cultural imperialism at home? mary trevelyan and student movement house, 1932-1946
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
1/65
i
CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN
AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
By
EMMA JOLLY
Research Dissertation of 16,279 words
submitted to
Sheffield Hallam University
in partial fulfilment for the award of
MA History: Imperialism and Culture
under the supervision of
Dr. Clare Midgley
12 March 2014
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
2/65
ii
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
Cultural imperialism at home? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House, 1932-
1946
By EMMA JOLLY
Supervisor: Dr. Clare Midgley
Between 1932 and 1946, Mary Trevelyan was employed by the Student Christian Movement
to act as Warden of Student Movement House in London, an international club for students.
This period was one of national and racial tension, both across the Empire and within the
metropole. By the interwar years, Britain, and London in particular, were home to a number
of colonial independence thinkers, activists and movements. As Student Movement House
welcomed those from overseas, with no racial or national barriers, Trevelyan and the Student
Christian Movement were aware of the role the club could play in alleviating colonial
negativity towards Britain by fostering a culture of international friendship. The dissertation
critically assesses the changing nature of interwar Christian mission through the cultural
imperialist framework and looks at accusations of a Christian civilizing mission, further
examining the impact on this of an increasingly domestic focus within the metropole. This
dissertation examines the Student Christian Movement, Trevelyan and her work at Student
Movement House in the context of cultural imperialism in the interwar period, with particular
reference to attitudes in the metropole towards overseas students. In doing so, British racism
and discrimination to overseas students at this time will be considered alongside a growing
cultural emphasis on internationalism.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
3/65
iii
Contents
Introduction
1
Chapter 1 - The Empire at Home 1918-1946
8
Chapter 2 - British Christian Mission and the shifting role of the Student Christian Movement
20
Chapter 3 - Civilizing Mission? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House 1932-1946
33
Conclusion
50
Bibliography
53
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
4/65
1
Introduction
The theory of cultural imperialism when applied to Christian mission is discussed
typically in relation to missionaries working in the Empire. Yet, the interwar years saw a
reduction in missionary field work and an increase in colonial and non-British visitors to the
metropole. These circumstances provided the British mission movement with the opportunity
to focus their work at home, through institutions like Student Movement House (SMH) in
London, one of the most active metropolitan centres in the interwar years for colonial
visitors.
This dissertation assesses the extent to which Mary Trevelyan (1897-1983) and her
work as Warden of SMH between 1932 and 1946 represent cultural imperialism at home.
SMH was a club for overseas and British students and had been established in 1917 by the
Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (SCM). This organization was
formed in 1898 and known as SCM from 1904. From evangelical origins, the SCM soon
became inter-denominational and moved from focusing on Foreign Mission to a broader
scope covering all the great Christian interests1and a global vision, in which British students
who make friends . . . of people of other races and other nations are often delivered once for
all from racial prejudice and all exclusive and narrow forms of racism.2
The significance to the cultural imperialism debate of SMHswork in London during
the interwar years has not previously been explored to a great extent. As SMH Warden
between 1932 and 1946, Mary Trevelyans professional contribution is worthy of
examination from an imperial history perspective. Her personal beliefs, family and social
1
A. Herbert Gray, The Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 43, no. 12, 1932, pp. 558-561.
2ibid., p. 559.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
5/65
2
connections are also significant. Besides her social connections, Trevelyan had a strong
Christian background, with her father and both grandfathers serving as Anglican clergymen.
In assessing her work between 1932 and 1946, this dissertation will explore practical
Christian mission in the metropole along with wider changes in British imperialism through
the work of one individual.
The dissertation aims to achieve this by asking to what extent the SCM moved away
from its original focus on a possibly imperially-oriented overseas mission to concentrating on
equal relations among global Christians, how effective it was in promoting Christianity to
those from overseas, and in what way its work and aims were reflected in the work of Mary
Trevelyan. Was Mary Trevelyan condescending? And were her views reminiscent of the
attitudes and behaviour of earlier missionaries? It will also ask how those views were shaped
by Trevelyans awareness of her familys historic and contemporary connections with
imperial historic thinking, and by her personal travels.
Much of the existing historiography on cultural imperialism in this period draws on
the arguments of Edward Said in his works, Orientalismand Culture and Imperialism3.Said
aimed to show how historical conceptions of the Orient were connected to contemporary
political concepts of the East. In seeking to demonstrate how the West used examples of
Orientalist culture to subordinate the Arab world, Said highlighted three, interdependent
forms, or senses, of orientalism: the formal or academic sense, the ontological sense, and the
sense of power through discourse. He argued that colonial rulers used their knowledge of
their subject people to control them4. Said argued that this training in orientalism was
regarded as essential to the imperialist mind5. The second form of orientalism is that of
3Edward W. Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd,
1978); Culture and Imperialism. (London: Vintage, 1994).4ibid., p. 213.5ibid., p. 215.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
6/65
3
ontological distinction (self/other), with the orient as the opposite of occident. British saw
themselves as distinct from Orientals or The Other.
Said developed this line of thought further in his work, Culture and Imperialism, but
was heavily criticized. Kate Teltscher, for example, argues that Orientalismfails to elucidate
fully the relationship between orientalism and imperialism in that the ontological form is too
simplistic: In recent years, colonial discourse analysis has moved away from the
Self/Other.6In contrast, Teltscher seeks to define a much less stable sense of European self;
an identity that is shifting, various, and responsive to the demands of domestic politics and
religious affiliation.7Nevertheless, it is important to be aware of the Self/Other debate when
considering the work of Mary Trevelyan, to note the interaction between her and overseas
students, and consider how this affected her work and views in relation to Christian mission
and Empire.
More recently, Peter Cain has argued that Said's Orientalismshows respect for
Western culture, but neglects how Briton's elite imperialists ideas of themselves were
defined by ideas of their own history8. Cain is conscious of Saids theories when placing
Christian mission work within the cultural imperialism discourse, arguing that the liberal
civilizing mission propounded by thinkers such as Thomas Macaulay was live and well at
the Cape in the 1870s and 1880s where Christian enthusiasm helped to drive a civilizing
mission that looked for root-and-branch reform of African tribal society.9However, this
connection between Macaulays civilizing mission and the work ofChristians is challenged
6Kate Teltscher,India Inscribed: European and British Writing on India 1600-1800(Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995), p. 7.7ibid., p. 6.8
Peter J. Cain, Character, Ordered Liberty, and the Mission to Civilise: British Moral Justification of Empire,18701914, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol. 40, no. 4, 2012, pp. 557-578.9ibid., p. 558.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
7/65
4
by Catherine Halls view that Christianity no longer held the key to civilisation via
assimilation: his [Macaulays] was a secular vision.10
Ryan Dunch has questioned the usefulness of placing the modern Christian
missionary movement within the cultural imperial framework. In contrast, he looks at the
cultural dynamics of globalization in relation to the role of missions. Arguing that the
missionary movement is one aspect in a globalizing modernity that has altered Western
societies as well as non-Western ones11, Dunch seeks to apply the globalization discourse to
the missionary movement in order to illuminate the process of modern cultural
globalization.12This theory of globalization in the modern missionary movement can be
adapted to the work of the SCM and Mary Trevelyan in the metropole.
Dunch agrees with Said that the more or less global influence of Western cultural
forms has come about historically through a coercive process13. However, he questions
novelists and scholars depiction of missionaries as, narrow-minded chauvinists whose
presence and preaching destroyed indigenous cultures and opened the way for the extension
of colonial rule.14Dunch does concede that, in practice many references to the cultural
imperialism of missionaries mean simply that some missionaries held condescending or
racist attitudes towards the people among whom they lived.15This condescension may be
linked to the civilizing mission (perhaps unwitting in the behaviour of some missionaries),
and is one of the aspects that will be explored in this paper, when considering whether there
was evidence of such attitudes amongst British people in the metropole, and with Mary
Trevelyan specifically.
10Catherine Hall,Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain(New Have: Yale University Press, 2012),
p. 213.11Ryan Dunch, Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Cultural Theory, Christian Missions, and Global Modernity,
History and Theory, vol. 41, no. 3, 2002, p. 301.12ibid., p. 301.13
ibid., p. 303.14ibid., p. 307.15ibid., p. 309.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
8/65
5
Dunch separates mission work from imperial mercantilism, criticizing those like R.
Keith Schoppa who have linked missionaries with political or economic forces.16Dunch
observes that this ignores the fact that missionaries were not directly linked to the traders
and economic interests of their home countries. . . the interest of missions were often
diametrically opposed to those of their compatriots in government or commerce . . .17John
Tomlinson, however, perhaps summarizes the current consensus when he defends cultural
imperialism from some of Dunchs criticisms, arguing that it is more accurate to speak of the
discourse of cultural imperialism than to think of it as a coherent body of ideas shared by a
group of theoretically specifiable speakers.18
In considering Trevelyan and SMH within the framework of cultural imperialism, this
dissertation will look at whether the civilizing mission existed, albeit at a weaker level, in
the interwar mission movement. Furthermore, it will demonstrate that Mary Trevelyans
work was to an extent separate from the wider Christian mission and that she operated less
within the cultural imperialistic framework than in a developing culture of internationalism.
The dissertation also considers the divisions that remained between Christian missionary and
imperialistic outlooks.
A variety of sources and a varied approach to research were used for this dissertation.
Considerable primary material exists on Mary Trevelyan: in the SCM archive, and in letters
written to her, her autobiography19and other writing. The methodology of this paper is based
around cultural history and draws upon secondary sources, as well as primary sources such as
autobiography, SMH papers from within the SCM archives, along with news reports and
comments in contemporary journals and newspapers. This dissertation will consider Mary
16R. Keith Schoppa,Revolution and Its Past: Identities and Changes in Modern Chinese History (Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall, 2002), p.45.17Dunch, Beyond Cultural Imperialism, p. 308.18
John Tomlinson, Cultural Imperialism: a critical introduction (London: Pinter, 1991), p 69.19Mary Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth:An account of the author's experiences as Warden of theStudent Movement House (London: Faber & Faber, 1942).
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
9/65
6
Trevelyans middle-class upbringing and her gender in relation to her outlook and work. In
approaching the autobiography of Mary Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth:An account
of the author's experiences as Warden of the Student Movement House, it is important to
consider that it was based on a diary that she kept during the period but that it was written in
1942 to speak to a contemporary audience. Published while Trevelyan was still Warden of
SMH, her autobiography highlights the successful aspects of SMH, with a bias towards
herself and the SMH rather than the full complexities of the lives of overseas students.
I have also consulted unpublished letters sent from the poet and SMH patron, T. S.
Eliot, to Trevelyan from 1940. One of the main problems with these is that they do not
include letters from Trevelyan. However, they do act as a useful counterpoise to Trevelyans
autobiography and other writing by her in contemporary SMH literature, journal articles and
books. As these were private letters, they reflect a more personal view of Trevelyans work
and attitudes than those presented in her self-aware autobiography, intended for wide
contemporary readership. In this way, the letters have the potential to provide more unwitting
testimony into Trevelyan than some of the more official sources.
Many of these records, including the news reports, are limited by their class base.
Almost all of the documents consulted were written by members of the middle or upper
classes. The dissertation would have benefitted from further insight into Mary Trevelyan and
SMH by former employees, neighbours or student club members from either contemporary
sources or in the form of memoir. I was able to find a contemporary letter from the later
renowned academic and influential political West Indian activist, C. L. R. James, who at the
time was a visiting student. However, greater balance would have been achieved from similar
material from other contemporaries in the 1932-46 period. The secondary sources include the
work of historians of the interwar years and theories of culture such as Shompa Lahiri,
Rozina Visram, and Laura Tabili.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
10/65
7
The first chapter looks at the Empire at Home from 1918 through the period of
Trevelyans tenure as SMH Warden. As SMH was intended to promote international
understanding and friendship in the wake of war, this chapter explores the changes in the
metropole from this date and will examine attitudes to the Empire from within the metropole
and the presence there of colonial people, while looking at changes in metropolitan society
and culture between the end of the First World War and the end of the Second World War.
This chapter provides the context for understanding the work of Mary Trevelyan at SMH and
that of her employer, the SCM, between 1932 and 1946.
The second chapter examines British Christian Mission in the same period, looking at
how its focus changed and at the role played in this process by the Student Christian
Movement and associated individuals. The interwar SCM is assessed in the context of
Christian mission as a whole, and consideration given to whether missionary attitudes to
Empire reflected those of politicians and commerce. This chapter looks further at culture in
the metropole through the lens of Christianity whilst examining cultural imperialism in the
form of religion by exploring the background to Christian mission work and thought in 1932-
46.
The final chapter explores the work of Mary Trevelyan, SMH Warden from 1932 to
1946. The argument looks at whether a civilizing mission was at work in the metropole
through the SCMs work with overseas students, specifically through the example of Student
Movement House (SMH) between 1932 and 1946, and its Warden. This is discussed with
reference to accusations of racism and condescension, and cultural imperialism. The chapter
concludes with an examination of the extent to which secular imperial values as well as those
of Christianity were transmitted to the students, particular in light of Trevelyans personal
background, and also looks at the impact of this cultural imperialism or exchange in the wider
Empire.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
11/65
8
Chapter One
The Empire at Home, 1918-1946
This chapter examines changes in the metropole following the First World War. From there,
the argument focuses on imperial subjects in the metropole, looking at the longstanding
representation of black colonial people, alongside black and mixed race Britons. After
considering how London, in particular, was a difficult environment for black colonial
peoples, the last section explores the lives of overseas students in the metropole and the
hostile reception with which many were met.
Changes in the Metropole
Up to the Great War, Britain celebrated its imperial imagery as strong, masculine and
victorious through the media of juvenile literature, football cards, and (from 1904) Empire
Day20. There is no consensus as to whether this imperial image continued after the war. John
Mackenzie and John Springhall21point to growing public interest in Empire Day throughout
the interwar years22. At this annual event, Britons celebrated the value of Empire to the
metropole as a victorious, military nation23. Such celebration and use of specific imagery can
be seen as a form of cultural imperialism at home. However, Bernard Porter questions
whether most Britons accepted a strong imperial vision of Britain, arguing, 'Culture coloured
British imperialism, but was not responsible for it, or significantly affected byit.'24
In support of Porters argument is the emerging interwar culture of anti-colonialism
and anti-racism. This developed alongside a rise in political activity, both within the
20Jim English, Empire Day in Britain, 1904-1958, The Historical Journal, vol. 49, no. 1, 2006, pp. 247-276.21J. O. Springhall, Lord Meath, Youth, and Empire ,Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 5, no. 4, 1970, pp.
97-111.22ibid., p 107.23John Mackenzie ed.,Imperialism and Popular Culture (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), p.
168.24Bernard Porter, The Lion's Share: A Short History of British Imperialism, 1850-1995 (3rdedn., London:
Pearson, 1996), p. 10.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
12/65
9
metropole, such as through the growth of the British Union of Fascists, the Communist Party
of Great Britain and the Young Communist League, and across the Empire in colonial
independence movements, like the India League. Some of this activism contained anti-
imperialistic elements or was based on an anti-empire agenda. Immigration from Empire, not
least of students, enabled the development of these movements in the metropole. There had
been noticeable activity among educated Indians in Britain for some years with many
students joining the India League in the 1930s.25
In contrast to independence activists, pro-imperialists in the metropole were
enthusiastic about emerging peace movements, which some interpreted as conduits for a
fraternity of colonies and dominions under British leadership. Porter argues that one form of
imperial culture in the late twentieth century, 'came close - extraordinarily - to pacifist
internationalism.' He supports this by explaining that British culture was not dominated by
empire-related values. This essay argues that dominant values such as internationalism were
at work earlier in British culture and that peace ideologies grew alongside, and in response to,
the anticolonial movements of the interwar years.
Although there was evidence of military imperial imagery in some areas of British
culture and society, in others there was a focus on domestic concerns. Adrian Bingham writes
that after 1918, an ethos of domesticity pervaded popular culture26. This echoes the work
of Alison Light who argued that there was a move towards a more domestic socio-cultural
ethos27. As part of the domestic ethos, leading Britons looked to the past for a firm sense of
national identity, reviving the concept of Englishness, where England (or, interchangeably,
Britain) was reimagined as a nation fit for heroes.
25Rozina Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: Indians in Britain 1700-1947 (London: Pluto, 1986), p. 181.26Adrian Bingham, An era of domesticity? Histories of women and gender in interwar Britain, Cultural and
Social History,vol. 1, no. 2, 2004,pp. 225-233.27Alison Light,Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism Between the Wars (New York:
Routledge, 1991), p. 137.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
13/65
10
However, many in Britains culturalelite shied away from a militaristic national
image. Liberal middle-class intellectuals, such as the biographer Lytton Strachey, had been
among the more than 16,000 pacifists of the war.28After four long years of fighting, more
Britons now sympathized with pacifist views: numbers grew of peace organisations with an
international outlook, such as War Resisters International, Womens International League
for Peace and Freedom, and the No More War Movement. Pacifism enjoyed popularity
among students: in February 1933, an Oxford Union debate carried the motion, That this
House will in no circumstances fight for its King and countryby 275 votes to 153 and
similar debates took place in universities across Britain.29
At the same time, Bingham argues that not all interwar culture looked inwards. He
points to contemporary popular themes of the exotic and adventurous nature of Empire, citing
Billie Melman and her discussion of desert romances30. The 1920s saw heroes made of
imperial adventurers like Gertrude Bell (1868-1926), a multi-lingual archaeologist and
traveller who served as a political officer in the Arabian Desert during the war. She was also
the half-sister of G. M. Trevelyans sister-in-law, Mary Katherine Bell. This cultural presence
of Empire in the metropole was thus imagined and represented in different forms by authors,
advertisers and filmmakers of the period.
The interwar vision of an idealised Britain married with the new internationalism
which held a reimagined nation at its heart. This peaceful ideal was placed in a wider
international context, with Britain being seen as a home of international friendship. One key
figure in this aspect of interwar culture was the academic, and second cousin of Mary
Trevelyan, George Macaulay Trevelyan. As a writer of major narrative histories of Britain
28David Cesarani, Antony Robin, Jeremy Kushner, The Internment of Aliens in Twentieth Century Britain
(London: Taylor & Francis), p. 55.29
Martin Caedel, The King and Country Debate, 1933: Student Politics, Pacifism and the Dictators, TheHistorical Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, 1979, pp. 397-422.
30Bingham, An era of domesticity?, p. 226.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
14/65
11
and a contributor to national newspapers, Trevelyan was an influential man in interwar
academia and society. Perhaps his longest lasting influence in terms of the English culture
has been with the National Trust and the Youth Hostel Association (YHA). David Cannadine
argues that by the early 1930s, Trevelyan had, established himself as one of the foremost
activists in the battle to save the English countryside . . . and that he was so socially
significant that his name conferred great prestige on a new and uncertain organisation 31, the
National Trust.
Trevelyans presidency of YHA was motivated by his internationalist ideals. In 1939,
The Timesreported that the YHA, represented the best kind of internationalism, for its
membership enabled one to exchange hospitality with the hikers of other countries, and so to
learn to appreciate and understand them in a way which would lay the surest foundations of
peace32.Beyond secular culture, the internationalist, fraternal and peace ideologies would
also influence missionary thinking and those running student organizations in the period.
Trevelyans work and ideology was influenced to a certain extent by his great uncle
and namesake, the historian Thomas Babington Macaulay. Catherine Hall writes of
MacaulaysHistory of Englandand the sense of Englishness this created, which, she argues,
indicates Macaulays view that, England was a country suited for empire and that he saw as
the legitimate protector of thosewho cannot protect themselves.33This fitted with
contemporary cinematic representations of Britain as an international force of justice.
Cannadine argued that, in contrast, Macaulays great nephew remained, equivocal and
uncertain about the British Empire34and later rejoiced in the independence of India.35
Thus, Trevelyan was a greater proponent of international friendship than of Empire.
31David Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan: a life in history,(London: Harper Collins, 1992), p. 157.32The Times, 8 May 1939, p. 11.33Catherine Hall,Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012),
p. 283.34Cannadine, G. M. Trevelyan, p. 92.35ibid., p. 222.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
15/65
12
British cultural domination in this period was challenged not just by political activism
in the Empire, but from across the Atlantic, as shown by the growing importance of
American films. Within Britain, there were cultural challenges from socialist writers eager to
emphasize working-class experiences of the time. J. B. Priestley, for example, in his English
Journey(1934) represented Englishness as 'industrial, provincial, populist, and hostile to
traditional privilege.'36Nevertheless, the traditional cultural dominance of the middle and
upper classes remained, as did the pivotal roles of religious institutions, the educational
establishment, and literature. Although F.R. Leavis argued although only a few were capable
of appreciating high culture, this minority keep alive the subtlest and most perishable parts
of the tradition.37This was a powerful minority, which included key cultural figures of the
interwar years such as G. M. Trevelyan.
The development of international fraternal ideologies and peace movements would
affect cultural attitudes within the metropole towards the Empire and to the imperial citizens
who now lived in Britain. However, beyond the rarefied world of middle class intelligentsia,
the imperial subjects, notably those who were black and Asian, were experiencing a more
hostile aspect of British culture. Across a variety of communities, ethnic minorities as well as
those of the white settler nations were not experiencing the internationalist ideal. Other
Britons held less welcoming views and demonstrated them actively.
Imperial subjects in the metropole
Popular culture affected the way those in the metropole viewed the Empire and colonial
people. Yet, attitudes towards those from overseas, including students and those from outside
the Britains colonies and dominions, were arguably more affected by the events of recent
36
John Baxendale, I had seen a lot of Englands: J B Priestley, Englishness and the People,HistoryWorkshop Journal,vol. 2001, no. 51, 2001, pp. 87-111.37F. R. Leavis,Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture (Cambridge: The Minority Press, 1930), pp. 3-5.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
16/65
13
years, such as the 1919 seaport riots and increased immigration, both during and immediately
following the war.
Before 1919, Visram argues, there were established communities in seaport cities,
inhabited by Indian merchant seamen (lascars), as well as other black and Asian maritime
workers from across the Empire.38Many married local women. As these communities were
often separate from other parts of their cities, inhabitants mixed rarely with white Britons
beyond. Instead, as Laura Tabili illustrates, Bound by personalities, residents of these
enclaves proved resistant to the imposition of hegemonic racial barriers, as well as to more
overt intervention.39Tabili argues that this only changed in June 1919 when riots erupted in
seaports at Liverpool, the Bristol channel, Newport, Cardiff and Barry and African, West
Indian and Asian ex-servicemen and sailors were attacked: Crowds of white men and
women invaded racially mixed neighbourhoods, pillaging homes, putting several people in
the hospital and a pair in the morgue.40
A combination of high unemployment in post war industrial seaports, along with the
presence of increased numbers of black and Asian men in the metropole, led to the racial
tension that created the 1919 riots. Bourne argues that, returning white soldiers resented the
presence of black men, especially those who had found employment and married white
women . . 41The Timesclaimed that 'the familiar association between white women and
negroes' was a 'provocative cause' behind the riots42. Associated with this was an increase in
mixed-race marriages. James Walvin painted a negative picture of life in the interwar years
for mixed-race children of working-class black men in 'London, Liverpool, Swansea, Cardiff
and Manchester', who were raised in straitened financial circumstances, often 'on Public
38Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p, 190.39Laura Tabili, We Ask for British Justice. Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain (New
York: Cornell University Press, 1994), p. 135.40
ibid., p. 136.41Stephen Bourne, Black Poppies,History Today, vol. 63, no. 10, 2013, pp. 52-56.42The Times, Friday June 13 1919, p. 9.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
17/65
14
Assistance'.43However, Tabili argues that, While some interracial couples encountered
social ostracism, others were accepted, even living in the same house with the wives parents,
a common British working-class residential pattern.44
Britain's imperial population also existed beyond seaports. Walvin notes that, as early
as 1910, Parliament identified a second group[s] of Negroes . . . mainly West Indians, who
had emigrated to England in the hope of improving their lot . . .'45Tabili argues that a
multicultural Black political identity emerged among working men in interwar in Britain.46
This was alongside a multicultural Black British identity which developed in a process of
struggle against assaults by white elites . .47Despite some co-operation, particularly after the
Italian invasion of Abyssinia, disparate factions existed in the metropole and there were,
'rivalries among Africans, among West Indians, among black students, black workers and
frequently among all groups together'48during the 1930s and 40s.
Also in the metropole were Sikh street hawkers from the Punjab, who arrived in the
1920s and 30s, andfactory workers.49Visram points to the 1932 Indian National Congress
survey of, all Indians outside India[which] estimated that there were 128 Indians in the
United Kingdom. Whether seamen, many of whom were constantly travelling in and out of
the country, were recorded in this number is unstated. This figure seems small, especially
when considered alongside statistics, such as, It is estimated that before 1947 about 1,000
Indian doctors practised throughout Britain, 200 of them in London alone . .50Thus, it is
43James Walvin,Black and White: The Negro and English Society 1555-1945 (London: Allen Lane, 1973), p.
210.44Tabili,We Ask for British Justice, p. 145.45Walvin,Black and White,p. 202.46Tabili, We Ask for British Justice, p. 159.47ibid., p. 160.48
Walvin,Black and White, p. 211.49Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 192.50ibid., p. 191.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
18/65
15
likely the number was considerably higher. Bourne argues that, It has been estimated that in
1914 there were at least 10,000 black Britons, many of African and West Indian descent.51
Men and women from across the Empire had given their energies and, in many cases,
their lives to the Britains war. Many survivors resented the toll this had taken and the
apparent lack of appreciation shown to them by the Mother Country. However, black men
rejected attempts at state-sponsored repatriation, preferring Britain to a life of colonial
exploitation and subordination.52As a result, by 1918, Britains black population is believed
to have trebled to 30,000.53According to Tabili, many invoked their war service and,
refashioned imperial rhetoric to defend their rights as British subjects.54In this way, these
former soldiers echoed the language of the independence movements. Bourne quotes John
Archer, Britain's first black Mayor, whose speech at the inaugural meeting of the African
Progress Union argued that black Britons should, claim our rightful place within the Empire
. . . if we are good enough to be brought to fight the wars of the country we are good enough
to receive the benefits of country.55
Archers resentment at being treated like a lesser citizen mirrored a wider
dissatisfaction within the metropole and out in the Empire. Colonial nationalists in the
metropole were supported in their anti-imperial stance by communists who, Shompa Lahiri
argued, encouraged foreign antipathy (through students in Britain) to the Empire56. Walvin
highlighted an emerging 'black intellectual group' of the 1930s, which, he argued, 'was to
exercise a political influence out of all proportion to its numbers in the years after 1945.'
Much of this activity was based in London and a number of the most notable activists,
51Bourne, Black Poppies, p. 52.52Tabili, We Ask for British Justice, p. 138.53Bourne, Black Poppies, p.52.54Tabili,We Ask for British Justice, p. 137.55
Bourne, Black Poppies, p. 56.56Shompa Lahiri,Indians in Britain: Anglo-Indians Encounters, Race and Identity, 1880-1930
(Cass, 2000), p. 179.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
19/65
16
including Jomo Kenyatta, C. L. R. James and Paul Robeson, would have some connection to
Student Movement House in the 1930s, when Mary Trevelyan was Warden. Walvin wrote
that at this time, 'Black nationalists from Africa, the West Indies and the United States found
in London a focus for their actions, and a source of black co-operation.'57In uniting against
racial prejudice, black people in Britain forced some social change, including the removal of
the colour bar in the British armed forces in 19 October 193958.
As a result of emigration and war mobility, increasing numbers of Britons knew
someone who lived in a colony or dominion. There, white colonial settlers developed their
own imperial identity. Angela Woollacott observes that, 'Australians knew themselves to be
parts of the British Empire in both amorphous and specific ways', such as by celebrating
Empire Day.59However, it is less clear that Britons in the metropole considered white settler
population to be as British as they were, or to be equals in Empire. Discussing the early
twentieth century, Woollacott points to evidence of a condescension toward colonials.60It is
useful to consider whether this can be seen as a form of racism. Women from the Empire
were liable to be further discriminated against on grounds of gender: Woollacott argues that
Australian women in the period suffered 'sexist prejudice'.61
Imperial subjects in Britain often held negative views of the Empire from their
position within the metropole. Anti-colonialist media, likeNegro Worker in 1932, wrote that,
British imperialist agents in the colonies, such as the Church of England missionary, try:
to create the impression among native peoples that no matter what
injustices they suffer in the colonies, in England a warm welcome
awaits them! . . every Negro, Indian, Arab or other coloured person
57Walvin,Black and White,p. 211.58ibid.,p. 212.59
Angela Woollacott,To Try Her Fortune in London (Oxford: OUP, 2001), p. 148.60ibid., p. 96.61ibid., p. 96.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
20/65
17
who has ever lived in England knows from actual experience that all
this missionary twaddle is nothing but a lie.62
It was views such as this that interwar Christians such as Mary Trevelyan were eager to
challenge, particularly among the, often politically active, overseas student population.
Experiences of overseas students in Britain
During the interwar years, not all immigrants or visitors to Britain originated in the Empire.
Students came from a variety of nations: there were Jewish refugees from Europe as well as
visitors of varied professions from the USA.
Middle-class students, mainly from India, Africa and the Caribbean, were one of the
diverse groups of colonial migrants in Britain during this period63. Their incomes varied:
according to Visram, many Indians lived in insufficient funds64. The presence of such
foreign middle-class students had an impact on large cities and also the academic Oxford,
Cambridge, Edinburgh and Durham. The views of foreign studentswere affected daily by
their experience in Britain and their treatment by Britons. Lahiri argues that, Britains impact
on Indian students was therefore affected by external factors such as discrimination and
financial difficulties.65This supports Visrams argument that Indian students, particularly,
had problems, compounded by religious, cultural and dietary practices. So many students
felt lonely and isolated.66But, she notes, . . . during the 1930s and 1940s many Indian
medical students stayed in Britain to practise as doctors67Lahiri argues that as early as 1907
a government committee concluded that Indian students negative views towards British rule
62Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 183.63Robert Winder,Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain(Abacus, 2005), p.293.64Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p.181.65
Lahiri,Indians in Britain, p. 201.66Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 181.67ibid., p. 191.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
21/65
18
and, discontent are usually strengthened by their residence in England.68There were
exceptions to this. Visram highlights a Cambridge student who considered the British in the
metropole kinder than those in India, commenting that it was only at their firesides that their
kindness and consideration, their unaffectedness and their liberality of mind was met with.
Yet, even he noted, an innate sense of superiority in the Englishman which makes him look
upon himself as belonging to a race the first in all the world.69Nevertheless, life was often
difficult for black overseas students and, During the Second World War many graduate
students were called up; other students had to find employmentmostly unskilled factory
workas their families were unable to send them money.70
As a result of these difficulties, London, particularly, provided alternative homes for
imperial migrants. In this way, Britain appeared to welcome the Empire to the metropole.
Many of these institutions were aimed at colonial students, such as the hostel for Indian
students and English societies and persons interested in India that opened in Kensington in
191071. By 1932, the Indian Students Union and Hostel was situated opposite SMH. 72Other
overseas students clubs included London House (for white colonized people), the India
Hostel (for those from India) and Aggrey House (for students from Africa and the West
Indies).
As the society and culture of the metropole altered during the 1930s and 40s, so to did
British Christian mission. Many leading Christians had personal experience, through their
overseas missionary work, of growing anti-imperial sentiment and activism. At the same
time, there was concern about the difficult lives and unhappiness among overseas students.
Alongside changes within the British Christian movement, the visibility of imperial subjects
68Lahiri,Indians in Britain, p. 123.69Visram,Ayahs, Lascars and Princes, p. 182.70
ibid., p. 181.71ibid., p. 180.72ibid., p. 181.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
22/65
19
in the metropole would affect Christian thinking and impact on missionary culuture. In this
period, leading Christians would shift their focus to the metropole and what could be
achieved there in relation to the wider empire. The Student Christian Movement contributed
greatly to changes taking place in the mission in these years. In turn, these changes would
impact on Mary Trevelyan and her work at Student Movement House.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
23/65
20
Chapter Two
British Christian Mission and the shifting role of the Student Christian Movement
The chapter opens by looking at the origins of the Student Christian Movement (SCM) and
examines the changing nature of Christian mission organisations within Britain and the
Empire in the lead up to 1932. The argument moves on to consider the place of the SCM
within this mission framework in the metropole, and concludes with an examination of
whether the civilizing mission existed, albeit at a weaker level, in the interwar mission
movement.
The origins of the Student Christian Movement within the global missionary framework
The Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (SCM) was formed by
a merger of the British Inter-University Christian Union [from 1885 it was the British College
Christian Union73] and the Student Volunteer Missionary Union (SVMU). SVMU had been
formed in 1892 with the aim of encouraging students into overseas missionary work.74The
Union existed to establish Christian Unions in higher education. The merger of the two
represented the formal integration in one unit of a number of different strands of student-run
evangelical religion in British Universities75. In 1904 the name was changed to the SCM.
The British SCM was one of many national SCMs across the globe and was affiliated to the
World Student Christian Federation (WSCF), which had been founded in 1895 by the
American evangelist and chairman of the WSCF from 1888 to 1920, John Raleigh [R.] Mott
(1865-1955).76
73Tissington Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland (London: SCM
Press, 1933), p. 65.74G. D. Henderson, Fifty Years of the Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 50, no. 11,
1939, pp. 520-523.75
Steve Bruce, The Student Christian Movement: A Nineteenth Century Movement and its Vicissitudes, TheInternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, 1982, pp. 67-82.
76C. H. Hopkins,John R. Mott, 1865-1955: A Biography(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979).
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
24/65
21
The SCMs non-denominational membership comprised unions, or local SCMs, at
universities and other institutions of higher education, such as schools of art and technical
colleges. From 1912, the Movement was run by a committee of undergraduates and graduate
secretaries, overseen by a general secretary. Some secretaries worked at universities, whilst
other travelling secretaries visited students, but all came together at the annual Summer
Conference to meet and worship. From 1911, the conference took place in Swanwick,
Derbyshire and was organised by the SCMs staff from its headquarters, firstly in Chancery
Lane and then at Annandale, Golders Green in north London77.
Between 1898 and 1929, the general secretary was Tissington Tatlow (1876-1957), an
Irish missionary who was ordained in 1902. So influential was Tatlow in the SCM and British
Christian Mission, that Hugh Martin argued, it was owing to him more than to any other man
that the movement came to exercise its great influence over the life of the church.78Martin
himself served as SCM assistant secretary from 1914.79Other key figures in the interwar
SCM included its Missionary Secretary 1911-1921, William [Bill] Paton (1886-1943), and
William Temple (1881-1944), who progressed from SCM spokesmen to be ordained
Archbishop of both York and Canterbury. Patons son, David (1913-1992), was secretary of
the SCM between 1936 and 1939. Other members from this period would go on to be Bishop
of Chichester (George Bell, 1883-1958), Bishop of Lichfield (Edward Woods, 1877-1953),
and president of the Young Womens Christian Association (Ruth Rouse, 1872-1956). All
were strong proponents of ecumenicalism, also known from the mid-twentieth century as
ecumenism. This was a belief in the global unity of all Christians, regardless of
denomination. The international aspect of ecumenicalism, and its blindness to segregation,
77Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement, p. 465.78Hugh Martin, Tatlow, Tissington (1876-1957), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 36422.79Cecil Northcott, Martin, Hugh (1890-1964), rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004), p. 34905.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
25/65
22
fitted with developing philosophies in the Mission movement, as well as those of politics and
society beyond.
Besides Rouse, women were welcome leaders of the SCM and increasingly
significant to the missionary movement as a whole. Zoe Fairfield (1878-1936), the SCMs
Joint Secretary between 1910 and 1926, was instrumental in the establishment of Student
Movement House (SMH). Martin argued, In the Student Movement one finds men and
women working together in terms of equality, and in a spirit of comradeship.80Robin Boyd
(a former missionary who served on the staff of the British SCM between 1951 and 1955)
noted the SCMs support for womens ministry81; Gray agreed, writing, The Movement
holds personality more important than sex.82
At first, Tatlow took a tentative approach to ecumenicalism in the SCM, encouraging
Christian students to prioritize, loyaltyto their own denomination.83This changed after the
World Missionary Conference of Edinburgh 1910. Edinburgh was one of a series of annual
global missionary conferences that began in India in 1872. In 1910, the presiding officer was
John R. Mott and, together with the Indian-born Scottish conference secretary, Joseph
Houldsworth [Joe] Oldham (1874-1969), he ensured that the occasion was used to plan for a
more united approach from the world missionary movement. K. S. Latourette, a Yale
historian who was an active student missionary in 1910, argued that Edinburgh, was the
birthplace of the modern ecumenical movement.84Mott regarded ecumenicalism as an
international project and later wrote of Edinburgh that, The evangelisation of the non-
80Robin Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement,International Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 1, 2007,
pp. 3-8.81ibid., p. 5.82A. Herbert Gray, The Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 43, no. 12, 1932, pp. 558-
561.83Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), pp.
320-1.84
Kenneth Scott Latourette, Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the InternationalMissionary Council, inA History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, ed. Ruth Rouse and Stephen
Charles Neill (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1954), p. 362.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
26/65
23
Christian world is not alone a European and an American enterprise; it is to an even greater
degree and Asiatic and an African enterprise.85
Despite Motts intention, there was little evidence of Asians or Africans in Edinburgh.
Brian Stanley has assessed the 1910 Conference, looking at how views forged in the
twentieth century metropole affected the work of missionaries in the wider empire. Stanley
argues that the conference had an imperial slant, with only eighteen Asian delegates and one
African among the official 1,215 delegates. The others came from Europe and North
America, and were almost exclusively Protestant. Stanley also challenges the view of
Latourette that the modern missionary movement reached an apex in 1910 with this
conference, criticizing the lack of focus on Africa and absence of Roman Catholic or Eastern
Orthodox missions.
Instead, the conference is seen as highlighting a continued belief among Western
missions that they were separate from the East. Stanley highlights an assumption among the
conference organisers that global Christianity was based in and emanated from Christian
world of the western hemisphere being spread to the non-Christian world of the east:
[the delegates] had to accept that a crudely geographical division
between Christendom and heathendom was the only basis on which
the fragile ecumenical consensus at Edinburgh could be maintained.86
This was perhaps an unconscious and unintended assumption by the conference organizers.
Nevertheless, such an attitude could be seen as a reflection of Protestant missionary activity
in 1910 when 71 per cent of Protestant missionaries were British or North American87.
Despite this, while there may be dispute over the conferences reach, it is generally agreed
85John R. Mott, The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions (Toronto: The Missionary Society of the Methodist
Church, 1910), p. 191.86
Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, p. 303.87Brian Stanley, Edinburgh 1910 and the Genesis of theIRM,International Review of Mission, vol. 100, no. 2,
2011, p. 150.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
27/65
24
that Edinburgh 1910 marked the beginning of the modern ecumenical movement88.
Ecumenicalism would dominate the missionary movement throughout the 1930s.
At this time, the global Christian mission community, controlled as it was by the west,
sought to alter the focus of its missionary work from foreign missions(such as those across
the British Empire) towards the metropole, as part of a new focus on the evangelization of
the world89. This inclusivity was evidence of the inclination to ecumenicalism. Mott and
Oldhams positions in the SCM and WSCF, held during their leadership of the 1910
conference, are given as reasons why the organisation, with its frenetically evangelical
ecumenism90, is seen as strongly influencing events there. The SCMs ecumenical
philosophy was brought to fore thanks to the enthusiasm of its members at the conference.
The SCM and its move away from imperially-oriented overseas mission to promoting
Christianity to overseas students in the metropole.
Alongside its enthusiasm for ecumenicalism, the SCM of the interwar years was increasingly
involved in social justice. After the Great War, there was a strong focus on relief work for
those impoverished or made homeless by the conflict. The largest missionary field of the
1930s was sub-Saharan Africa with 2,894 missionaries, but much of the focus of missionary
writing and conference discussion was on India and China.91Missionaries working outside
the metropole could not ignore the growing strength of independence movements,
particularly that of India. At its 1921 Glasgow Quadrennial, the international agenda was
discussed92, and the SCM demonstrated its commitment to the Christian values of humanity
and peace by, Boyd claimed, repudiating the 1919 massacre of unarmed Indian civilians in
88Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, pp. 3-8.89ibid., p. 3.90Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, p. 24.91
Jeffrey Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700(New York: Routledge, 2008), p. 234.92Hugh Martin, The Student Christian Movement: A survey of its history and growth (London, Student
Christian Movement, 1924), p. 10.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
28/65
25
Amritsar and sympathizing with the Indian movements aspirations for Indian self-
government.Boyd argued that this was the first political message sent by the SCM to
another movement.93
This incipient politicisation of the SCM was further evident in its focus on social reform
in the metropole. William Temple was one of the movements strongest proponents of
Christian involvement in social affairs: as early as 1910, this self-proclaimed socialist and
president of the Workers Educational Association, was demonstrating a commitment to
Christian action in the metropole. Temple would go on to popularize the term welfare state.
From 1929, the significance of his beliefs would make a major contribution to British
Christian and global missionary thinking when he was appointed Archbishop of York, the
second most senior Anglican cleric in the world. Despite his eminence, Temple remained
intimately associated with the SCM for thirty-seven years.94He continued to be noted for
embracing its social concern and encouraging international ecumenism through his writing
and speeches.95
At the 1937 Oxford Conference, Temple gave a sermon in support of ecumenism, arguing
that it was not enough for people to be Christians in name, they had to live as Christians96
and, take up the task to which they are summoned by the need of the world.97Temples pre-
eminence and regular presence at conferences led to an almost constant reminder of this call
to Christians throughout 1929-44. Jeffrey Cox argues that despite a reduction in church
attendance, in part as a result of the decline, ofNonconformity as a category of social
definition98, there was evidence of support for Temples values across the missionary
93Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement, p. 4.94Tissington Tatlow, William Temple,Religion in Education, vol. 12, no. 2, 1945.95Adrian Hastings, Temple, William (18811944), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2012 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/36454, accessed 30
Nov 2013].96Leonard Hodgson (ed.),The Second World Conference on Faith and Order, Edinburgh 1937 (London, SCM,
1938), pp.15-23.97ibid., p. 395.98Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 234.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
29/65
26
movement of the interwar years, citing its hopes for a multiracial, global Christian
commonwealth.99Temples sudden death on 26 October 1944 would result in the movement
turning away from the values of social justice that he had encouraged, but during the interwar
and early Second World War period, Temples views were highly influential among Christian
missions.
One of those saddenedby Temples sudden death was the poet T. S. Eliot, an American
who became a British citizen and Anglican in 1927.100Eliot was an active and influential
Anglican, who spoke at a number of SCM conferences and would become a patron of SMH.
Between 1938 and 1947, Eliot attended The Moot, a private discussion group formed of
prominent Christian intellectuals. Convened by Joe Oldham, The Moot grew out of the 1937
Oxford Conference, but its aim was to continue, in an informal, confidential but serious way,
exploration between church and society and the realisation of Christian ethics in the public
sphere.101The Moot examined the predominant values of Christian mission during the
period, especially those of ecumenicalism, social justice and internationalism.
British Christian missions post-1910 commitment to internationalism, was as significant
to its interwar leadership as ecumenism and social justice. Boyd connected all three, seeing
the sense of internationalism within the SCM as a reflection of a wider attitude of social and
racial justice as an integral part of the churchs mission. As early as 1919, the SCMs
Call to Battle declared, We are convinced that this [international] unity is the only hope of
peace and of the true development of nations102. The SCMs commitment to internationalism
was further demonstrated through its support for the League of Nations and the work of SMH
in London. There was also a desire to ease international tensions. Bill Paton, writing in 1919
99Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 233.100Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS Am 1691.2, T. S. Eliot's Letters to Mary Trevelyan (1940-1956),
30 October 1944.101
Keith Clements ed., The Moot Papers: Faith, Freedom and Society 1938-1944(Edinburgh: T & T ClarkInternational, 2009), p. 1.
102Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement, p. 685.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
30/65
27
after three years serving as a missionary in India, was worried about the anti-British opinions
being formed by Indian students in the metropole, some of whom, return to India hating the
country of their exile. Paton saw the presence of Indian students in Britain as a challenge to
Christians and important from the point of view of relations between Britain and India; and
is doubly important from the point of view Christianity.103In this way, Paton prioritized the
needs of Christianity over the needs of Britain and imperialism.
Due to his personal experiences in India, including of civil disobedience, Paton was
aware of the growing political tension104. In 1911 Paton had married Grace MacDonald,
whose practical commitment to social reform, such as working to improve nurses conditions
in Calcutta, had a great influence on Patons mission work and teachings.105Paton ensured
that his experience in India impacted on SCM work in the metropole and that he saw this
work through the lens of Christian teaching rather than imperialist propaganda.
Besides the inception of SMH, SCM met this challenge of Indian students in our
midst by creating a position on the staff of the British SCM for a representative from the
Indian SCM, which had been established in 1912.106Martin agreed with Paton that
disillusionment and embitterment might foster amongst foreign students and others abroad
in the empire against everything Western and Christian.107In 1929, he wrote,
There are about 6,000 foreign students in our colleges, from about
sixty different countries including some 1,538 Indians, of whom
nearly half are in London, and 93 Chinese. About 1,000 students from
the colonies are included in the total. . . . it is of the greatest
103William Paton, Social Ideas in India (London: SCM, 1919), pp. 97-8.104Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, Paton, William (1886-1943), Secretary International
Missionary Council: correspondence, 1910-43.105E. M. Jackson, Paton, William, in Gerald H. Anderson (ed.), Biographical Dictionary of Christian Missions
(New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 1988), p. 519.106
Dana L Robert, The First Globalization: The Internationalization of the Protestant Missionary Movementbetween the World Wars,International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol. 26, no 2, 2002, pp. 50-66.
107Martin, The Student Christian Movementp. 10.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
31/65
28
importance that these men and women, in particular the Oriental
students, should be welcomed and helped to see something of the best
of our British life. Their presence in this country provides a unique
opportunity of inestimable importance for the promotion of
international understanding and goodwill.108
This is similar to Patons view, and demonstrates Martins and thus the SCMs
focus on internationalism or international understanding and goodwill. This
need would become a greater priority to the SCM throughout the 1930s as
relations in the international community soured and the League of Nations failed
repeatedly to maintain peace.
Did interwar Christians challenge traditional imperial values such as the 'civilizing mission'?
Since the publication of Orientalism, the cultural values of the British Empire have
been seen through traditional frameworks of the colonized and colonizer, with
missionaries being judged as the latter. In this way, missionaries are seen to reflect all aspects
of imperial culture, including oppression, capitalism and racial prejudice. More recently,
distinctions have been made within these terms, for example by Elizabeth Kolsky, who
identifies the official colonizers of the army and colonial service, as different from those such
as missionaries, who are non-official109. Cox has argued against traditional views,
criticizing those who, treat missionaries . . . as nothing more than cultural imperialists. Cox
agrees with Saids binary view of colonizers and colonized but argues that there is a contact
zone, a region of hybridity and a transculturization, that takes place between them, and that
this is where missionary activity is found.110 This theory of transculturization seems useful
108Martin, The Student Christian Movement, p. 10109
Elizabeth Kolsky, Colonial Justice in British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) pp. 5,44.
110Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p.6.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
32/65
29
to apply to the missionary movement of the interwar years, and is more applicable to this
dissertation than more traditional assessments of missionaries in the mid-nineteenth century.
Nevertheless, whether they are seen as official or unofficial, missionaries have been
seen as cultural colonizers driven by a desire to civilize. Clare Midgley, for example, has
highlighted female missionaries in the nineteenth century who regarded Indian women as
being in need of liberation by British ladies111. Catherine Hall observed that to English
non-conformist missionaries of the mid-nineteenth century, Christianity and civilisation
were intimately linked.112However, it is questionable that in the interwar period, the SCM as
an organization, or a large number of individuals belonging to it, saw non-Christians as
uncivilised. Despite this, that decisions regarding non-Christians were made at conferences
in the metropole by a majority of Westerners rather than in the missionary field indicates that
a separation between colonizer and colonized continued to an extent.
There is little evidence that SCMs work in Britain over the first half of the twentieth
century was used to civilise those from overseas, but more to extend the hand of friendship.
As early as the 1938, Hall notes, CLR James, who had attended a lecture at SMH in 1932
during Trevelyans time as Warden113, challenged the assumption that causality always ran
from the centre to the colony, and that metropolitan politics were unrelated to those of the
periphery.114By the interwar years, the missionary movement differed in thought and action
from its Victorian counterpart. Mission organizers were keen to focus on the metropole and
were becoming serious about promoting indigenous leadership on the churches.115By the
1930s, there was an emergence of indigenous non-western Christianity.116Beyond the
111Clare Midgley, Gender and Imperialism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), pp. 64-65.112Catherine Hall, Civilising Subjects: Metropole and Colony in the English Imagination, 1830-1867
(Cambridge: Polity, 2002), p. 21.113C. L. R. James, (Laughlin, Nicholas, ed.),Letters (Oxford: Prospect Press, 2003).114
Hall, Civilising Subjects, p. 8.115Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 237.116ibid., p. 239.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
33/65
30
confines of the SCM leadership, not all missionaries were committed to the new
internationalist thinking. Traditionally imperial racist views continued as is evident in Grace
Patons letter of 1 March 1922 from Calcutta to her husband:
I must tell you the tale of an English (or rather Scotch) missionary,
who said to Mary Oldham117he couldnt think what all the fuss about
the Moplak train tragedy was (64 were suffocated, you will
remember) it didnt matter with those sort of people, they werent like
us. This man is young too . . I was afraid this sounded too depressed .
. . the race hatred.118
Grace and Bill Paton were both admirers of Gandhi and were not alone in this among the
missionary movement. As early as 1921, the SCM was proclaiming its support for Indian
independence. During the 1930s, many prominent Christians were vocal in their support for
Indian independence. Pragmatically, and demonstrating his priority, Paton viewed the
situation from the view of Christian mission and was pleased by his position as an active
missionary in Calcutta, writing to Graces mother that, one could not wish for a better job
than to have a hand in the co-ordination of the Christian forces at this moment in Indias
history.119
Also present in India was the missionary Charles Freer Andrews (1871-1940), a
friend of Gandhi. Whilst performing missionary work, Andrews became an active
campaigner for Indian independence and social reform, and took his message to the British
and American SCM conferences of 1918.120121Andrews Christian beliefs manifested
themselves through pacifism. One source of painful disagreement122with his friend was
117Mary Oldham, nee Fraser, wife of J. H. Oldham.118Letter from Grace Paton, Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, 1 March 1922, p. 4.119Letter from William Paton, Special Collections, University of Birmingham, DA35, 6 April 1922, p. 1.120
Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 6.121Boyd, The Witness of the Student Christian Movement,p. 5.122C. F. Andrews,Mahatma Gandhis Ideas (New York: Macmillan, 1930), p. 133.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
34/65
31
over Gandhis support for Indian volunteering for the Great War. Andrews remained a
committed pacifist.
The pragmatic visionaries of the SCM were looking to a Christianity that could
function outside imperialism. If India were to become independent and leave the Empire, a
strong internationalist Christianity was required. Rev. Golak Nath, an Indian Christian
running the American Presbyterian Mission at Jullundur, saw imperialism as the biggest
impediment to global cohesion; he believed imperialism prevented, sympathy between
missionaries and Indian Christians.123Cox describes Rev. Nath as being, committed to the
missionary fantasy, as Cox puts it, of a multiracial Christian commonwealth.124Yet for
Paton, Oldham, Temple and the SCM in the 1920s and 30s, such acommonwealth was more
hope than fantasy.
Cox argues that British missionary enterprise has been caught between the empire of
Christ and the empire of Britain.125The evidence examined thus far suggests that the SCM
wished to create an empire of Christ through the medium of internationalism. However, a
move towards internationalism was not necessarily a rejection of Britishness. In some
respects, Britishness (or Englishness) was represented by the Anglican Church, the official
Church of England, but this Church was perhaps less involved in practical missionary activity
than nonconformist denominations, such as Methodists and Baptists. For this reason, it is not
accepted that the British establishment dominated Protestant missionary activity in the early
twentieth century. John Mott, for example, was an American Methodist, while Oldham
worked as secretary of the Mission Study council of the United Free Church in Scotland126.
123William Roger Louis, Still More Adventures with Britannia: Personalities, Politics and Culture in Britain
(London: I B Tauris, 2003), p. 305.124
Cox, The British Missionary Enterprise since 1700, p. 19.125ibid., p. 21.126Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, p. 23.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
35/65
32
Paton was a Presbyterian minister, but his son was Anglican and his mission activity was
strongly influenced by his wife who converted to Roman Catholicism in 1936127.
In 1929, Gray argued that the aim of the SCM was, To hold up Christ Himself before
the students of the world.128Christianity and leading an active Christian life, therefore, were
more important to the avowed work of the SCM than national values. On the other hand, in
promoting friendship with Indian students the SCM could be seen to promote a pro-British
outlook in India, on in which the British religion of Christianity could foster in the days after
the impending independence. As discussed above, this is what Paton wanted and as Gray
described, the Student Movement [through SMH] has made a very real contribution towards
the solution of this problem. No finer bit of constructive peace work can be recorded.129
The SCMs commitment to internationalism was central to Mary Trevelyans work at
Student Movement House. She would be inspired by the idealism of the interwar years and
would rise up to meet the challenge faced by students and Christians during the Second
World War.
127
Jackson, Paton, William, p. 519.128Martin, The Student Christian Movement, p. 12.129Gray, The Student Christian Movement, pp. 560.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
36/65
33
Chapter Three
Civilizing Mission? Mary Trevelyan and Student Movement House, 1932-1946
This chapter begins by discussing Mary Trevelyans background and life history and
then moves onto an examination of her place of work, Student Movement House (SMH). The
chapter concludes with an assessment of whether her work and that of the House were
examples of cultural imperialism or cultural internationalism.
Mary Trevelyan (1897-1983)
Mary Trevelyans family background was strongly Anglican, with many of her relatives
committed to public service. Both these qualities would influence Trevelyans later career.
Her father, Reverend George Philip Trevelyan (1858-1937), both grandfathers, and brother-
in-law were ordained. Her older brother, Humphrey (later Baron Trevelyan; 1905-1985),
worked as a diplomat in the Indian Civil Service. Marys great great-grandfather was a
baronet, and through her great grandfather, the Ven. George Trevelyan (1764-1827), Mary
was second cousin to George Macaulay Trevelyan (1876-1962), Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge. G. M. Trevelyan was a notable historian and would become Vice President of
SMH.
Trevelyans background placed her firmly in the English upper-middle class: her
nephew, Humphrey Carpenter, described the family as belonging to a sublimely self-
confident caste130. In character, Trevelyan was determined, idealistic and energetic:
described by her friend, T. S. Eliot, as industrious, honest, and moderately temperate'131. The
130Humphrey Carpenter, Poor Tom: Mary Trevelyans View of T. S. Eliot,English, vol. 30, no. 160, 1989, pp.
37-52.131Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS Am 1691.2, T. S. Eliot's Letters to Mary Trevelyan (1940-1956),28 September 1946.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
37/65
34
eldest of six, she was well-educated, and was first employed as a music teacher at a boys
public school.
In 1932, at the age of 35 and unmarried, Mary Trevelyan was appointed by the SCM
as Warden of Student Movement House at 32 Russell Square in Londons Bloomsbury. Her
staunchly Christian background and experience of working with young people fitted her to
the task of caring for overseas students. Trevelyan ran the club, assisted by two male and two
female graduates, who were, usually British, but we had Dutch, Canadian, American, New
Zealand, and even a Chinese on the staff . . . 132In 1938, these graduates included James
Christopher MacDonald Paton (1915-1989), son of Bill Paton. Trevelyans use of the word
even in reference to the Chinese staff member in a list of graduates from predominately
white nations may imply that it was unusual for staff to be a non-white. However, it is
perhaps not so surprising given that the Chinese Christian Union used the House for their
meetings133. The Club Committee was more nationally mixed, with only five English
members out of twelve in 1938134.
In 1937, Trevelyan took a sabbatical from SMH to travel to Ceylon, India, Burma,
Singapore, Penang, China, Japan, America and Canada. She wanted to learn about the worlds
into which international students were returning.135Trevelyan felt her travels informed her
work, later writing, I have found that one can help people from abroad much better if one
has some knowledge of their background.136. In a letter dated 10 November 1936137,
Archbishop Temple, Halifax, William Paton, the educationalist A. D. Lindsay and geologist
Thomas H. Holland asked Trevelyan to report on her investigations in India. Sumita
132Mary Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth: An account of the authors experiences as Warden of the
Student Movement House (London: Faber & Faber, 1942), p. 19.133Tissington Tatlow, The Story of the Student Christian Movement (London: SCM Press, 1933), p. 167.134Special Collections, University of Birmingham, Records of the Student Christian Movement: Student
Movement House: S1. Student Movement House Annual Report 2, 1938-9.135
Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth, p. 70.136Mary Trevelyan, African Student at Home,African Affairs, vol. 54, no. 214, 1955, pp. 37-41.137Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth,p.161.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
38/65
35
Mukherjee observes that Trevelyan, was struck by the high incidence of unemployment
among the England-returned in India and, the unhappiness of these men who had
psychological difficulties adjusting upon their return home.138Some of this unhappiness was
as a result of the envy and scorn of Indians who had remained in India and who, Trevelyan
felt, fear competition.139Trevelyan noted that former students who had trained for the Indian
Civil Service were busy and well contented with their profession.140She concluded the less
serious students were unemployed short-term view of employment141, but others, such as
lawyers, faced difficulties finding work in India.142Trevelyan was not always sympathetic to
Indian students, particularly those who did not focus on study.
Nevertheless, inspired by her visit to the residential International House of New York
in the USA, she returned to London fully committed to promoting internationalism. The three
American International Houses of New York, Berkeley and Chicago offered to students an
introduction to American ways of thinking and living: for American students an opportunity
for acquaintance with cultures other than their own.143The chief difference between these
and SMH was that they were residential, which Trevelyan felt provided students with the
opportunity to get to know each other better . . .144
Within a few years, a major part of her role as Warden was spearheading a fund-
raising campaign to pay for a new building for the club. SMHs Russell Square premises was
set to be destroyed in plans for the London University extension of 1939. An appeal was
launched in 1938, and Trevelyan used all her family and work contacts to assist. Thanks to
these, along with Trevelyans own energy and vision, the appeal was successful and in April
138Sumita Mukherjee,Nationalism, Education and Migrant Identities: The England-returned(Abingdon:
Routledge, 2010), p. 115.139Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth, p. 165.140ibid., p.83.141ibid., p. 165.142
ibid., p. 82.143ibid., p. 115.144ibid., p. 115.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
39/65
36
1939, SMH moved into new premises, a short walk from Russell Square, at 103 Gower
Street.145
During the Second World War, despite the Bloomsbury area being hit heavily by air
raids, Trevelyan remained in post until September 1944 when she was granted leave of
absence by SCM to go to Brussels to run a YMCA leave hostel for allied soldiers. Using her
experience of managing SMH, Trevelyan co-operated with her fellow relief workers from
different backgrounds, including Catholics, Socialists and Communists, which she considered
one of the few good results of Nazi domination.146This is evidence of Trevelyans
optimistic, if slightly narrow, outlook: Trevelyan tended to focus on the positive aspects of
socio-cultural interaction and on her own tasks.
After returning in May 1945, Trevelyan found employment by the SCM increasingly
difficult. T. S. Eliot sympathized, writing on 3 April 1945, But I imagine they will accept
your terms: they wont get anybody else who could do the job . . .147Lyndall Gordon
highlighted the poor relationship that existed between Trevelyan and her employer, as when
she told a younger friend, Ann Stokes, that she loathed the Student Christian Movement who
regarded her running of the Student Movement House as lacking in gravitas & fervent efforts
to convert the many students from umpteen countries & religions.148The tension Gordon
describes between the SCM and Trevelyan over her informal, friendly approach suggests that
the Warden took a pragmatic approach to fostering international friendship which contrasted
with that of the SCM. The comment on fervent efforts to convert the many students
145101 Gower Street was acquired in 1943 [SCM: SMH: S1. Sixth Annual Report, 1943-44].146Mary Trevelyan,Ill Walk Beside You. Letters from Belgium: September 1944-May 1945(London:
Longmans & Co., 1946), p. 8.147
Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS AM 1691.2, T. S. Eliot's Letters to Mary Trevelyan (1940-1956),3 April 1945.
148Lyndall Gordon, The Imperfect Life of T. S. Eliot (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001), p. 434.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
40/65
37
contradicts Trevelyans statement in her autobiography that there should be no proselytising
in the club.149
In 1946, Trevelyan left the House, after beginning an appeal for another new building.
She continued to dream of the great International Housewhich we would set up in London
in the model of the International Houses of the United States.150This residential House would
offer greater opportunity for students of different backgrounds to get to know each other
better151. Trevelyans dream would become reality in May 1965 when International Students
House was opened in Park Crescent. The current International Students House stands as her
legacy.
Student Movement House: For Students of All Nations?
SMH was established on 2 November 1917 by SCM as a living memorial to those young
British students who fought so gallantly twenty years ago in the war to end war.152
Through international friendship, the club was intended, to heal wounds caused by conflict,
overcome prejudice and inspire the spirit of tolerance and understanding which is the only
hope of peace and the true development of nations.153Trevelyan described SMH as intending
to create a peaceful internationalist world: where people of different countries could make
real friends with each other . . . could come together in spite of, even because of their
differences.154
Rev. Herbert Gray described the establishment of SMH as, the most important single
piece of work which the British [Christian] Movement has done, going on to write that the
club was something like a real home for Foreign Students. Gray, like others in the SCM at
149Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth,p. 23.150ibid., p. 115.151ibid., p. 115.152
ibid.,p. 159.153SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1938.154Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth,p. 16.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPERIALISM AT HOME? MARY TREVELYAN AND STUDENT MOVEMENT HOUSE, 1932-1946
41/65
38
the time, were concerned about the loneliness and the sense of neglect many international
students experienced in interwar London. This concern was also related to the growing
independence movement, particularly regarding the two thousand Indian students in Great
Britain155In 1935-6, 900-1000 of the 1556 Indian students in the British Isles were studying
at the University of London156. As early as 1907, a government committee concluded that
Indian students were discontented with British rule and that this discontent [is] usually
strengthened by their residence in England.157
The official title of SMH was a Club for Students of All Nations. The club specified
that students of every race and creed were welcome.158Despite the SCM being a Christian
organisation, it was decreed that there be no religious qualification for membership, and
there should be no proselytising in the club.159Although many members did not have high
allowances, they tended to be from elite backgrounds in their respective countries, such as, a
young prince from the Gold Coast.160
Ability to speak English varied, with some students knowing scarcely a word of
English161on arrival. Although members were free to speak in whatever language they chose
in the club rooms, the lecture programme was given in English. Roughly one third of the
membership throughout its existence was British, some of whom were studying foreign
languages and others, like Bill Patonssons, had been born or lived overseas.
SMH opened from 11am to 10.30pm on weekdays, 11am-11pm on Saturdays and
2pm-11pm on Sundays. It offered students silent study rooms, club rooms for socialising, a
155A. Herbert Gray, The Student Christian Movement, The Expository Times, vol. 43, no. 12, 1932, pp. 558-
561.156Trevelyan, From The Ends of the Earth,p.165.157Shompa Lahiri,Indians in Britain. Anglo-Indians Encounters, Race and Identity, 1880-1930(London: Cass,
2000), p. 123.158SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1938.159
Trevelyan,From the Ends of the Earth,p. 23.160ibid.,pp. 17-18.161SCM: SMH: S1 Appeal 1946.
-
7/21/2019 CULTURAL IMPE