The making of the Indian working class: a case of the Tata Iron and Steel Company, 1880-1946

1995 ◽  
Vol 33 (02) ◽  
pp. 33-1066-33-1066
Metallurgist ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 1234-1238
Author(s):  
P. V. Shilyaev ◽  
V. L. Kornilov ◽  
L. S. Ivanova ◽  
A. A. Demidova ◽  
P. A. Stekanov ◽  
...  

Metallurgist ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 902-911
Author(s):  
P. V. Shilyaev ◽  
S. V. Denisov ◽  
P. A. Stekanov ◽  
V. L. Kornilov ◽  
M. L. Krasnov ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 184-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
LOUISE MISKELL

This article examines the efforts of one British steel company to acquire knowledge about American industrial productivity in the first post-World War II decade. It argues that company information-gathering initiatives in this period were overshadowed by the work of the formal productivity missions of the Marshall Plan era. In particular, it compares the activities of the Steel Company of Wales with the Anglo-American Council on Productivity (AACP), whose iron and steel industry productivity team report was published in 1952. Based on evidence from its business records, this study shows that the Steel Company of Wales was undertaking its own international productivity investigations, which started earlier and were more extensive and differently focused from those of the AACP. It makes the case for viewing companies as active participants in the gathering and dissemination of productivity knowledge in Britain’s steel sector after 1945.


2020 ◽  
Vol 100 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 364-382
Author(s):  
J.C. Bennett
Keyword(s):  

Abstract As opposed to formal pew-renting, which characterised less affluent Anglican churches in England, wealthier churches often used informal pew-renting. In this form, congregants were expected to “tip” pew-openers—themselves generally from the working class—a sixpence, shilling or half-a-crown, to obtain favourable seating for a single service. But the “tips” were actually bribes, and according to popular descriptions, pew-openers frequently relegated those financially unable to “tip” to much less desirable seating. Over the centuries the English clergy has endured many insulting and coarse epithets, such as calling a chicken’s backside “the parson’s nose” and referring to urination as “shaking hands with the vicar.” But no role has historically engendered so much constant suspicion and hatred as has the pew-opener. This article investigates the role of the pew-opener and the surrounding controversy, and the churches’ response to pew-openers’ behavior.


2006 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Bennett

In retrospect, that Roland Barthes's insistence on “the death of the author” should have provoked an emergent interest in theatre audiences is hardly surprising. As, in literary studies, this brought about a new privilege for and investment in the reader, so too, in theatre and performance studies, there was an explicit recognition that what went on in the theatre was qualitatively and quantitatively more complicated and more exciting than the study of the playtext in the classroom. At the same time, the move to challenge a universalized (and thus male) viewing subject created new readings of the audience and new understandings of both individual and collective spectatorship across a range of subjectivities. So, Jill Dolan could argue that the “feminist spectator viewing such a representation is necessarily in the outsider's critical position.” Dolan continued:She cannot find a comfortable way into the representation, since she finds herself, as a woman (and even more so, as a member of the working class, a lesbian, or a woman of color), excluded from its address. She sees in the performance frame representatives of her gender class with whom she might identify—if women are represented at all—acting passively before the specter of male authority.1


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document