本サイト 一橋大学機関リポジトリ(HERMES-IR)

第11巻

 萩田 翔太郎 Shotaro Hagita
「キャリコ裂き」の成立 ――18世紀初頭ロンドンの騒擾をめぐるステレオタイプの用法について――
The Formation of ‘Calico-Tearing’: A Study of the Uses of Stereotypes on the Riots in Early Eighteenth-Century London
2019年10月 発行

[ 要旨 ]

1719年6月10日、ロンドンの東の郊外、スピタルフィールズで騒擾が発生した。絹織物を製造していた織布工が、街頭でキャリコのガウンを着ている女性を見つけては、それを後ろから切り裂いたのだ。こうした事件は少なくとも1720年までは頻発し、一般に「キャリコ裂き(calico–tearing)」と呼ばれていた。これまで歴史家は、事件を17世紀から続く東インド貿易をめぐる論争の一場面として理解してきた。特に、キャリコのガウンを裂くという形式に注目し、国内産業を擁護する言説がジェンダー化された暴力へと発展した例として論じた。
本稿の目的は、当時の報道と論説がどのように事件を描いたのかを分析し、同時代の観察者にとって織布工の暴力がもった意味を再構築することである。特に注目するのは、織布工がキャリコを裂く所ではなく、街頭での集団行動や治安部隊との戦闘場面を描く報道である。キャリコを問題の中心に置かないこうした描写が、当時どのような効果を発揮したのかを考えるのである。
この目的のため、本稿はスピタルフィールズという土地が帯びていた無秩序のイメージ、17世紀半ばから続く党派対立におけるステレオタイプの応酬、そして1710年代の戦争報道をめぐる論争の3つの文脈を参照する。これらの文脈に照らして、「スピタルフィールズの織布工」を「ぜいたくな女性」と対になるある種のステレオタイプと捉える。暴力を振るう織布工は、キャリコの危険性を読者に訴える目的に適う限りで言及に値したのだ。その一方で、キャリコを裂く場面ではなく集団行動や戦闘行為に注目する報道は、こうした女性蔑視のレトリックとは別の役割を騒擾に与える。特に、同じ紙面の戦争報道と並べて読まれることで、織布工の暴力は当時のヨーロッパで起きていた戦争と重なり、1688年以来戦争に関与し続ける政府を批判する視座を開くことにもなったのだ。


[ Abstract ]

On 10 June 1719, riots broke out in Spitalfields, the eastern suburb of the City of London. Weavers working in the silk weaving industry took to the streets and tore calico gowns off from the backs of women who wore them. Such incidents lasted sporadically at least until 1720 and were commonly called ‘calico-tearing’. Historians have registered the Spitalfields riots as one of the many effects of the protracted disputes since the seventeenth century on the East India trade. In particular, the tearing of calico gowns are regarded as an example of gendered violence, stemming from misogynist discourses which blamed women for indulging in foreign imports and damaging the domestic industry.
The aim of this paper is to analyse how news reports and commentaries of the time described the incidents and reconstruct the meaning of the weavers’ violence for contemporary observers. The main source is the weekly newspaper, a new genre of news media at that time known for the variety of its contents. In this media, the weavers’ tearing of calico gowns was news of secondary importance as many reports focused instead on their manoeuvres in the streets and clashes with the militia and guards. Such reports demand explanation because, unlike historians’ common view, they did not seem to locate calico at the centre of dispute.
For this purpose, the paper refers to the three interrelated contexts: the images of disorder historically associated with Spitalfields, the circulation of partisan stereotypes in religious and political conflicts since the mid-seventeenth century, and the controversy on war correspondence in the 1710s. In light of these contexts, newspapers of the time can be considered prejudiced for focusing on the Spitalfields weavers committing violence. Indeed, the Spitalfields weavers were worthy of focus only when they were violent. As scholars have suggested, critics of foreign trade targeted women’s choice of clothes because women had long been associated with luxury whose unruly consumption was believed to cause the breakdown of society. The violent weavers seem to have been the counterpart of such stereotyped women in luxury, both of whom contributed to warning the reader against the dangers of calico imports. While acknowledging such misogynist uses, the paper also identifies another usage of the stereotype which did not touch female fashion. If the reports of the riots were read alongside war correspondence in the same newspaper, the weavers’ manoeuvres and clashes could overlap with the warfare taking place in Europe at that time. The paper’s ultimate goal is to examine the extent to which this overlap could become criticism of the government whose unceasing commitment with wars since 1688 was widely feared to cause social breakdown.