History. Centre of Urban History

In historiography, the functioning of poor relief has often been explained by focussing on a single prime mover, be it elite ambition to control labour (cfr. Lis & Soly), or the need for social groups to protect themselves because of growing urban anonymity (cfr. Lynch). Recently however, several researchers suggested that the functioning and extent of relief were characterised by outspoken regional differences. In this article we want to further explore this suggestion by using the potential of the Low Countries’ countryside as an ideal laboratory to test the impact of regionally diverging social structures on the extent and functioning of relief. Not only did all its communities share the same relief institution, the poor table, it was furthermore characterised by the presence of all types of societies: from very commercial (coastal Flanders), over proto-industrial (inland Flanders), to communally organised (Campine area). By analysing poor table accounts for all three regions we aim to illustrate how the extent of relief was determined by the distribution of power and the level of social homogeneity within a given region.

Peasant societies and resilience are not often put together. Often peasants are perceived as one of the more vulnerable social groups. Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks (Walker 2004). In this sense, resilience provides adaptive capacity (Smit and Wandel, 2006) that allows for continuous development, like a dynamic adaptive interplay between sustaining and developing with change (Folke, 2006). The flexibility and dynamism to absorb shocks is most often not attributed to peasant societies, but rather to societies that have capital intensive technologies, well-functioning markets, demographic safety valves through migration and efficient institutions such as social security systems. Peasants have been defined as primarily small-scale agricultural producers, who control the means of production and who use these means directly to provide for their own subsistence or use. Their productive activity generally is based around the household unit of immediate family and servants. Their activities were integrated into the market economy, but not dependent on markets (Larson, 2006). Throughout history peasants have been portrayed as conservative and rigid, by being risk-aversive and subsistence orientated. Peasants are considered as vulnerable because of two aspects. First of all, their path dependency would prevent the adaptation of new strategies, institutions or technologies during periods of change and thwart a swift response to crises. Secondly, small-scale agricultural producers are supposed to be more vulnerable, because of a lack of wealth, market integration, political power and their dependency on their land. Nevertheless, peasant societies are currently being re-evaluated. Path dependency, subsistence farming and communal practices did not necessarily hamper an efficient reaction to shocks and changing conditions. In fact, peasant strategies, such as communal organisation, common property, subsistence farming and non-specialised activities are currently explored as alternatives to counter the effects of a globalised, capitalistic and technology-dependent world (vander Ploeg, 2009; Infante Amate-Gonzalez de Molina, 2013). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether all types of peasant societies were able to cope with environmental challenges and reach high levels of resilience. Therefore a better understanding of both contemporary as well as historical peasant societies and their struggle with environmental issues is needed. This research session will attempt to do so, by combining research from different disciplines and looking at the longue durée, in order to distinguish some vital strengths and weaknesses of peasant societies in coping with environmental challenges. We aim to receive papers on modern or pre-modern peasant societies and their level of resilience towards environmental challenges, based on empirical research.

Peasant societies and resilience are not often put together. Often peasants are perceived as one of the more vulnerable social groups. Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks (Walker 2004). In this sense, resilience provides adaptive capacity (Smit and Wandel, 2006) that allows for continuous development, like a dynamic adaptive interplay between sustaining and developing with change (Folke, 2006). The flexibility and dynamism to absorb shocks is most often not attributed to peasant societies, but rather to societies that have capital intensive technologies, well-functioning markets, demographic safety valves through migration and efficient institutions such as social security systems. Peasants have been defined as primarily small-scale agricultural producers, who control the means of production and who use these means directly to provide for their own subsistence or use. Their productive activity generally is based around the household unit of immediate family and servants. Their activities were integrated into the market economy, but not dependent on markets (Larson, 2006). Throughout history peasants have been portrayed as conservative and rigid, by being risk-aversive and subsistence orientated. Peasants are considered as vulnerable because of two aspects. First of all, their path dependency would prevent the adaptation of new strategies, institutions or technologies during periods of change and thwart a swift response to crises. Secondly, small-scale agricultural producers are supposed to be more vulnerable, because of a lack of wealth, market integration, political power and their dependency on their land. Nevertheless, peasant societies are currently being re-evaluated. Path dependency, subsistence farming and communal practices did not necessarily hamper an efficient reaction to shocks and changing conditions. In fact, peasant strategies, such as communal organisation, common property, subsistence farming and non-specialised activities are currently explored as alternatives to counter the effects of a globalised, capitalistic and technology-dependent world (vander Ploeg, 2009; Infante Amate-Gonzalez de Molina, 2013). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether all types of peasant societies were able to cope with environmental challenges and reach high levels of resilience. Therefore a better understanding of both contemporary as well as historical peasant societies and their struggle with environmental issues is needed. This research session will attempt to do so, by combining research from different disciplines and looking at the longue durée, in order to distinguish some vital strengths and weaknesses of peasant societies in coping with environmental challenges. We aim to receive papers on modern or pre-modern peasant societies and their level of resilience towards environmental challenges, based on empirical research.

Recent historiography on charity, poor relief and mutual assistance has strongly focused on its community-delineating potential. All assistance and relief is in one way or another reserved for a specific group considered 'deserving', be that co-religionists, fellow townsmen, members of a particular guild, confraternity or quarter, etc. When allocating aid or relief to one specific group, the in-group is formed while its boundaries are being sharpened to outsiders. The putting up of boundaries thus stands at the forefront of research on charity, assistance and relief. This is enhanced by Eurocentric modernity narratives, in which notions of territory have played a major part. Historiography for example has strongly focused on a perceived shift, especially from the sixteenth century onwards, from private initiatives to the responsibility of public institutions and governments, initially at city level; later the regional or 'national' level took over. Writing from the vantage point of national welfare states, historians have perceived poor relief all too easily as linked to a certain territory and / or citizenship. Poor relief and aid embedded in networks stretching across territories often escaped the attention. This is all the more problematic since medieval and even early modern political actors conceived their political communities in a non-territorial way, as corporations, or clusters of corporations, based on membership rather then residence. This territorial analytic framework furthermore enhances the idea that the Christian, Jewish and Muslim charity and assistance system were of a different 'world', leading to a lack of reflection about its differences and similarities. Recent studies have already criticised this modernity narrative and the use of 'nations' as frame of analysis. In a range of research fields 'entangled history' or 'histoire croisée' approaches have yielded new insights, while in the broader social sciences new conceptual approaches have chosen networks as their basic concept. However, a truly network-based and transnational perspective on charity, assistance and relief is still missing. In this workshop we want to broaden the view by focussing on networks of charity, assistance and relief, transcending local, regional and / or national boundaries and by paying attention to organisations and institutions of different religions; thus exploring the area of tension between territory, network and transnationalism. Family, religious, commercial and other ties indeed all challenged or transcended territorial boundaries. We welcome papers dealing with forms of charity, relief and assistance in Christian, Jewish and Muslim pre-industrial societies that have a translocal, transregional and/or transnational component, be it focussing on international tradesmen, religious communities, colonial forms of relief, … If there is interest, a publication might follow. A keynote lecture will be given by prof. Gervase Rosser.

Recent historiography on charity, poor relief and mutual assistance has strongly focused on its community-delineating potential. All assistance and relief is in one way or another reserved for a specific group considered 'deserving', be that co-religionists, fellow townsmen, members of a particular guild, confraternity or quarter, etc. When allocating aid or relief to one specific group, the in-group is formed while its boundaries are being sharpened to outsiders. The putting up of boundaries thus stands at the forefront of research on charity, assistance and relief. This is enhanced by Eurocentric modernity narratives, in which notions of territory have played a major part. Historiography for example has strongly focused on a perceived shift, especially from the sixteenth century onwards, from private initiatives to the responsibility of public institutions and governments, initially at city level; later the regional or 'national' level took over. Writing from the vantage point of national welfare states, historians have perceived poor relief all too easily as linked to a certain territory and / or citizenship. Poor relief and aid embedded in networks stretching across territories often escaped the attention. This is all the more problematic since medieval and even early modern political actors conceived their political communities in a non-territorial way, as corporations, or clusters of corporations, based on membership rather then residence. This territorial analytic framework furthermore enhances the idea that the Christian, Jewish and Muslim charity and assistance system were of a different 'world', leading to a lack of reflection about its differences and similarities. Recent studies have already criticised this modernity narrative and the use of 'nations' as frame of analysis. In a range of research fields 'entangled history' or 'histoire croisée' approaches have yielded new insights, while in the broader social sciences new conceptual approaches have chosen networks as their basic concept. However, a truly network-based and transnational perspective on charity, assistance and relief is still missing. In this workshop we want to broaden the view by focussing on networks of charity, assistance and relief, transcending local, regional and / or national boundaries and by paying attention to organisations and institutions of different religions; thus exploring the area of tension between territory, network and transnationalism. Family, religious, commercial and other ties indeed all challenged or transcended territorial boundaries. We welcome papers dealing with forms of charity, relief and assistance in Christian, Jewish and Muslim pre-industrial societies that have a translocal, transregional and/or transnational component, be it focussing on international tradesmen, religious communities, colonial forms of relief, … If there is interest, a publication might follow. A keynote lecture will be given by prof. Gervase Rosser.