This biography does not attempt to cover every aspect of Titmuss’s life, or to catalogue, far less analyse, every item he published, committee he sat on, or event he attended. Although his personal life is not ignored, it has been dealt with at some length by Oakley. Rather, the volume seeks to place Titmuss’s life in its political, policy, and academic contexts, and to evaluate him in that light. This is not unreasonable, not least because of Titmuss’s own obsession, to put it mildly, with his work, and the almost unbelievably punishing schedule to which he submitted himself throughout his adult life.
To give a further flavour of this, and simply to call attention to some of his activities during his last decade, Titmuss was a member of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, and of various race relations bodies. In 1967 he joined the Supplementary Benefits Commission (SBC), becoming deputy chairman the following year, a post he retained until his death. Along with colleagues including David Donnison, Robert Pinker, and Garth Plowman, Titmuss was on the Editorial Committee of the Journal of Social Policy, founded in 1972 as a publication of the Social Administration Association (later, Social Policy Association).34 In 1964 his friend Peter Shore, then at the Labour Party Research Department, asked him to comment on a draft paper, the ultimate outcome of which was the establishment of the Open University.35 In autumn 1965, meanwhile, Titmuss received a letter from Tony Crosland, Labour’s Secretary of State for Education and Science. Crosland had heard that Titmuss was to serve on the newly created Social Science Research Council (SSRC). In a hand-written addition, Crosland noted that he was ‘very pleased that you are doing something for us in this Dept.’.36 The LSE’s director, in a memorandum to the appropriate LSE committee, commented that Titmuss, along with the anthropologist Raymond Firth and the statistician Claus Moser, had agreed to serve on the SSRC, and strongly recommended that this be duly endorsed. It was in both the national interest and the ‘interests of the School’ that the three professors take up their posts.37 Titmuss only served on the council for around a year (the appointment had been for three years), almost certainly because of the volume of his other commitments.38 Nonetheless, the original invitation was a clear indicator of his standing.
More obscurely, although reflecting his broader social concerns, Titmuss agreed to sponsor the Concord Films Council, a body dedicated to using film to promote peace ‘and particularly to relate massive arms expenditure to the needs of the under-privileged and underfed peoples of the world’. Other sponsors included the playwright Arnold Wesker and the journalist Ritchie Calder.39 Of course, on occasion Titmuss turned down requests. One of the more implausible came in 1963 from Bishop Thomas Craske who told him that the Church of England was investigating why young men did not come forward for ordination. ‘It would help us greatly’, the Bishop wrote, ‘if you could, in the light of your own experience and conversations with young men, let us have your views on the subject.’ The non-believer Titmuss declined on the grounds of insufficient knowledge.40 All this (and there was much, much more) was undertaken while holding a full-time post at the LSE, and producing a stream of publications. Such a relentless pace surely affected his health, poor from childhood. It also raises the question of what sort of life he had outside work. The central point is, again, that Titmuss should be seen, and saw himself, as a public figure, and it is in that light that the bulk of this volume is constructed.
To make my own position clear, I firmly believe that historical insights can constructively inform contemporary policy debates.41 Understanding a major figure in post-war Social Policy can, and should, help illustrate how we might better contribute to the kind of discussions taking place in the first decades of the twenty-first century, many of the issues with which Titmuss grappled still being with us. This is not to say that the solutions he offered to the problems of his own times were necessarily ‘right’, or can be unthinkingly transferred into a much-changed world. Nonetheless, asking the appropriate questions, and attempting to evaluate Titmuss’s analyses, can illuminate both change and continuity in welfare policy formation and practice, and the nature of the social problems which such policies seek to address.
The remainder of the volume is divided into six parts. The first, ‘Early Life and Career to the End of 1941’, embraces Titmuss’s origins, limited formal education, and marriage to Kay. His employment in commercial insurance, political commitments, research into population and population health, and relationship to ‘progressive opinion’ in the 1930s and early 1940s are then discussed. The second part, ‘From Problems of Social Policy to the London School of Economics’, covers the period from 1941 to 1950, and begins with a major shift in his career, his engagement to write Problems of Social Policy. This did not, however, keep Titmuss from other activities, scholarly and otherwise. For instance, he continued his involvement with the Eugenics Society, begun before the war. He was also developing a significant media presence, both through publications and on the radio. Part II ends with Titmuss’s LSE appointment, and his inaugural lecture wherein he outlined his plans for ‘Social Administration’. Titmuss’s only child, Ann, had been born in 1944, and his new career was to impact not only on Titmuss himself, but also on Kay and their daughter.
In Part III, we examine Titmuss’s ‘First Decade at the LSE’. In this period he gave a number of public addresses articulating some of his key preoccupations. His growing fame, and influence, led to work for official bodies such the Guillebaud Committee, which examined the finances of the NHS. He also became increasingly involved with the Labour Party, particularly its attempts to reformulate its pensions policy. Titmuss was, as his inaugural lecture had intimated, keen to build up research in the Department of Social Administration. But there were problems in the 1950s over the training of social workers, an unhappy episode in Titmuss’s career. More positively, his already impressive publication record was further enhanced by two important works, Essays on ‘The Welfare State’ and The Irresponsible Society.
Part IV, ‘Power and Influence: Titmuss 1960 to 1973’, is the longest, dealing as it does with Titmuss at the height of his powers. We start off with his role in tributes to an individual whom he greatly admired, the historian and ethical socialist R.H. Tawney. Titmuss also took an interest in mental health, one reason why he was invited by the Labour government to join the Royal Commission on Medical Education. He was in demand abroad as well, and his work in Mauritius, Tanzania, and Israel is duly examined. Back home he had a significant input to the reform of Scottish social work, and this complemented his engagement with the Seebohm Committee, set up in 1965 to report on local authority social services. A further contribution to public life came through membership of the Finer Committee, concerned with the problems facing one-parent families. Nor did he stop publishing and writing. Part IV also embraces Titmuss’s engagement with the United States. Sometimes seen as an archetypal Englishman (he loved gardening and cricket), Titmuss’s interest in welfare systems outside Britain has been somewhat overlooked. In recognition of his public service, Titmuss was made CBE, at Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s nomination, in the 1966 New Year’s Honours List.42
Like its predecessor, Part V, ‘Troubles’, deals with Titmuss in the 1960s and early 1970s, but here the emphasis is on issues which caused him considerable upset. Titmuss’s tenure at the Supplementary Benefits Commission was marked by his loyalty to that body, its policies, and its staff, all of which he defended against what he saw as unwarranted criticism, often from people he considered friends. Challenging, too, was the issue of race relations. Titmuss had a track record of opposing hostility