ABSTRACT
As I have indicated in the above survey, historians of Chartism generally agree that support for the movement’s confrontational strategies did not endure beyond 1850. In narratives about the mid-Victorian labour experience the decline of Chartist activism becomes popular acceptance of the prevailing social order and debate focuses on the changing character of popular mentalite. Consistently with this focus, contributors to the debate base their discussions on theories of identity and consciousness which in various ways indicate the interpellation of individuals as subjects, or their assimilation to structurally determined subject positions in which they see themselves reflected. Some analysts imply that interpellation is irresistible. They look to structures and discourses for their answers and do not concern themselves with the views of the people/subjects whose experience they purport to illuminate. Most commentators, however, treat agency as an important variable and refer to more or less extensive autobiographical samples to confirm their theories empirically. 1 Yet the very idea of confirmation implies foregone conclusions which might possibly predetermine the results of empirical research. In this chapter I will explore this possibility. I will suggest that the theories to which I have referred shape empirical practice, dictating the selection of evidence, imposing narrative unity on historical ambiguity, and concealing the contingency of meanings thus produced.
