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