Slumming

The word slum was first coined in 1825 as a reference to the “back slums lying in the rear of Broad St” (OED). It did not take long for the term to acquire negative connotations, as seen in Leslie Stephen’s Playground of Europe (1871), wherein he describes “[t]he unspeakable ugliness of a back slum in London” (p. 176). By 1884 the word referred to both place and activity (“the visitation of slums” “for amusement” [Christian World, 22 May 1884]). To go slumming was, in effect, to transform working-class subjects and spaces into sources of interest or fascination—if not outright entertainment. This transformation of the poor was itself a pleasure for slum visitors, who juxtaposed their own bourgeois (i.e., morally superior) identities against the constructed slum Other. Besides reifying their classed sense of self, people from the upper classes sought out underground working-class subcultures and/or literal spaces of supposed deprivation (the slums), with motives ranging from social documentation or assistance of the poor to unabashed pleasure-seeking. Still, historian Seth Koven reminds us that whether inspired by altruism or selfishness these are all acts of self-serving “slumming” (see Koven 2004, cited under Secondary Sources: Entertainment and Slum Fiction). The reformers who looked to impose their own middle-class values, the women journalists who gained professional legitimacy, and the “swells” who pursued nights of titillating debauchery are just some of those who went slumming at the expense of their working-class and poor subjects. This article intends to reflect the range in ways and reasons why late Victorians slummed. For ease of use, we have divided our selections by primary and secondary sources, each half containing five parallel subcategories. We eschew a definition or class designation of the slummers themselves to keep focus on the act of slumming—for slumming was first and foremost a relationship of power, and those who slummed sometimes “had little in common beyond their sense that they commanded resources entitling them to gawk at or help the poor” (Koven 2004, p. 10, cited under Secondary Sources: Entertainment and Slum Fiction). The first major category focuses on those who went slumming precisely because of this power dynamic and the “Entertainment” it afforded. Many books were penned to help gentlemen “swells” navigate London’s growing slums, which themselves shifted location, composition, and character over the century. The proliferation of periodicals and tourist guides reflects the popularity of cross-class voyeurism that slumming afforded. This section concludes with a discussion of music halls, a new type of venue where bourgeois slummers could observe (and eventually appropriate) working-class popular entertainment. “Social Reform Writings” follows those who slummed for supposedly altruistic ends. It includes works of social investigation, attempts to scientifically taxonomize urban poverty, and has a section on slum crime. Selections of journalism demonstrate how women went slumming to advance their careers while men slummed for the thrill of sexual contact with poor men. Photographic materials show how emerging flash technology underwrote the literal objectification of the poor, while the third section, “Settlements and Organizations,” focuses on the reformers who stayed in the slums and tried to effect change through decidedly middle-class example. Still other reformers embraced the idea of (re)settlement as a solution for poverty; some in this group went so far as to promote eugenic-leaning farm colonies and/or migration to England’s global settlements. Finally, the stand-alone categories “Digital Archives” and “Working-Class Autobiographies” remind us, as scholars, to always consult the primary sources—particularly when it comes to socially and economically precarious communities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.