Download - German Historical Institute London

Conference Reports
that statistics on society collected by the state were especially important
for keeping tabs on public health. Although the urban architecture
of the period was not a central concern of the conference, Astrid
Swenson (University of Cambridge) in her paper on the preservation
of monuments in both countries argued persuasively that greater
attention should be paid to the built fabric of cities. Attempts to draft
adequate legislation for the preservation of monuments encouraged
a look at practices in other countries, and Germany, with its numerous
‘patriotic’ associations for the preservation of monuments played
a leading part here. As an illustration of the transitional nature of this
period, we can point to the change in focus from individual buildings
to the historical townscape reflected in the contributions which curators
of monuments made to international exhibitions. The discussion
focused mainly on the turning points which were the subject of both
contributions, and a desire was expressed for more evidence for the
switch from descriptive to narrative statistics, and the change in perspective
on monuments and its dissemination.
The subject of Michael Schäfer’s (University of Dresden) paper
was urban poor relief around 1900. His main argument can be
summed up as follows. It was not only municipal and professionalized
welfare that was interested in poor relief, but a bourgeois movement
that can be understood as contributing to the emergent welfare
state also played a large part. This initiative, however, was based on
the patriarchal view that the poor had to be given a helping hand; it
cannot yet be seen as a fundamental social reform. Diana Maltz
(Southern Oregon University) illustrated this bourgeois view of
poverty in the urban slums by reference to Robert Sherard’s writings
from 1897 to 1905, which provide a powerful insight into urban ills
and a cross-community comparison of conditions. The discussion
and commentary established that Germany dealt with poverty on a
municipal basis, whereas in Britain, the issue was approached more
on a nationally organized voluntary basis. It was noted that committed
amateurs could possess a high degree of professional expertise.
In their papers, Seth Koven (Rutgers University) and Gerd Kuhn
(University of Stuttgart) looked at the living conditions of urban
workers in both countries. Kingsley Hall People’s House in the East
End of London was a social institution with high aspirations to
reform; findings concerning Germany were much more sober.
Britain’s experiences with social divisions in cities were repeated in
158