Also today I found there seemed to have been a spilt in October 1973, when several members, including the former Chairman (and founder), his wife and daughter, and a couple of others, all resigned. This was in relation to an incident involving the Chairman – from what I can work out he had the society’s best intentions at heart but he exaggerated the number of members.
I don’t know anything more than that but it was in a local paper I think (this was referred to various times) and I will hopefully get to probe further. Also it is acutely clear that SOC’EM had money issues. A fundraiser held on 10 June 1974 at Balmbra Music Hall, aptly named “SOC’EM at Balmbra’s” included a timetable with times of performers to the minute. The show had a commedian compere, a conjurer, a fire eater, a folk singer, a jazz singer, an organist and an auction. They finished with the national anthem.
They held many jumble sales and sold Christmas cards and the impression is they were often in arrears. But also that their reach was quite long. There are many letters throughout the ten years of the group’s functioning from students and members of the public asking for more information about joining and information on specific issues relating to the group. Letters from students and staff at Newcastle University, Keele University, and Lanchester Polytechnic (now Coventry University) as well as Newcastle Polytechnic (Northumbria University) show the bredth of knowledge this organisation had. They were usually about motorway and urban planning too and less about the natural environment.
Finally today’s visit also touched on tension between different environmental groups – which numbered 7 in the area in the 1970s, including SOC’EM; one member’s letter stated he was in shock why they were at odds with other environmental groups and not in coalition with them. He questioned who the enemy is – the council or the environmental groups!
I came across a mission statement today for SOC’EM. What they stand for – ‘SOC’EM! is an action group devoted to the betterment of Newcastle upon Tyne as an historic [sic], living city’. They opposed motorways, wanted a better transport network, a better bus service and believe people come before cars.
They were anti-empty office blocks and wanted the conservation and continued use of buildings of architectural and historic importance. They wanted more trees and open space and were for a better environment.
They opposed pollution and waste and wanted an ecologically sustainable society. They supported social justice in the allocation of resources and believe the city belonged to the people and not just the planners.
Taken from March 1974, their mission statement is rather vast. I am still working through the papers, today’s boxes mainly concerned with 1978 and 1973. The former offered some information but much of it was not really useful for my research. The latter, however, opened up an interesting question. Last week’s boxes produced much from the late 1970s and early 1980s, and there seemed to be a pronounced shift away from environmental concerns towards building conservation. That is to say, from the natural to the built environment. In their mission statement about they mention both; in the later 1970s and early 1980s, however, there is about 30 or so letters from the Chairman to various organisations – local authorities, the Department for the Environment, the Victorian Society and the Civic Trust about various buildings in the area and what the proposals were for them. Mostly it was to demolish them, which the organisation – or the Chairman – opposed.
The question this offered up was how far is the built environment an ‘environmental’ concern as we understand it today (ie dealing with pollution, species extinction, climate change etc). Does it have a place in a thesis on environmentalism?
It will factor, only so far as to say SOC’EM moved away from the natural and towards the built environment as time went on. Had SOC’EM been concerned fully with historic building conservation from the outside and have no issues surrounding pollution etc, then it wouldn’t be looked at to the same extent.