Skip Navigation

Social History of Medicine 2000 13(1):63-86; doi:10.1093/shm/13.1.63
© 2000 by Society for the Social History of Medicine
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SHEARD, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Articles

Profit is a Dirty Word: The Development of Public Baths and Wash-houses in Britain 1847–1915

SALLY SHEARD*

*Department of Public Health and School of History, University of Liverpool Whelan Building, Quadrangle, Liverpool L69 3GB,UK E-mail Sheard{at}liv.ac.uk

Research on sanitary reform in nineteenth-century Britain has focused mainly on the introduction of large-scale sanitary infrastructure, especially waterworks and sewerage systems Other sanitary measures such as the provision of public baths and wash-houses have been ignored, or discussed in the limited context of working-class responses to middle-class samtarianism. Yet by 1915 public baths and wash-houses were to be found in nearly every British town and city A detailed analysis of these ‘enterprises’ can provide a useful way of understanding the changing priorities of public health professionals and urban authorities as well as the changing attitudes of the working classes. Connections between personal cleanliness and disease evolved during the century, particularly after the formation of germ theory in the 1880s. This paper demonstrates how the introduction of public baths and wash-houses in Liverpool, Belfast, and Glasgow was initially a direct response to sanitary reform campaigns It also shows that the explicit public health ideology of these developments was constantly compromised by implict concerns about municipal finance and the potential profit that such enterprises could generate. This city-based analysis shows that this conflict hindered the full sanitary benefit which these schemes potentially offered.

Keywords: public baths; wash-houses; sanitary reform; personal hygiene; nineteenth-century Britain; municipal trading; Liverpool; Belfast; Glasgow


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Indoor and Built EnvironmentHome page
A. N. Kisioglu, A. Adiloglu, E. Uskun, F. Yuksel, A. Uyanik, E. Uzun, and S. Arikan
Inspection of Turkish Baths (Hamams) with Regard to Public Health
Indoor and Built Environment, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 495 - 499.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AJPHHome page
S. Szreter
SZRETER RESPONDS
Am J Public Health, July 1, 2003; 93(7): 1032 - 1033.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJPHHome page
S. Szreter
The Population Health Approach in Historical Perspective
Am J Public Health, March 1, 2003; 93(3): 421 - 431.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.