Daniel Duma

Narrativa del S. XX
05/06/10

Two different visions of Socialism in The Road to Wigan Pier and Wigan Pier
Revisited

In 1936, George Orwell set out to document the living conditions of the unemployed and
the working class in the industrial North of England, heavily hit by the Great Depression.
The arguably influential The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) is the result of this. In 1982,
during a new economic depression, Beatrix Campbell set out metaphorically following in
Orwell’s footsteps, to elaborate a similar documentary report, this time from a feminist,
working-class perspective, producing Wigan Pier Revisited (1984) as a result. Both books
can be said to contain strong political statements, and both argue in favour of a vision of
Socialism that could remedy the appalling living conditions of the poor and unemployed.
This essay attempts to define the visions of Socialism proposed, that is, what specific
political ideas are advocated in each book.

It is immediately apparent from the dates of publication that a wide gap exists between
the two works, 47 years apart. It is then perhaps prudent to begin by trying to put both
works in their historical context.

To begin with, both during Orwell’s research and when The Road to Wigan Pier was
published, the effects of the Great Depression (“the economic disaster of 1931”
(Cole:1965, p.1)) could still be felt, the industrial North of England having been hit
especially hard, because of the importance in the are of the coal and steel industries
(Cole:1965, p.15). In Europe, Fascism was on the rise, the Civil War in Spain was raging,
and the Second World War was in the brewing, with “the Fascist powers –above all, Nazi
Germany–...heading for war.” (Cole:1965, p.16)

1
The book, commissioned and published by the Left Book Club, is made up of two
distinct parts. The first one is a documentary report, where Orwell “gives a first-hand
account of the life of the working-class population” (Orwell, p.xi). From 31 st January to
30th March 1936, Orwell visited Wigan, Barnsley and Sheffield, living among the
working class; the miners and the unemployed in the north of England, heavily hit by the
Great Depression. The second part is partly an autobiographical study of his upbringing
and class consciousness as a member of “the lower upper-middle class” (Orwell, p.121),
and, most importantly, both a criticism of Socialism in Britain as he saw it and a political
statement of the direction that should be taken by those who want to further Socialism.

Wigan Pier Revisited was published in 1984, documenting Campbell’s journey through
“the Midlands, the North-East, South Yorkshire and Lancashire, staying in working-class
homes in Coventry, Sunderland, Barnsley and Wigan” (Campbell, p.3). This is within the
context of a new economic depression, after the “winter of discontent”, the “industrial
and social chaos of 1978-79” (Marr, p.373) and after the Conservative government of
Margaret Thatcher took power in 1979. (Fernández, p. 13) By the time the book was
published, the massive wave of privatizations undertaken by this government had not
started yet, but “the Government’s war against the public sector” (Campbell, p.158) was
already evident, and a series of laws had been passed that helped weaken the power of the
unions, already hit by the industrial crisis (Fernández, p.70). The ideological side of
Thatcherism is most relevant for this work, with its promotion of aggressive
individualism, self-help and thrift and a return to traditional Victorian family values.
(Fernández, p.14) While the rise of individualism can be traced back to the late 60s
(Black, p.120), it is with Thatcherism that it receives an institutionally-sponsored
ideological push. (Fernández, p.125)

While Wigan Pier Revisited is also, it would seem, part documentary report, part political
intervention, it doesn’t follow the same organization as The Road to Wigan Pier, in that
the documentary and the interpretation are interspersed. In fact, it seems to me that

2
Campbell argues her case through examples. She offers stories of success and failure at
organization of members of the working class, and, by presenting them in what is
arguably a sympathetic tone, she lays out her ideas of how things should be, how political
action should be undertaken.

Speaking of literary works in the context of cultural materialism, Raymond Williams

noted that “most writing, in any period, including our own, is a form of contribution to
the effective dominant culture” (Williams:X, p.45). In the light of these words I would
argue that the two works which are the focus of analysis in this essay would belong to the
minority of writing that is not contributing to the effective dominant culture. Both could
in fact be argued to have a strong position as acts of political and social intervention. It is
assumed in this analysis that the socio-political and cultural context the works were
written in is reflected in them, both as a cause for them and as the dominant culture the
books can be seen as interventions against.

However, it must be pointed out that both works can be reasonably argued to have been
shaped to an extent by the author’s personal opinions, impressions, likes and dislikes.
And yet, one single work cannot be representative of the whole philosophy or ideology of
an author. Though it is assumed here that it is possible to study the evolution of each
author’s political ideas, for this analysis the works are taken as they are, not in the sense
of isolating them as “objects” (Williams:X, p.47), but in that they are not studied within
the context of the author’s evolution. Thus, when a reference is made to “Orwell’s view”,
in this context is intended to mean “the view put forward in The Road to Wigan Pier”; the
former phrasing is used to save space and simplify the reading of the text.

It is also perhaps worthy to keep in mind that while they explore similar themes and have
a certain affinity of intentionality, they were written by authors with very different
backgrounds, in very different contexts. Also it seems worthy to remember the influence
of Orwell's work, as Wigan Pier Revisited is explicitly inspired in The Road to Wigan

3
Pier, being a different take, along very similar themes, but from a different perspective.
Thus, any analysis must proceed with a high degree of caution.

Before targeting the specific characteristics of the Socialism proposed in each work, it is
perhaps appropriate to start by considering that one of the distinguishing features of
Wigan Pier Revisited is that it is a feminist work (Campbell, p.5), and thus to start by
comparing the representation of family life and gender roles in both works.

First of all, in The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell paints a picture of life in a working-class
home, not “of the unemployed, but of comparatively prosperous homes” which seems
quite idealized: “I have often been struck by the peculiar easy completeness, the perfect
symmetry as it were, of a working- class interior at its best. Especially on winter evenings
after tea, when the fire glows in the open range and dances mirrored in the steel fender,
when Father, in shirt-sleeves, sits in the rocking chair at one side of the fire reading the
racing finals, and Mother sits on the other with her sewing, and the children are happy
with a pennorth of mint humbugs.” (Orwell, p.117)

It emerges from this representation that Orwell’s vision of the family is quite traditional
and stereotypical, and it is arguable that by presenting this view, the traditional family is
offered as one of the basic institutions of society. All of this could be argued to be part of
the dominant culture in the hegemony of society.

Furthermore, he offers this analysis of the relationship of power inside the household:
“In a working-class home it is the man who is the master and not, as in a middle-class
home, the woman or the baby. Practically never, for instance, in a working-class home,
will you see the man doing a stroke of the housework.” (Orwell, p.81) By offering this
ironic vision of “the baby” as “master” in a middle-class home, he seems to be asserting
that the man being the master is the way things are supposed to be, again reinforcing the
dominant value of male-dominance.

4
Campbell, by focusing on the stories of single mothers (Campbell, p.63), girls getting
pregnant to leave home (Campbell, p.67), single unemployed men (Campbell, p.24),
families where the woman is the breadwinner and so on, offers a contrasting
representation which calls into question a model of society where the traditional idea of
family is hegemonic. Most importantly, she challenges the traditional gender roles, and
the unequal distribution of wealth and power within the family, and thus within the
working class: “Women are the poorest of all. Women are responsible for family
finances but they have none of the power that goes with possession.” (Campbell, p.57)

Campbell’s work constantly criticizes these hegemonic values, “the patriarchal principles
of women's dependence which is embedded in the old labour movement's codes of
behaviour, in housing policies and in the distribution of income” (Campbell, p.78)

Thus, in this context, the ideas of “women’s liberation” (Campbell, p.63), are to be seen
as emergent cultural elements. This emergent culture could be argued to be sometimes
“alternative”, that is, articulated in “individual and small-group solutions to social crisis”
(Williams:X, p.42), yet they can also be “oppositional” when they “belong to political
and ultimately revolutionary practice.” (Williams:X, p.42)

Thus, in notorious contrast, Campbell's vision is very much a feminist one, as she herself
notes (Campbell, p.5), whereas Orwell's can be argued to be traditionally paternalistic. He
repeatedly mocks the feminist movement, putting feminists in his category of “cranks”:
“there is the horrible--the really disquieting--prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are
gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism'
and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker,
nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in
England.” (Orwell, p.174)

5
Furthermore, Orwell aligns himself with cultural values that were clearly dominant
within the hegemony of the time. It could be argued that feminism was an emergent and
oppositional cultural element (one indicator of its freshness: universal women's suffrage
had been won in the UK in 1928 (Cole:1969, p.840)), and it in fact continues to be so in
the hegemony reflected in Campbell’s book, yet it seems to have gained strength. In
contrast, in Russia, “the institutions established by the Revolution were based on
complete sex equality in every sphere of life.” (Cole:1969, p.842))

From a cultural point of view, in the contexts of both books (yet perhaps more
importantly in Campbell’s) the dominant values of paternalism and male dominance can
be seen as under attack by the emerging culture of feminism, fuelled by the increased
economic freedom of women and spread of ideas of equality for women. This, for the
man, especially the unemployed one, can be an attack on his masculinity: “Practically
never…in a working-class home, will you see the man doing a stroke of the housework.
Unemployment has not changed this convention, which on the face of it seems a little
unfair. The man is idle from morning to night but the woman is as busy as ever--more so,
indeed, because she has to manage with less money. Yet so far as my experience goes the
women do not protest. I believe that they, as well as the men, feel that a man would lose
his manhood if, merely because he was out of work, he developed into a ‘Mary Ann’.”
(Orwell, p.81)

This perception, that a man doing housework loses his masculinity, can be argued to help
perpetuate the traditional gender roles and balance of power in the household. This is
seen most importantly when in a household the woman becomes the breadwinner, taking
the man’s traditional role and causing the “husband’s traumatic discovery of something
women have always known -- what it feels like to be economically dependent.”
(Campbell, p.61)

6
All of what is recorded by Campbell that clashes with a traditional vision of the family
and gender roles (such as the representations of independent women: “There's another
kind of breadwinner – women on their own with no regrets” (Campbell, p.62)) hints that
the two books reflect a different economic reality, which can be partially connected to the
increasing participation of women in the job market. It is perhaps interesting to compare
the situation when both works analysed were published: Since 1937 “both women's and
men's roles in the labour force have changed, although women's have probably changed
more.” In 1937 there were “two men in the job market for every woman”, whereas in
1984 male and female work-participation rates were drawing nearer, with close to 50%
for women and 75% for men. (Wilson, p.246) As Campbell notes, “the culture women
workers inhabit today is radically different from that of the 1930s -- even if the men
haven’t changed, the women have.”

Now, considering the specific political statements in each book, in view of the similarly
appalling living conditions of the unemployed and working class witnessed in both
documentary reports, both authors propose a version of Socialism as a solution. However,
as I have already pointed out, their two versions of Socialism seem to differ greatly.

However, as Victor Gollancz himself, editor of the Left Book Club, states in his foreword
to the 1937 edition of The Road to Wigan Pier: “Mr. Orwell does not once define what he
means by Socialism.” Something along the same lines could be said of Wigan Pier
Revisited: it does not contain a clear political manifesto, its author never clearly
summarizes the points she advocates for. Yet it is perhaps not difficult to recover the
essential elements conforming that view of Socialism never clearly defined, but prevalent
through the book. This essay undertakes this mission: to attempt to find the clues in the
texts of what the model of Socialism proposed in each book is.

To begin with, it seems worth considering what system of national government is

advocated. In Wigan Pier Revisited, democracy and democratic processes are very

7
frequently brought to the fore and advocated, both as a national government and at local
level (e.g. when praising “the marriage of representative democracy through the
institution of the state with tenants and residents exercising direct democracy in defining
and managing the community’s homes” (Campbell, p.56)).

In contrast to this and quite conspicuously, the word “democracy” is seldom to be found
in The Road to Wigan Pier. It in fact occurs a total of three times in the whole text: once
to refer to the political system in place in Britain and other Western countries (“the
mistaken Communist tactic of sabotaging democracy, i.e. sawing off the branch you are
sitting on” (Orwell, p.214)), and twice in the sentence “It is a sort of world-within-a-
world where everyone is equal, a small squalid democracy-- perhaps the nearest thing to
a democracy that exists in England” (Orwell, p.155), where he is describing the world of
the “social outcasts” (Orwell, p.154). The fact is that, though in this last quotation
democracy is seen as something positive to be found in the underground world, neither
“democracy” nor “democratic” ever actually appear in reference to a desirable political
goal, never as part of an ideal in the vision of Socialism proposed. This, I believe, is
relevant to the vision of Socialism the book puts forward, for, by not emphasizing this
ideal, it is either taken for granted or not seen as essential. I propose it is rather the latter
that is the case here.

Furthermore, Orwell establishes that the choice must be made between Socialism and
Fascism: “It is meaningless to oppose Socialism on the ground that you object to the
beehive State, for the beehive State is here. The choice is not, as yet, between a human
and an inhuman world. It is simply between Socialism and Fascism, which at its very best
is Socialism with the virtues left out.” (Orwell, p.219) This must of course be seen in the
context into which this work came about; I find it highly symptomatic of the clash of
these extreme ideologies before WW2. Not surprisingly, such contrast is not to be found
in Campbell’s work, which was written in a time where the ideological debate was
completely different and Fascism was no longer a threat in the world scenario.

8
G.D.H. Cole, in A History of Socialist Thought, estimating “where as a world movement
Socialism stood in 1939”, points out that “for more than twenty years it had been sharply
divided into two contending movements -- Communism and Social Democracy -- of
which the former held absolute power in the Soviet Union and the latter formed the
constitutional Government in the three leading Scandinavian countries.” (Cole:1965,
p.292) It is perhaps interesting to analyse the view proposed in The Road to Wigan Pier
in the light of this statement, for while Orwell never actually advocates Communism, as
his dislike of Russia (“the stupid cult of Russia” (Orwell, p.216)) and his references to
Communists as a different movement show, by making the choice one between Socialism
and Fascism and proposing a “genuinely revolutionary” movement, I would argue that
his vision of Socialism is not quite Social Democracy either. In the light of this quote,
democracy before WW2 was not as important a value as after it: “The most fundamental
thing the war changed was the political climate: it made democracy fashionable.” (Marr,
p.xxv)

Furthermore, it seems that the Socialism advocated by Orwell’s is revolutionary in

nature. He declares that “there is no chance of righting the conditions” he describes in the
first part of the book “unless we can bring an effective Socialist party into existence. It
will have to be a party with genuinely revolutionary intentions.” (Orwell, p.230) This can
be further seen when he advocates that “Socialism means the overthrow of tyranny” and
again insists on this: “And what are the essentials of Socialism? What is the mark of a
real Socialist? I suggest that the real Socialist is one who wishes--not merely conceives it
as desirable, but actively wishes--to see tyranny overthrown.” (Orwell, p.221)

Orwell's call for the creation of an “effective Socialist party” can be perhaps better
understood by putting it in the context of the “almost complete eclipse of the Labour
party in the General Election of 1931” (Cole, p.15), which, though it “slowly regained
strength after its defeat... was till much too weak to make an effective challenge at the

9
election of 1935”, two years before the book was published. And yet it remains clear that
what is being advocated is a revolution.

This call to political action calls for numbers, as that “Socialist party with revolutionary
intentions”, would further “have to be numerically strong enough to act” (Orwell, p.230).
Thus his call is for classes (the middle class and working class) to join together, though
he does note “the terribly difficult issue of class-distinctions”, about which “the only
possible policy for the moment is to go easy and not frighten more people than can be
helped… no more of those muscular-curate efforts at class-breaking.” (Orwell, p.321)

The way of gathering the required numbers in this vision of Socialism seems to be very
much about “converting” to an ideology: “Every-thing that I say here I have both said to
ardent Socialists who were trying to convert me, and had said to me by bored non-
Socialists whom I was trying to convert.” (Orwell, p.184) Furthering this point, he
declares that for Socialism to triumph “beyond all else…we need intelligent propaganda.”
(Orwell, p.230) This arguably shows that propaganda and adherence to an ideology are
essential elements in this vision of Socialism.

Orwell devotes a number of pages to reflect on the issue of ideological doctrine, and
points out “I have yet to meet a working miner, steel-worker, cotton-weaver, docker,
navvy, or whatnot who was 'ideologically' sound.” (Orwell, p.177) However, he criticizes
this purely ideological, dogmatic approach and proposes that “the essential aims of
Socialism are justice and liberty” (Orwell, p.214) and that for the “genuine working
man”, “Socialism means justice and common decency” (Orwell, p.177) Though the
vision of Socialism proposed by Orwell tries in this way to lessen its load of ideology, he
seems to still be somewhat influenced by it, and most importantly, this is a marked
ideology that, as I have pointed out, needs to “convert” people through “propaganda.”

10
Perhaps more insistently so than The Road to Wigan Pier, Wigan Pier Revisited presents
the harsh conditions of the working class through examples, the stories of real people.
Beyond pure reporting, many of these stories can be seen as a highly symbolic “success
stories.” One example is the story of how the owners of “a block of maisonettes in one of
Coventry's most notorious 'rough' estates” have organized, “persuaded the council to
section off some land at the back” and built together “a secret garden.” This garden
Campbell describes in terms that arguably paint an idyllic picture: “an immaculately
manicured lawn, a little pond surrounded by rushes, a high wall with young trees and
creepers climbing up…beds of flowers.” (Campbell, p.50) She concludes: “The real
distinction doesn't lie in the fact of ownership, but in control” (Campbell, p.50) Here, it is
control of their environment she is referring to, but it can be connected with her posterior
references to the Socialist ideal of “ownership of the means of production” and “control
over work” (Campbell, p.147).

Another such story is: “The women who formed the co-op shop in Sunderland also
crossed over the boundaries of protest by acting in the working-class tradition of militant
self-help. They learned new skills, new control and a new way of life with each other.
Now that the shop has closed they still go out with each other and still constitute each
other’s central reference point in life.” (Campbell, p.203) The plethora of examples she
offers work together towards the strengthening of the idea of communal action, of the
success of working-class people when they organize and fight together to improve their
lives. This aligns with such views as that of Raymond Williams, of a community based
on “active mutual responsibility.” (Williams:1958, p.330) The idea of community seems
to be emphasized again and again; which is perhaps telling considering the political
situation at the time, of a state-sponsored hegemonic individualism. This can be then seen
as opposing the hegemonic view, and thus as part of an oppositional culture.

Considering scope, Orwell’s view seems to have an inherently international focus, when
he proposes that, for the appalling conditions of “enormous blocks of the working class”

11
(Orwell, p.170) he reports about, “Socialism, as a world-system and wholeheartedly
applied, is a way out.” (Orwell, p.171) Furthermore, he declares that “Socialism means
the overthrow of tyranny, at home as well as abroad.” (Orwell, p.222) While he does
focus on Britain and all his propositions apply to British Socialism (or rather, how to
further it with cleverer propaganda), he is still aware of the situation in the international
arena and, it seems, dedicated to an International Socialist cause.

In contrast, Campbell’s view can be said to be very much focused on a local scale. She
provides many examples of small-scale local organization (like those provided earlier, of
the house-owners who better their environment (Campbell, p.50), and the women who set
up a co-op shop (Campbell, p.203), the success of the housing co-ops (Campbell, p.55)).
Conceivably, these politics can then be escalated to a wider-reaching movement, yet her
focus remains strong on local organization.

The ownership of the means of production appears to be an important ideal in Wigan

Pier Revisited. Campbell laments that “Men…have stopped planning strategies
concerned with ownership of the means of production, a pessimism which was reinforced
by the fate of the nationalised industries, and…they have stopped imagining their own
control over work, its pace and its produce.” (Campbell, p.147)

This is never mentioned in The Road to Wigan Pier, but considering that this idea is part
of classical Socialist doctrine and that Orwell’s insists on the need for a “genuinely
revolutionary” Socialist Party, it can be safely assumed that this ideal is also part of that
vision of Socialism, for it can be argued that revolution is precisely a means for the
workers to take control of the means of production.

Moreover, Campbell frequently refers to the “politics” of a group; this is frequently

embodied by communal action towards the betterment of their own lives, or trade
unionism to help them improve their working conditions. Trade unions appear to be a

12
very important element of this kind of Socialism as “the only instrument of collective
intervention in working life.” (Campbell, p.127) She criticizes the way they are set up,
run by men for men: “Most men who organise workers only come in contact with other
men.” (Campbell, p.141) Trade unionism and the problems in it perceived by the author
are explored in depth: she speaks of the disunity in the worker’s movement: “workers
have an endless catalogue of grievances against each other which express deep divisions
in the movement which, everyone knows, need to be overcome” (Campbell, p.150) and
she criticizes the “political myopia of trade unionism” (Campbell, p.151), yet all this
makes it clear that trade unionism is in this view of Socialism an essential practice.

At this point it can be argued that Campbell’s vision is clearly rooted in working class
culture, which, according to Raymond Williams, “is not proletarian art, or council
houses, or a particular use of language; it is, rather, the basic collective idea, and the
institutions, manners, habits of thought and intentions which proceed from this.”
(Williams:1958, p.327) Williams wrote in 1958 about working-class culture: “the culture
which it has produced, and which it is important to recognize, is the collective democratic
institution, whether in the trade unions, the cooperative movement or a political party.”
(Williams:1958, p.327)

In the context where Wigan Pier Revisited comes into play, this working-class culture
seems under siege by conservatism with its message of individualism, and it is hurt by the
loss of power of the trade unions and their failures at organization and the failure of the
Labour Party to adapt to the need of their voters and defend their interests. It seems the
essential institutions holding the community together are breaking apart, and it could be
argued that the vision of Socialism in Wigan Pier Revisited is a plea to rebuild them
around a community spirit. Against the hegemonic ideas of individualism and “self-
help”, Campbell argues that “Like pleasure, politics costs money…The cult of self-help,
usually visited upon the poor, actually belongs not to the poor but to participants in

13
society, the respectable, self-helping, self-respecting institutions of organised
communities and classes.” (Campbell, p.18)

The Labour Party is frequently criticized by Campbell: “Labour authorities…oppose the

only thing the tenants have of their own -- organisation…because they see it as a threat to
their political authority as the only representative of the people." (Campbell, p.55)
Perhaps the clearest articulation of Campbell’s message to the Labour Party is: “if the
Labour Party is to survive… it is going to have to surrender the belief that it is the only
voice of the people. Its future depends on a different kind of alliance with the class that
created it who won’t for much longer be reduced to the status of clients dependent on the
whim of their political godfathers.” (Campbell, p.56) So, it seems that this vision of
Socialism is not squarely aligned with the Labour Party, but rather seeks a change in
party politics, originating at the base.

In conclusion, the vision of Socialism found in The Road to Wigan Pier is offered as a
diametrically opposed alternative to Fascism. By not emphasizing democracy and
insisting on revolution it seems to be distancing itself from Social Democracy. Orwell
speaks of a movement that must “convert” people to its ideology by the clever use of
propaganda. It is also a Socialism with an international scope and, it could be argued,
agenda. I propose to label this vision of Socialism found in The Road to Wigan Pier a
“top-down” approach: an international, “world system”, which seeks to completely
change the capitalist system with a revolution. In this vision, certain elements of the
dominant culture are incorporated, such as traditional gender roles. Thus, by accepting
these roles, it could be argued that this vision of Socialism is incomplete in its quest for
equality, for it accepts that half the working class is in an unequal relationship of power
to the other half.

In sharp contrast to that in The Road to Wigan Pier, the vision of Socialism found in
Wigan Pier Revisited is democratic in its very essence, proposing democracy at every

14
level of the system. Furthermore, it is eminently local, focused on the community and
grassroots activism. In short, I propose to label this a “bottom-up” approach, where what
is advocated is the political organization of the working class, but with a strong emphasis
on a grassroots movement, an organization from the base up, based on local communities
working together to improve their own lives. It also encourages people not to depend on
“official” channels of organization, mainly the Labour party, but rather to move towards
a more grassroots, community based organization, exemplified by tenants' associations
and co-op stores, and much emphasis is put on trade unions. Finally, it is very insistent in
giving women equal rights to men, thus, it could be argued, making this vision more truly
equalitarian and democratic.

15
Bibliography

Black, J., 2000, Modern British History since 1900, London: MacMillan

Campbell, B., 1984, Wigan Pier Revisited, London: Virago

Cole, G.D.H., 1965, A History of Socialist Thought: Volume V. New York: St Martin’s
Press

Cole, G.D.H., 1969, A History of Socialist Thought: Volume IV, Part II. New York: St
Martin’s Press

Fernández, J.F., 1999, El Thatcherismo. Historia y análisis de una época. Almería:

Universidad de Almería

Marr, A., 2007, A History of Modern Britain London: MacMillan

Orwell, G., 1937, The Road to Wigan Pier, San Diego: Harcourt

Williams, R., 1958, Culture and Society, London: The Hogarth Press (1993)

Williams, R., X , Base and Supestructure, article from the course pack for Social
Transformations in Twentieth-Century British Fiction

Wilson, D., Gender: 'Change and Continuity' in Addison, P. and Jones, H. (eds.) A
Companion to Contemporary Britain 1939-2000

16