonialism’. In Loomba, A. et al. (eds)Postcolonial Studies and Beyond.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,pp.233-251.
Parra,A. (1999) ‘IntroductoryLetters to theForumonLiteraturesof theEnvironment’.PMLA,114,pp.1099-1100.
ProjectTiger.(2009)‘WhyTigersareinDanger’.[Online].Availableat:http://projecttiger.nic.in/whyaretigerindanger.htm.(Accessed:12thMarch2009).
Randeria, S. (2007) ‘Global Designs and Local Lifeworlds: Colonial Legacies ofConservation,DisenfranchisementandEnvironmentalGovernanceinPostcolonialIndia’.Interventions,9(1),12-30.
Rangarajan, M. (2007) ‘Introduction’. In Rangarajan, M. (ed) Environmental Issues in India: A Reader. NewDelhi:Longman/DorlingKindersley,pp.xiii-xxvii.
Sawyer,S.andAgrawal,A. (2000) ‘EnvironmentalOrientalisms’.Cultural Critique,45,pp.71-108.
a metaphorical and historical journey through the natural wildernesses of India,
from the ancient Khandava forest to the Project Tiger-owned island of Morichjhapi,
that demonstrates the continuous lineage of violent colonial and neo-colonial
domination over wild spaces and their inhabitants, and that highlights the need for
bothenvironmental and literarydiscourses toaddress the inherent inequitieswithin
contemporaryconceptionsandrepresentationsofthenaturalworldasanun-peopled
landscape.InanIndiancontextthereisclearlyanurgentneedtoexploreanddevelop
a symbiotic relationship between ecocritical and postcolonial thought that forges
firm links between environmentalism and social justice, re-evaluates the concept of
wildernessandthepracticeofwildlifepreservation,andthatultimatelyseekstofulfil
HugganandTiffin’s(2007:6-7)propositionthatitistimefor,
Are-imaginingandreconfigurationofboththenatureofthehumanandtheplaceof
thehumaninnature–thatis,apostcolonialenvironmentalethic[that]necessitates
an investigationof thecategoryof the ‘human’ itself,andof themultipleways in
which the anthropocentrist construction has been, and is, complicit in racism,
imperialismandcolonialism,fromthemomentofconquesttothepresentday.
REFERENCES
Allen,P.G.(1996[1975])‘TheSacredHoop:AContemporaryPerspective’.InGlotfelty,C.&Fromm,H.(eds) The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,pp.241-263.
DN(1990)‘WomenandForests’.Economic and Political Weekly, 25(15),pp.795-797.
Devi,M.(1990)‘PaddySeeds’.InBardhan,K.(ed)Of Women, Outcastes, Peasants and Rebels: A Selection of Bengali Short Stories.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.158-185.
Eco,U.(1986)Travels in Hyper-reality. London:Picador.
Ehrlich,P.(1968)The Population Bomb. NewYork:Ballantine.
Forster,E.M. (2005 [1936])Excerpt from ‘AbingerHarvest’. InMishra,P. (ed) India in Mind. NewYork:VintageBooks,pp.62-70.
Gadgil,M.andGuha,R.(2007)‘EcologicalConflictsandtheEnvironmentalMovement
126
Richard Fisk | Negotiating the ‘Natural’ World
Sharma,S.(1995)Landscape and Memory.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.
Shiva,V.(1991)TheViolenceoftheGreenRevolution:Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics. London:Zed.
Silko, L. (1996 [1986]) ‘Landscape, History and Pueblo Imagination’. In Glotfelty, C.&Fromm,H. (eds)The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,pp.264-275.
Wenzel,J.(1998)‘EpicStrugglesoverIndia’sForestsinMahaswetaDevi’sShortFiction’.Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics,18,pp.127-158.
WhiteJr.,L.(1996[1967])‘TheHistoricalRootsofOurEcologicalCrisis’.InGlotfelty,C.andFromm,D.(eds)The Ecocriticism Reader:Landmarks in Literary Ecology.Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,pp.3-14.
ARTICLES
Editorial
Federica Caruso The Making of Method: Developing an Ethnography
of a Children’s Centre
Jonathan AthertonThe Priestley Riots and the 18th Century Riot in History
Dr. Georg WalserA comparison between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint of
Jer. 31.31–34 (LXX 38:31–34)
Peter Robert Austin BurgessHeart rate and Heart Rate Variability Responses to Competition
Under Ego or Task-Orientation
Peter CollinsThe Influence of the Built Environment on Children’s Physical Activity
Richard FiskNegotiating the ‘Natural’ World: Postcolonial Representations of the
Wild Landscapes of India in Global Literature
Design: www.sodadesign.co.uk