The Jewish community in Britain has been characterised by its high degree of conformity. This study seeks to extend the parameters of Jewish life by including those hitherto excluded from the historical narrative so that the community can more effectively be viewed as a paradigm for understanding the challenges facing minority communities in their encounter with mainstream society. It sets Jewish involvement within the wider historical, social, economic, political and cultural context, in which it developed, focusing upon political radicalism in Manchester, 1889-1939, and Jewish participation in radical socialism, anarchism, bundism and communism. Nonconformity is here defined in terms of a distancing from both external pressures (e.g. social conformity with the wider community) and internal pressures (e.g. religious beliefs and concerns about communal image). Through the prism of Manchester the chapters will highlight debates surrounding the makeup and impact of pre-First World War involvement; the disproportionate involvement of Jews in radicalism; the nature of Jewish allegiance to communism as an ideological conversion or a convergence of interest and the impact of involvement on Jewish identity, described as ‘Jewish communists’ or ‘communist Jews’.The thesis draws upon new information from the radical Yiddish and English press, revealing the importance of English and foreign influences on pre-war radicalism. Its use of oral testimonies at the Manchester Jewish Museum and elsewhere has revealed in the post-war period, a layering of motivation, commitment and identity. Written chronologically, the periodization of this study enables connections and differences to be drawn. It shows significant discontinuity in involvement and influence between pre and post-First World War radical activity, unlike in London. In Manchester those drawn to communism post-war were almost entirely from an English-born generation. They were more representative of the communist Jew, whose communist identity superseded but did not eradicate their Jewish identity. The thesis shows that conversion to communism was not due to any inherent ethnic characteristics. From 1920-1932 it was a response to the same social and economic factors which influenced non-Jews to communism, but encased in a cultural and historical context. From 1933 that process of conversion continued but was greatly boosted by the desire to fight fascism. The communist led fight against fascism and provision of a popular youth club acted as an attraction to youngsters, who were subsequently influenced in differing degrees or not at all by Marxism. This resulted in different levels of commitment and identification, some of which continued after the war, resulting in the formation of a subculture of Marxist and secular left-wing Jews, who are still seen as nonconformists by the mainstream Jewish community.

Si Ferdinand Buisson a, du point de vue institutionnel, joué un rôle de premier plan dans l'édification de l'école laïque sous la IIIe République, il fut aussi un remarquable observateur de son temps et un penseur engagé soucieux de faire apparaître toute l'intelligibilité des différentes causes qu'il a embrassées au cours de sa longue carrière d'homme publique, du protestantisme libéral au radical-socialisme. Pour appréhender la cohérence de cet itinéraire intellectuel, la question de l'autorité offre un bon fil directeur: avant d'être envisagée en termes pédagogiques, celle-ci s'est en effet posée à Buisson de manière particulièrement vive dans le contexte théologique et ecclésiologique mouvementé qui était celui de la communauté réformée dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle. Prenant énergiquement parti pour les "libéraux" dans le débat qui les oppose alors aux "orthodoxes" quant aux statuts respectifs de l'Ecriture et de la conscience dans l'économie de la foi, Buisson esquisse dès les années 1860 une interprétation originale de la tradition protestante qu'il développera bien plus tard dans sa thèse de 1891 sur Sébastien Castellion. A la lumière de ses écrits protestants, sa philosophie de l'éducation laïque apparaît à bien des égards comme l'expression sécularisée d'un geste inaugural et profondément religieux de refus de l'autorité dans ses formes conservatrices et toutes extérieures. Loin de consister cependant en un simple développement d’une essence préexistante, la continuité de cette pensée ne se dessine qu'au gré d'un permanent travail de réécriture commandé par les contextes de discussion abordés, les arguments adverses et les situations historiques que Buisson s'est efforcé d'infléchir avec un sens consommé du kairos. Ce sont ces ajustements et infléchissements successifs de l'idéal buissonien que nous avons tenté d’appréhender depuis les jeunes heures de l'école laïque jusqu'aux premières discussions relatives à sa "démocratisation" à la veille de la première guerre mondiale. / Ferdinand Buisson did not only play a major role, as regards institutions, in the foundation of nondenominational education during the Third Republic, he was also both a talented observer of his time and a committed thinker, concerned with the intelligibility of the various causes he embraced throughout his long career as a public figure , from liberal Protestantism to radical- socialism. The coherence of his intellectual path may be apprehended through a clear issue: The question of authority. As a matter of fact, before considering it from an educational standpoint, Ferdinand Buisson had to face it acutely inthe stormy theological and ecclesiological context of the protestant community during the second half of the 19th century. He stood up vigourously for the”liberals” in their dispute against the “orthodox” concerning respectively, the status of the Scriptures and of conscience in the process of faith. As early as 1860, Ferdinand Buisson outlines an original interpretation of the protestant tradition, which he will later on develop in 1891 in his thesis about Sébastien Castellion. In the light of his protestant works, and in many respects, his philosophy of non-denominational education sounds like the secularized expression of a deeply religious inaugural gesture in refusal of authority, in its external conservative forms. Yet, far from simply expanding on a pre-existent essence, the continuity of this thinking only becomes clear through a continuous work of re-writing, induced from debates, opposing arguments and historical situations which Buisson endeavoured to reorientate with his accomplished sense of Kairos. Indeed, we have tried to apprehend those successive reorientations and realignments of Buisson’s ideal, starting from the very first days of non-denominational education to the first discussions relating to its democratization on the eve of the first World War.