Post-Medieval Archaeology Article
Title:
‘The mystical character of commodities’: The consumer society in eighteenthcentury England
Author
Ross J. Wilson
Affiliated to
University of York
Abbreviated title
‘Mystical Character’
Word Count
6,502
Author’s details
42a Broadway
York
YO10 4JX
Email: rjw128@york.ac.uk
Tel. 07817729554
‘The mystical character of commodities’:
The consumer society in eighteenth-century England
By ROSS J. WILSON
Summary: This article argues for an alternative response to the 'consumer society'
hypothesis for eighteenth-century England, which is seen to focus on large-scale
development and obscure the relations between people and objects. Returning to
Marx's theories regarding 'consumer fetishism' and utilising Bruno Latour's work on
hybrids and the human and the non-human, the paper considers the manner in which
people used objects and objects used people. Utilising the courtesy books and 'itnarratives' of the eighteenth-century and the later works of Jane Austen the paper
offers an alternative format to the 'consumer society' proposition.
IPUP, Department of History, University of York, YO10 5DD (rjw128@york.ac.uk)
2
‘The mystical character of commodities’:
The consumer society in eighteenth-century England
Eighteenth-century England is often claimed to be the origins of consumerism;
where the conditions of capitalism engineered the consumer society which appears so
pervasive in our contemporary world. Over the last twenty years historians,
economists and sociologists have considered that consumerism has its roots in the
commodity fetishism that was seen to emerge in Georgian England. They have
pointed to the ‘object crazes’ of the period, the advent of mass-production and rising
levels of affluence as evidence of this trend1. Archaeologists working in this period
have tended to echo this view, observing that the influx of goods and materials into
society heralded an altered ‘world-view’, and an acceptance of the new commoditydriven society. This perspective takes a rather staid and sober response to the largescale influx of objects into eighteenth-century England; it neglects a proper
assessment of the ‘mystical character of commodities’ as defined by Marx2, it
obscures the socio-cultural use and value of objects in Georgian England, and it
overlooks the complex relationships between the ‘human and the non-human’3. Using
accounts from courtesy books, novels and the proliferation of ‘object-centred’ fiction,
an alternative account to the ‘consumer society’ argument can emerge. Moving
beyond large-scale processes this study focuses on the individual level, upon the
manipulation of objects by people, and of people by objects. The consumer society of
the eighteenth-century is not a mirror of our own; it exhibits a different form of
consumerism and a different relationship with material culture. Georgian England was
not a society solely enamoured with consumerism, the regard and association with
material culture was complex and multiform. Applying the term ‘consumer society’
3
masks the responses of individuals towards material culture, a response which
incorporated objects as participants, as active agents in society.
The ‘consumer society’
The ground of the argument of the ‘consumer society’ has been set by
historians in the main, though work by economists and sociologists have also
contributed to this field. The concept of the emergence of the ‘consumer society’ in
Georgian England was first proposed by the seminal work The Birth of a Consumer
Society4. In this classic piece of economic history it was considered that the nascent
industrialisation of England had enabled the mass-production of goods and that a
wider section of the population could now obtain a lifestyle previously unimaginable.
During the eighteenth-century it was stated that ‘more men and women than ever
before in human history enjoyed the experience of acquiring material possessions5.’
Whereas once the possession of durable objects, and importantly fashionable objects
was the preserve of the privileged elite, now the middle-classes could engage in the
same pursuits, creating a consumer class6. Houses, furniture, food, china, silverware,
books and clothing were some amongst the many products now seemingly open to all.
The Birth of a Consumer Society echoed the Thatcherite ideology of the early 1980s;
luxury and consumption were seen to benefit the wider economy by encouraging
spending7. Consumption of objects was strongly linked to social emulation, as the
authors considered that individuals through their material possessions were keen to
show their wealth and place in society8.
The nature of society in eighteenth-century England is considered to be highly
suitable for this emergence of the consumer society. Society in Georgian England is
4
frequently characterised as one where emulation of the fashions, tastes and behaviour
of the elite is all-important9. It is the period of what is termed ‘polite society’, a belief
that members of the upper-classes and sections of the middle-classes could group
together, whilst observing the strict social structures in place. To belong to polite
society was to hold in common with others the correct taste in objects, design, fashion
and food. In the assembly rooms across the country, in the houses of the gentry and
the spa towns such as Bath and Cheltenham, individuals from polite society mixed
with one another10. To be part of this circle was to possess the appropriate
accoutrements, such as dress and furniture, it was to imitate the behaviour and
manners of the gentry, and it was to follow the fashion11. The notion of fashion, a
relatively recent consideration for the vast majority of the populace in the 1700s, is
offered by those considering Georgian ‘consumer society’ as the key to understanding
consumption in eighteenth-century England. Fashion is, ‘used by many commentators
to explain the forces of social imitation, social emulation, class competition and
emulative spending12’. Although a number of scholars have highlighted deficiencies
with the ‘consumer society’ hypothesis, this theory remains dominant with eighteenth
century studies13. The Birth of a Consumer Society has proven to be a highly
influential study, and a number of scholars have since drawn attention to the
emergence of consumerism in Georgian England14. Following the work of the
eighteenth-century economist Adam Smith15, who in 1776 argued in The Wealth of
Nations, that material possessions are good for the economy as they increase
employment and thereby the general wealth, these studies have shown how emulation,
social competition and a focus on luxury were the driving factors in eighteenthcentury consumer society. These sentiments were perhaps expressed at the time most
5
succinctly by Mandeville’s16 satiric comment upon early eighteenth-century English
society, The Fable of the Bees.
That Noble Sin; whilst luxury
Employ’d a Million of the Poor
And odious Pride a Million more,
Envy itself and Vanity
Were Ministers of Industry;
Their darling Folly, Fickleness
In Diet, Furniture, and Dress,
That strange ridic’lous Vice was made
The very Wheel that turn’d the Trade.
There has therefore emerged a significant school of thought which relies on
the idea that luxury and social emulation drove the consumer society of the
eighteenth-century, creating a ‘consumer class.’ This new group of consumers
consisted of the members of ‘polite society’ who in an attempt to cement their
position strove to possess the objects and goods which indicated their place in
society17. Those supporting this view have drawn heavily on the work of the
nineteenth-century economist Thorstein Veblen. Veblen considered the processes
which delineates a particular group of people in a modern industrial society. Naming
this group ‘the leisure class’, it is defined by its non-participation in direct production,
its prodigious level of consumption, its show of wealth and power and the attempt by
lower strata of society to imitate the tastes and behaviour of this elite18. It is Veblen’s
concept of conspicuous consumption which has proven to be the most influential
6
aspect of his theory, as the ‘leisure class’ are seen to consume according to fashion, to
set themselves apart from those who would emulate them19. This entails a constant
change in fashion and therefore consumption to ensure that the distinction is realised.
Using these theories to understand the nature of goods and objects in the eighteenthcentury has enabled a consideration of the way capitalism in the West progressed and
proliferated20. Indeed, Marx21 considered the advent of the production of commodities
to herald the beginnings of the capitalist era: ‘The mode of production in which the
product takes the form of the commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the
most general and the most embryonic form of bourgeois production.’ Marx labelled
this behaviour ‘commodity fetishism’ which has inspired the work of many studying
consumption in the eighteenth-century. Commodity fetishism was defined by Marx as
the instance when the product of labour is given a high value by society, though that
value is unrelated to the labour which has been undertaken in the creation of the
product22.
‘The mystical character’ of the commodity
Campbell23 has been one of the most vociferous of the critics of the ‘consumer
society’, highlighting that a far more subtle response to the nature of consumerism in
Georgian England is needed. Campbell24 has considered the role romanticism has
played in the formation of a consumer society; romanticism is seen to be essential in
our modern conception of consumerism as it enables the imagination to consider the
pleasure of goods and objects before their purchase. Campbell25 has also examined
the role consumption of objects plays in the formation of identity, highlighting how
distinct characters were formed through consumption, specifically the dandy, the
7
romantic, and the notion of sensibility. Following these studies it can be seen that
studies have focused on the external factors of trade and industry, principally largescale developments, which have obscured a study of the individual’s experience of
material goods and consumption26. The notion of the ‘consumer society’ may
therefore be considered inappropriate to use in association with Georgian England27.
Consumerism is a feature of a modern, fully-formed industrialised society28. Objects
are consumed in this manner to indicate status and identity in a world of change and
high-speed communication29. Eighteenth-century England and polite society was
however marked by a strictly observed social code, where one’s place in the world
was firmly distinguished30. Though the upper and sections of the middle classes
mixed to an extent within polite society, this did not entail a blurring of the classes,
rather it reinforced the deferential structure and modes of behaviour considered
appropriate31. Studies have also taken an uncritical response towards the work of
Marx with regard to ‘commodity fetishism.’ Eighteenth-century England was a
society which by appearance may be considered consumerist, but such a label
misrepresents the myriad of social and cultural practices with which material goods
were employed. It also casts objects themselves as neutral, without regarding the way
in which objects shape taste, behaviour and outlook32. Marx’s theories on
commodities address the alienation of the product away from the labour which
produced it, but it also draw’s attention to the transcendental nature of the object33.
‘The form of wood, for instance is altered by making a table out of it. Yet for
all that, the table continues to be that common every-day thing, wood. But as soon as
it steps forth as a commodity it is changed into something transcendent. It not only
stands with its feet on the ground, but in relation to all other commodities, it stands on
8
its head and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than
“table-turning” ever was.’34
The commodity is considered by Marx to possess a distinct quality, a power
beyond that of the experience of the individual who possesses it. In this case the
‘mystical character’ of the commodity is one which animates the object. Marx charges
the commodity as possessing a trait, a character, one which undoubtedly is influenced
by wider social trends, but maintains a capacity to develop itself and impact upon the
human subject, evident in the ‘grotesque ideas’ formed in the ‘wooden brain.’ This is
the objectification referred to by Miller35, where the subject realises itself through a
consideration of external objects, a recursive process, as object and subject act upon
each other. In this respect the role of objects in eighteenth-century England can be
reconsidered, not as indictors of a ‘consumer society’, but as active agents in the
construction and continuation of society. To do this the courtesy books of the
eighteenth-century can be examined, alongside the popular works of fiction which
place objects as the central character, known as the ‘it-narratives’, as well as the
novels of the period. These literary sources provide a valuable and original
perspective of the use of material culture within eighteenth-century England. Indeed,
Habermas36 has stressed how these types of sources, specifically circulating printed
literature in the eighteenth-century, formed the basis of communication, establishing a
set of recognized codes or rules of behaviour. Drawing upon Campbell’s37 study, the
motivations behind the use of objects will be assessed through these sources, though
rather than consider goods as symbols in the construction of character, material
culture will be considered as participating in human relations, indeed objects will be
considered as agents, as part of society38. The notion of the ‘consumer society’ would
9
appear to validate the modernist project which takes a firm stance distinguishing
between people and things; denying that such a division exists enables an assessment
of the complex relationship between individuals and the objects they use39.
Archaeology and the ‘consumer society’
The role of archaeology and material culture studies in the analysis of
eighteenth-century England has been limited. Although studies have addressed the
consumption of material goods in eighteenth-century society in Europe and America,
as well as the emergence of capitalism, an engagement with the way in which
individuals interacted with objects in this period is lacking40. This position might
appear understandable when considering the way in which issues of consumption
rather than application have been central to archaeological and anthropological
thought over the last century41. Where a consideration of objects and eighteenthcentury society has occurred within archaeology, large-scale processes are invoked,
objects are considered merely to reflect the consumerism and merchant capitalism
now in order42. Studies of furniture and material objects have mainly been completed
under an art-historical perspective, and have also tended to repeat the consumer
society proposition43. A consideration of the role of objects in the eighteenth-century
beyond that of the ‘consumer society’ is lacking. This is in contrast to the wider field
of material culture studies, where objects are often considered in contexts other than
simple consumerism, and especial focus has been placed on the relationship between
the individual and the objects that surround them44. Prominent in these studies has
been the work of Latour45, who has written of the need to consider the ‘human and the
non-human.’ Material objects are considered in Latourian thought as active
10
participants in society, objects not only have agency, but they form hybrids with the
human subjects who use them. ‘The name of the game is not to extend subjectivity to
things, to treat humans like objects, to take machines for social actors, but to avoid
using the subject-object distinction at all in order to talk about the folding of humans
and non-humans’46. The individual is constructed through the relations that that
individual possesses with the material world that surrounds them. Law47 states that
‘social agents are never located in bodies and bodies alone, but rather that an actor is a
patterned network of heterogeneous relations, or an effect produced by such a
network.’ What are considered to be human responses to the world are always
conducted with and through material conditions. Law48 argues that, ‘The argument is
that thinking, acting, loving, earning – all the attributes we normally ascribe to human
beings, are generated in networks that pass through and ramify both within and
beyond the body.’ Using these Latourian ideas regarding the association between the
‘human and the non-human’ an alternative response to the ‘consumer society’ in the
eighteenth-century can be constructed. Objects in Georgian society were used to
maintain society, its values and behaviours; they could also be used by individuals to
communicate, to change themselves. A myriad of associations between objects and
people mark the eighteenth-century, a subject neglected with the consideration of the
‘consumer society.’
Courtesy books, ‘it-narratives’, and Jane Austen
The courtesy books of the eighteenth-century represent a valuable tool in the
consideration of the use and value of material culture. These books were popular
throughout the century; earlier editions were regularly republished and they remained
11
reasonably priced and highly available49. Written for a middle-class market for both
men and women aspiring to be part of polite society, they provide a glimpse of
society’s perception of the appropriate and inappropriate forms of behaviour, and
show how this behaviour is expressed through material culture. A member of polite
society is described in the courtesy books as someone who knows how to act with the
objects that surround them. To demonstrate apparent ineptitude with objects is to
signal rusticity and ignorance, intolerable for the cultured members of society.
Alongside these courtesy books the ‘it-narratives’ of the eighteenth-century can also
be used to investigate the use and value of material culture in the period. Perhaps one
of the most intriguing aspects of eighteenth-century fiction is the proliferation of these
‘it-narratives’; works of fiction which take objects as their main characters50. These
works of fiction present pins, shoes, corkscrews, sofas, sedan chairs, carriages and
various other objects describing their lives, their owners and the circumstances they
find themselves in as they are circulated through society. It-narratives have been the
focus of attention within certain sections of Literary Studies for the last decade51.
These have considered the ideological, economic and social implication of these
works of fiction, though studies have in the main focused on the unusual narrative
construct of the pieces and the book’s own symbolic status52, rather than the
anthropological interpretation of these texts53.
Finally, the novels of the period can be used to assess the nature of the
relationship between individuals and objects54. Novels detail the way characters
interacted with objects, not solely with regard to the development of plot but to make
the character believable to the audience. Objects provide an indication of where the
character is on the social scale and how such individuals appropriated and were
appropriated by the material culture which surrounded them. Though published in the
12
early nineteenth-century the later novels of Jane Austen, namely, Mansfield Park,
Emma and Persuasion will be used to demonstrate this relationship between
individual and object55. Austen’s work provides a particularly good example, as
though her details of objects are sparse, where they do occur her observations on the
relationship between material culture and late eighteenth-century society are highly
detailed56. Together these three sources demonstrate the ‘remarkable closeness’
between objects and people57. They indicate how objects were used by individuals to
express desires, to install values within themselves; they also indicate how objects
used individuals, imposed the values of society, formed behaviour and perception.
They demonstrate an alternative way of viewing the use of objects in the eighteenthcentury apart from the notions of the ‘consumer society.’
Objects in eighteenth-century society
The ‘it-narratives’ of the eighteenth-century present everyday objects with a
peculiar quality, a vantage point, which enables the object to make observations on
the nature of society and the individual. Importantly, whilst these works of fiction
recount how objects change hands, move from one social group to the next, rarely do
these exchanges involve financial transactions. Objects in these works are lost,
discarded, stolen or forgotten, only occasionally are they paid for, and all the while
they comment upon the characters of their owners. Works such as The Golden Spy58,
The Adventures of a Pin59, The Adventures of a Black Coat60 and The Secret History
of an Old Shoe61, demonstrate that something far more complex was occurring than
the ‘commodity fetishism’ usually described by commentators. Authors were
considering objects as possessive of character, and using objects to describe, lampoon
13
and criticise human actions62. Gildon63 encourages the reader to contemplate the
‘Sensibility of Things’, arguing that objects which are generally considered mute and
inanimate possess capacities of ‘Observation, Memory and Reflection.’ In Gildon’s
work gold coins relay their story of being used, given, and lost, they also discuss the
politics of the day, circulated as they have been in England as well as France and
Spain. It is however the capacity of considering the object as an active agent in
society that marks the work. Gildon64 writes, ‘you find that there is no place so strong,
or guarded with that vigilance, to which Gold will not gain Admittance and bring to a
Surrender sooner, and with more Safety, than the Batteries of Cannon, and the Valour
of Heroes.’
Objects are endowed with character and significantly, judgement, particularly
when deciding whether or not an individual is suitable as an owner. In The Travels of
Mons. le Post-Chaise65, the French-made carriage notes the social pretension and
snobbery of its English owners, though it does recognise the ability of the object to lift
and reassure the owner’s status. The narrative66 relays that, ‘as we pass’d along we
attracted every Eye that came in our way, which gave mutual satisfaction, as we both
imagin’d ourselves worthy of observation.’ The carriage acquires a new owner, lower
down the social rank, who had formerly kept a ‘Tea-Warehouse’, but now used the
carriage to signify his entry into ‘polite society’, to ‘put himself on a Level with
several of our modern Quality.67’ In The Adventures of a Black Coat68, the coat
describes how it came to be in the possession of a young gentleman who frequented
the court end of town, ‘each lending grace to the other.’ In The Adventures of a CorkScrew69, the object/author notes the same interaction between itself and its human
user as a reciprocal relationship; ‘My appearance furnished him with an idea for that
purpose.’ The History and Adventures of a Lady’s Slippers and Shoes70 provides
14
another example where finely made shoes are considered to enable the individual to
rise in status and rank. Objects in these narratives provide a means of signalling social
status, but they also demonstrate their importance in reinstalling that status back into
the individual71. This is particularly the case in The Adventures of a Hackney Coach72,
where the carriage asserts its role in the formation of ‘polite behaviour’, its ownership
and its use are mutually beneficial arrangements.
It is through the use and association with certain objects that individuals attain
distinction, and assure themselves of their place in the world73. The Adventures of a
Pin74 demonstrates this capacity of the object as an active agent, the pin is used in
several different contexts by several different owners, but the lives of individuals are
relayed through the use of the pin. The objects cast a critical eye on the activities of
individuals, but they also reveal conceptions of what objects were and were not
suitable for individuals. Crysal75 relates the story of a spirit which resided in seam of
gold in Peru, the seam was mined and the gold eventually minted into a coin, the
suitable ownership of the coin forms a major part of the narrative. The coin76 relates
that, ‘I was brought to his Lordship’s levee, where the grandeur of his looks, and the
magnificence of every thing about him, made me pleased with my situation.’
15
FIGURE 1: Cover of The History and Adventures of a Lady’s Slippers and Shoes (anon, 1754).
These ‘it-narratives’ were also published specifically to be read to children,
titles such as Mary Ann Kilner’s The Adventures of a Pincushion77 and Memoirs of a
Peg-Top78, were aimed to blend ‘instruction with amusement.’ Nevertheless, the
objects in these stories also comment upon the proper station of an individual, that
individuals can be improved by objects, but that individuals should always keep
themselves to the material culture appropriate to their station. For example, the
pincushion is lost and forgotten by its original owner, a young girl from a rich family,
but then it is given to another little girl, further down the social scale with the remark,
‘if you please, you may give it to Jenny: it will make her as fine as a Lady.’ The gift is
rejected at first with the statement, ‘for I think finery is not suitable for us’79. Later,
16
the pincushion witnesses an attempt by a young woman to attain a status quite beyond
her, as she tries to impress a wealthy family with her style and manner of dress. In the
presence of the pincushion she is given the warning, ‘let me advise you not to wish
for that finery, which would be unsuitable for your circumstances’80. Objects praise
polite, genteel behaviour, they comment on the manners of their owners, and how the
objects assist in developing these virtues. In The Silver Thimble81 a young girl who
displays modesty, politeness and virtue finds these qualities mirrored in the plain
silver thimble she chooses for herself over the ostentatious and pretentious
alternatives.
Hybrids not consumers
The courtesy books of the eighteenth-century depict a world of objects which
the individual must navigate through if they are to be accepted into society. Details of
how objects can make, and complete an individual are described in a number of
volumes. As well as these pieces of sage advice the courtesy books similarly describe
how the possession and use of an inappropriate object or the incorrect use of an
appropriate object reveals flaws in an individual. Perhaps one of the most notable uses
of material culture in Georgian England was through dress82. Courtesy books of the
period demand that their readers, both male and female recognise the necessity and
value of appropriate dress. Some have commentated that dress forms an indication of
the values of the ‘consumer society’, demonstrating that the study of dress reveals the
widespread availability of goods, emulative spending and a ‘blurring of class lines’83.
This however neglects how individuals used dress as a form of material culture;
objects of dress and their wearers become hybrids, they act upon and influence one
17
another84. Fielding85 noted that, ‘dress is grown of great use in the conduct of life, as
so much civility and respect is paid to appearance: it is a passport which carries men
into polite conversation, and a varnish which makes what a man says conspicuous.’
Courtesy books reveal how dress in the eighteenth-century forms associations with
individuals, how clothes ‘contribute to make us agreeable objects’86. The idea of dress
as a means of elevating the self, improving the individual is recurrent in the courtesy
books, dress is seen as an extension of the individual. ‘Dress gives a…lustre to every
action’87. Similarly, ‘a well-chosen Dress may carry a Gracefulness with it, and show
a Delicacy and Exactness of Fancy in the Wearer’88.
Dress is an object which represents the tastes and habits of society, but also
installs those values of society into the wearer. Jane Austen89 in Mansfield Park noted
the change in Fanny Price wearing suitable and respectable clothes; ‘Fanny saw that
she was approved; the consciousness of looking well, made her look still better.’ Just
as items of dress may elevate an individual, they may also express the failings of an
individual, or in themselves fail the wearer. ‘You will not easily believe how much we
consider your dress as expressive of your characters. Vanity, levity, slovenliness, folly,
appear through it. An elegant simplicity is an equal proof of taste and delicacy’90.
Items of dress form a means of perpetuating society; they demonstrate belonging and
acceptance of the social structure. ‘Persons of Figure, when they chuse to amble the
Publick Streets should always appear in a Dress suitable to their dignity: not only…to
prevent Insults; but to preserve the Respect due to great Personages’91. Adam Smith
also wrote of the way in which object and individual acted as one with regard to the
privileged in society. ‘The graceful, the easy, and commanding manners of the great
joined to the usual richness and magnificence of their dress give a grace to the very
form which they happen to bestow upon it.92’ To preserve and engender respect
18
within society the courtesy books recommend the imitation of the dress of superiors,
not as is so often assumed in a manner of social emulation, but in a belief that objects
both represent society and educate the wearer into that society. ‘Dress
yourself…agreeably to the company you are in…conform to the dress of others, and
avoid the appearance of being tumbled. Imitate those reasonable people…whose dress
is neither remarked as too neglected or too much studied.93’ Whilst dress possesses
the ability to elevate and inform the wearer, to dress inappropriately or ostentatiously
with regard to your place in society is warned against repeatedly in the courtesy books.
‘Let your dress be always agreeable to your condition.94’
It is to women particularly that a great amount of attention is paid to
appearance in dress. The habits associated with correct dress were incorporated into
the body, these became naturalised as actions and behaviour became beliefs95. ‘Dress
is an important article in female life. The love of dress is natural to you, and therefore
it is proper and reasonable’96. Women were encouraged to pay great attention to their
dress, one of the few pastimes thought appropriate for their sex97. Dress for women
ensured a means of highlighting their appearance, their manner, their conduct, and
foremost their place in society. ‘It is sure allowable…that they who design marriage
should give themselves the advantage of decent ornaments, and not by the negligent
rudeness of their dress belye nature, and render themselves less amiable than she has
made them’98. Marriage becomes the prime concern in the courtesy books aimed at
educating the young women in society on the necessity of dress. ‘For there is nothing
gives a man a meaner opinion of a woman than too much carelessness and Negligence
in this respect’99. Dress thereby formed an object of control which acted upon women
to ensure their subordinate place in Georgian society, where ‘virginity, marriage and
widowhood’ were ‘the distinct scenes for all women’100. Dress and thereby behaviour
19
was not meant to be confined to social occasions, dress operated as a technology of
control in all aspects of female life, public and private101. ‘Do not confine your
attention to dress to your public appearances. Accustom yourselves to a habitual
neatness, so that in the most unguarded hours, you may have no reason to be ashamed
of your appearance’102.
Women and objects in eighteenth-century society
The association of women with particular objects and thereby particular roles
in society is made quite apparent in the courtesy books. Women in the eighteenthcentury were largely confined to the domestic sphere, their role as wives, mothers,
and managing the household were the few occupations they could hold103. As such
material culture was specifically gendered and some objects were considered suitable
especially for women; the most important of these was the tea-table104. ‘In your table,
as in your dress, and in all other things, I wish you to aim at propriety and
neatness…To go beyond your sphere…indicates a greater fault in your character than
to be too much within it’105. Managing the tea-table was an opportunity for women to
express themselves, as it emphasised women’s role in society, giving priority to the
women who served it106. Tea and the tea-table represented in essence the role of
women in eighteenth-century society, providing ‘sustenance, health, psychological
support, and a model of civilised behaviour’107. The objects of the tea-table were
associated with women, they complemented and extended the presumed character of
women, and they became a way of revealing and realising108. The objects of the teatable were indistinguishable from the dictated qualities of femininity.
20
‘…and can there be any thing more worthy than a young lady’s care and good
economy than a silver tea-kettle, or a gold pot? Is any one’s hands more fit to handle
china dishes, than the soft ones of a fair lady? Could any liquor be more becoming her
innocency, than that innocent one of the tea? Can any banquet be more becoming her
sweetness, than that tea sweetened with fine loaf-sugar’109.
The tea-table also formed a means of control, to ensure correct behaviour was
observed. The act of taking tea was highly ritualised; place, decorum and actions were
observed and reinstalled the structures of society110. To fail to navigate this situation
of objects and actions for either sex highlights the individual’s unsuitability for this
polite world.
An ‘awkward fellow’, ‘seats himself in the very chair he should not…He there
begins playing with his hat, which he presently drops, and recovery his hat he lets his
cane fall…When his tea, or coffee is handed to him he spreads his handkerchief up on
his knees, scalds his mouth, drops either the cup or the saucer, and spills the tea or
coffee in his lap’111.
Other objects were given specifically gendered identities, and thought more
suitable for women rather than men112. This is particularly the case with musical
instruments, as the learning of music was thought highly appropriate for young
women who were expected to marry well113. Musical ability was seen to provide
young women with ‘ornamentation’114. In this respect it further demonstrates the
hybrids, of human and non-human, object and individual acting together115.
Knowledge of music was thought to give women the correct attitude of sensibility and
21
polite behaviour116. Instruments thought ‘most agreeable’ for women were the
‘Harpsichord, Spinet, Lute and Base Violin’, whilst the ‘Flute, Violin, and Houtboy’
were ‘too manly for women’117. Musical ability also represented a means of
communication for women, both sanctioned and unsanctioned by polite society.
Musical instruments are used by several characters in Jane Austen’s novels to satisfy
their own ends. Mary Crawford in Mansfield Park uses her ability on the harp to
ensnare Edmund despite his misgivings regarding her character. ‘The harp arrived and
rather added to her beauty, wit, and good humour, for she played with the greatest
obligingness, with an expression and taste which were peculiarly becoming and there
was something clever to be said at the close of every air118. The harp acts to
accentuate the character of Mary Crawford. ‘A young woman, pretty, lively, with a
harp as elegant as herself, and both placed near a window cut down to the ground, and
opening on a little lawn, surrounded by shrubs in the rich foliage of summer, was
enough to catch any man’s heart’119. Whilst in Emma the pianoforte is used by Jane
Fairfax to communicate to and with her secret fiancé Frank Churchill120. Anne Elliot
in Persuasion finds that she is unable to communicate with anyone through her
musical abilities, having ‘no voice, no knowledge of the harp’, resulting in the feeling
that ‘in music she had been always used to feel alone in the world.121’
Austen and material culture
Austen provides perhaps some of the most interesting examples of the
interactions between people and objects in her novels. The use of objects and their
existence in the settings of her novels are rarely referred to, but when objects are
described they provide the means whereby her characters express themselves.
22
Opposed to those who would argue Austen’s work is indicative of the ‘consumer
society’ in her concerns for marriage and property, rarely is commodity, price, luxury
or aestheticism regarded in consideration of objects in Austen’s novels, objects are
regarded for their ability to instruct and communicate122. Fanny Price places in her
attic-room objects which improve her character, specifically plants and books, objects
of a polite society from which she feels distant from and yearns to belong123.
Associating with these objects, allowing them to become naturalised in her behaviour
and outlook signals Fanny’s belonging at Mansfield within polite society. This
‘folding of human and non-human’ is evident in her attitude to her belongings, she
accords objects with human qualities, as she describes these objects as, ‘everything
was a friend, or bore her thoughts to a friend’124. People and sentiments are
continually expressed through objects in Austen’s novels. Jane Fairfax was observed
by Miss Bates talking to her pianoforte, which represented for her both her aspirations
for a better place in society and her relationship with Frank Churchill. ‘“You must go”,
said she. “You and I must part. You will have no business here”’125. The relations
between household objects and individuals is a particular concern for Austen, as she
describes the way items of furniture both signal social standing to others but perhaps
significantly evokes the appropriate behaviour in its owners. Latour126 states, ‘there is
no sense in which humans may be said to exist as humans without entering into
commerce with what authorises them and enables them to exist.’ The loss of Kellynch,
prompts Anne Elliot to worry over the loss of furniture and her reduced circumstances;
‘a beloved home made over to others; all the previous rooms and
furniture…beginning to own other eyes and other limbs’127. The concern expressed
with the renting of Kellynch is that tenants suitable to the status of the house, grounds
and significantly furniture might not be found. ‘The house and grounds, and furniture,
23
were approved, the Crofts were approved, terms, time, every thing, and every body
was right’128.
Austen also plays upon the word ‘object’ with regard to the relationships
between people and between people and objects. ‘Object’ underwent several revisions
of meanings in the eighteenth-century as it came to describe both physicality and
attainment129. People become things and things become people as Austen uses the
status of ‘object’ to illustrate social relations. To be an ‘object’ is certainly not to
suffer indignity; it is to be included in the extension of society, to belong in the polite
world, in the fold of humans and non-humans130. Mr Rushworth is described as,
‘included in the objects most intimately connected with Mansfield.131’ Edmund in
Mansfield Park describes Fanny Price and Mary Crawford as ‘the two dearest objects
I have on earth’132. Fanny Price becomes an object when her place at Mansfield is
acknowledged by Sir Thomas Bertram, ‘she was an interesting object, and he saw
with pleasure the general elegance of her appearance and her being in remarkably
good looks’133. Emma Woodhouse prides herself and revels in becoming the ‘object’
of Frank Churchill; ‘Emma divined what every body present must be thinking. She
was his object, and every body must perceive it’134.
Conclusions
To label the eighteenth-century in England as a ‘consumer society’ neglects
the study of the rich and varied associations between objects and people. During the
eighteenth-century English society experienced an influx of manufactured, massproduced goods, it is not sufficient to think of this in terms of simple consumerism.
The ‘mystical character’ of the commodity suggests that the objects encountered in
24
Georgian England should be considered more than mere signifiers of a capitalist
society. Objects offered individuals a way of expressing and communicating in
society, objects also acted to constrain and shape human behaviour135. The analysis of
the ‘hybrid’ relationship between people and material culture provides an alternative
avenue of investigation, a counterpoint to the ‘consumer society’ assessment. Through
this the way in which individuals and material culture acted upon and with one
another can be examined. The grand narrative of the ‘consumer society’ obscures the
petits récits of the individual and the object, neglecting the multitude of processes
which mark the human-object relationship136. To move beyond notions of the
‘consumer society’ provides an opportunity to rethink the role of the object in
eighteenth-century England, as multi-faceted and complicit in human relationships.
Objects should be seen not purely as commodities, but participants in the society
which utilises them, and thereby capable of utilising the participants of society.
1
Plumb 1973, 58.
Marx 1938, 42.
3
Latour 1999, 15.
4
McKendrick et al. 1982, 5.
5
McKendrick et al. 1982, 1.
6
Thirsk 1978, 10.
7
McKendrick et al. 1982, 19.
8
McKendrick et al 1982, 20-21.
9
Langford 2004, 6.
10
Ellis 2001, 65.
11
Girouard 1990, 76-7.
12
McKendrick et al. 1982, 52.
13
Shammas 1990, 6; Lemire 1991, 5; Borsay 1989, 12; Berg 2005, 6.
14
Brewer and Porter 1993, 4; McCracken 1988; 6; Smith 2002, 5; Weatherill 1988, 5; White 2006, 93.
15
Smith 1970, 357.
16
Mandeville 1989, 68.
17
White 2006, 5.
18
Veblen 1957, 32.
19
Veblen 1957, 68.
20
see Braudel 1973, 18.
21
Marx 1938, 54.
22
Marx 1938, 42-43.
23
Campbell 1987, 6; 1993, 42.
24
Campbell 1987, 6.
25
Campbell 1993, 45.
26
Schmidgen 2002, 12.
27
see Simmel 1971, 50.
2
25
28
Baudrillard 1998, 7.
Slater 1997, 30.
30
Porter 1982, 47.
31
after Simmel 1971, 297-299.
32
Latour 1999, 10.
33
see Derrida 1994, 31.
34
Marx 1938, 41-42.
35
Miller 1987, 28.
36
Habermas 1995, 99.
37
Campbell 1987, 6; 1993, 42.
38
Law 1992, 380.
39
after Latour 1993, 15.
40
see Deetz 1996, 7; Gibb 1996, 12; Johnson 1996, 8; Spencer-Wood 1987, 2.
41
Appadurai 1986, 5; Douglas and Isherwood 1996, 9; Malinowksi 1922, 24.
42
see Leone 1988, 236.
43
Edwards 1996, 8; Richards 1999, 12.
44
see Attfield 2000, 9.
45
Latour 1999, 24; 2005, 12.
46
Latour 1999, 193-194.
47
Law 1992, 284.
48
Law 1992, 284.
49
Klein 1995, 362; Jones 1996, 108.
50
Douglas 1993, 70; Flint 1998, 216.
51
Lupton 2006, 402.
52
after Breen 2004, 12.
53
Blackwell 2007, 5.
54
see Hardy 1987, 12.
55
see Hardy 1975, 180.
56
Brown 1979, 7; Monaghan 1980, 12.
57
Schmidgen 2002, 129.
58
Gildon 1709, 5.
59
anon 1790, 7.
60
anon 1760, 5.
61
anon 1734, 6.
62
Flint 1998, 216.
63
Gildon 1709, 2.
64
Gildon 1709, 8.
65
anon 1763, 15.
66
anon 1763, 39.
67
anon 1763, 40.
68
anon 1760, 13.
69
anon 1775, 6.
70
anon 1754, 14.
71
after Foucault 1979, 153.
72
anon 1781, 215.
73
after Campbell 1993, 44.
74
anon 1790, 79.
75
Johnstone 1760, 17.
76
Johnstone 1760, 80.
77
Kilner 1785, vii.
78
Kilner 1797, 13.
79
Kilner 1785, 60-62.
80
Kilner 1785, 93.
81
Trimmer 1799, 7.
82
Batchelor 2005, 8; Ribeiro 2002, 22.
83
McKendrick et al. 1982, 53.
84
Latour 1999, 10.
85
Fielding 1777, 49.
86
anon 1747, 145.
29
26
87
anon 1747, 145.
Ancourt 1768, 68.
89
Austen 1998, 251.
90
Gregory 1793, 42.
91
Jones 1737, 4-5.
92
Smith 1976, 194-195.
93
Chesterfield 1794, 24.
94
Ancourt 1768, 66.
95
Attfield 2000, 241; Haraway 1991, 196.
96
Gregory 1793, 41.
97
Allestree 1787, 179.
98
Allestree 1787, 180.
99
Ancourt 1768, 66.
100
Allestree 1787, 68.
101
see Foucault 1979, 153.
102
Gregory 1793, 42.
103
Porter 1982, 27-28.
104
Wilson 2004, 8.
105
Chapone 1778, 61-2.
106
Richards 1999, 97.
107
Smith 2002, 177.
108
after Heidegger 1977, 12.
109
Bland 1767, 180.
110
see Haywood 1725, 24.
111
Chesterfield 1794, 18.
112
Barker-Benfield 1992, 22.
113
Gregory 1793, 36.
114
anon 1780, 14.
115
see Leppert 1988, 46.
116
Chapone 1778, 43.
117
anon 1722, 84.
118
Austen 1998, 61.
119
Austen 1998, 62.
120
Austen 1996, 188.
121
Austen 2003, 44.
122
Hardy 1975, 183.
123
see Austen 1998, 140.
124
Austen 1998, 140.
125
Austen 1996, 316.
126
1993, 45-46.
127
Austen 2003, 45.
128
Austen 2003, 31.
129
see Onions et al. 1966, 620.
130
after Latour 1999, 15.
131
Austen 1998, 166.
132
Austen 1998, 244.
133
Austen 1998, 251.
134
Austen 1996, 182.
135
Latour 1999, 183.
136
Csikszentmihalyi and Rockberg-Halton 1981, 22.
88
Bibliography
Allestree, R. 1787, The Ladies Calling, London.
Ancourt, A. 1768, The Lady’s Preceptor. Taken from the French of the Abbé
27
d’Ancourt and adapted to the religion, customs and manners of the English
nation. By a gentleman of Cambridge, Birmingham.
anon 1722, The Young Ladies Conduct, London.
anon 1734, The Secret History of an Old Shoe, London.
anon 1747, The Young Gentleman and Lady instructed in such principles of politeness,
prudeness and virtue as will Play a sure foundation for gaining respect,
esteem, and satisfaction, London.
anon 1754, The History and Adventures of a Lady’s Slippers and Shoes. Written by
themselves, London.
anon 1760, The Adventures of a Black Coat, London.
anon 1763, The Travels of Mons. le Post-Chaise, London.
anon 1775, The Adventures of a Cork-Screw, London.
anon 1780, Euterpe, London.
anon 1781, The Adventures of a Hackney Coach, Third Edition, London.
anon 1790, The Adventures of a pin, supposed to be related by himself, herself, or
itself, London.
Appadurai, A.(ed.) 1986, The Social Life of Things: commodities in cultural
perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Attfield, J. 2000 Wild Things: the material culture of everyday life, Oxford:
Berg.
Austen, J. 1996, Emma, London: Penguin.
Austen, J. 1998. Mansfield Park, London: Penguin.
Austen, J. 2003, Persuasion, London: Penguin.
Barker-Benfield, G.J. 1992, The Culture of Sensibility: Sex and Society in
28
Eighteenth-Century Britain, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press.
Batchelor, J. 2005, Dress, distress and desire: clothing and the female body in
eighteenth-century literature, Houndmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baudrillard, J. 1998, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, London: Sage.
Berg, M. 2005, Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth Century Britain, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bermingham, A. and Brewer, J. (eds.) 1995, The consumption of culture 1600-1800:
Image, Object, Text, London, New York: Routledge.
Blackwell, M. 2007 (ed.) The secret life of things: animals, objects, and it-narratives
in eighteenth-century England, Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
Bland, J. 1767, An Essay in Praise of Women, Edinburgh.
Borsay, P. 1989, The English Urban Renaissance: culture and society in the
provincial town, 1660-1770, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Braudel, F. 1973, Capitalism and Material Life 1400-1800, trans. by M.
Kochan, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Breen, T. 2004, The marketplace of revolution : how consumer politics shaped
American independence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brewer, J. & Porter, R. 1993, ‘Introduction’, in Brewer & Porter, 1-15.
Brewer, J. & Porter, R. (eds) 1993, Consumption and the World of Goods, London:
Routledge.
Brown, J. 1979, Jane Austen’s Novels: Social Change and Literary Form,
Cambridge (Mass.), London: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, C. 1987, The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism,
Oxford, New York: Blackwell.
29
Campbell, C. 1993, ‘Understanding traditional and modern patterns of
consumption in eighteenth-century England: a character-action approach’, in
John & Porter, 40-57.
Chapone, H. 1778, Letters on the improvement of the mind, London.
Chesterfield, P. 1794, Principles of Politeness and of knowing the world,
London.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Rockberg-Halton, E. 1981, The Meaning of
Things: Domestic Symbols and the self, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Deetz, J. 1996 In small things forgotten: an archaeology of early American life,
New York: Anchor Books.
Derrida, J.1994, Spectres of Marx: the state of the debt, the work of mourning,
and the new international, London, New York: Routledge.
Douglas, A. 1993, ‘Britannia’s rule and the It-narrator’, Eight. Cent. Fic. 6, 70-89.
Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. 1996, The World of Goods: Towards an
Anthropology of Consumption, Second Edition, London and New York:
Routledge.
Edwards, C. 1996, Eighteenth-century furniture, Manchester and New York:
Manchester University Press.
Ellis, J. 2001, The Georgian town 1680-1840, Houndmills, New York: Palgrave
Fielding, J. 1777, The Universal Mentor, London.
Flint, C. 1998, ‘Speaking Objects: the circulation of stories in EighteenthCentury Prose Fiction’, PMLA 113(2), 216-226.
Foucault, M. 1979, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London:
Penguin.
30
Gibb, J. 1996, The Archaeology of Wealth: consumer behaviour in English
America, New York: Plenum Press.
Gildon, C. 1709, The Golden Spy, London.
Girouard, M. 1990, The English Town, New Haven and London: Yale University
Press.
Gregory, J. 1793, A Father’s Legacy to his Daughters, Edinburgh.
Habermas, J. 1995, Communication and the Evolution of Society, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Halperin, J. 1975, Jane Austen: bicentenary essays, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haraway, D. 1991, Simians, Cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature,
London: Free Association Books.
Hardy, B. 1975, ‘The objects in Mansfield Park’, in Halperin 1975, 180-196.
Hardy, B. 1987, The Collected Essays of Barbara Hardy, Volume One:
Narrators and Novelists, Brighton: The Harvester Press.
Haywood, E. 1725, The tea-table: or, a conversation between some polite persons
of both sexes, at a lady’s visiting day. Wherein are represented the various
foibles, and affectations, which form the character of an accomplish’d beau,
or modern fine lady, London.
Heidegger, M. 1977, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays,
trans. by W. Lovitt, New York: Harper Row.
Johnson, M. 1996, The archaeology of capitalism, Oxford, Blackwell.
Johnstone, C. 1760, Chrysal: or, the adventures of a guinea, Dublin.
Jones, E. 1737, The Man of Manners, London.
Jones, V. 1996, ‘The Seductions of Conduct: Pleasure and Conduct Literature’, in
31
Porter & Roberts, 108-32.
Kilner, M. 1785, The Adventures of a Pincushion, London.
Kilner, M. 1797, Memoirs of a Peg-Top, York.
Klein, L. 1995, ‘Politeness for Plebes: consumption and social identity in
early eighteenth-century England’, in Bermingham & Brewer 1995, 362-77.
Langford, P. 2004, A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727-1783, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. 1993, We have never been modern, trans. by Catherine Porter, Hemel
Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Latour, B. 1999, Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies,
Cambridge (Mass.), London: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 2005, Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-networktheory, Oxford: Clarendon.
Law, J. 1992, ‘Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy and
heterogeneity’, Sys. Prac. 5(4), 379-393.
Lemire, B. 2005 The Business of Everyday Life: Gender, Practice and Social Politics
in England, c.1600-1900, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Leone, M. 1988, ‘The Georgian order as the order of merchant capitalism in
Annapolis, Maryland’, in Leone and Potter 1988, 235-261.
Leone, M. and Potter, P. (eds.) 1988, The Recovery of Meaning: Historical
Archaeology in the Eastern United States, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington DC.
Leppert, R. 1988, Music and Image: Domestic ideology and socio-cultural
formation in Eighteenth-Century England, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
32
McCracken, G. 1988, Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the
Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities, Bloomington,
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
McKendrick, N., Brewer, J. and Plumb, J. 1982, The Birth of a Consumer
Society: The Commercialisation of Eighteenth Century England, London:
Europa.
Malinowski, B. 1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of
Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New
Guinea, London: George Routledge and Sons.
Mandeville, B. 1989, The Fable of the Bees, London, Penguin.
Marx, K. 1938. Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, edited and
trans. by D. Torr, London: George Allen and Unwin.
Monaghan, D. 1980, Jane Austen: Structure and Social Vision, London and
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Miller, D. 1987, Material Culture and Mass Consumption, Oxford: Blackwell.
Onions, C., Friedrichsen, G. and Burchfield, R. 1966, The Oxford
Dictionary of English Etymology, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Plumb, J. 1980, Georgian Delights, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Porter, R. 1982, English Society in the Eighteenth Century, London: Pelican.
Porter, R. & Roberts, M. (eds.) 1996, Pleasure in the eighteenth century, Houndmills:
Macmillan.
Ribeiro, A. 2002, Dress in eighteenth-century Europe, Second Edition, London:
Yale University Press.
Richards, S. 1999, Eighteenth-century ceramics: products of a civilised society,
Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press.
33
Schmidgen, W. 2002, Eighteenth-Century Fiction and the Law of Property,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shammas, C. 1990, The Pre-Industrial Consumer in England, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Simmel, G. 1971, On Individuality and social forms, Chicago, London: The
University of Chicago Press.
Slater, D. 1997, Consumer Culture and Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smith, A. 1970, The Wealth of Nations, Books I-III, London: Penguin.
Smith, A. 1976, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Oxford: Clarendon.
Smith, W. 2002, Consumption and the Making of Respectability 1600-1800,
New York, London: Routledge.
Spencer-Wood, S. (ed) 1987, Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, New
York: Plenum Press.
Thirsk, J. 1978, Economic policy and projects: the development of a consumer
society in early modern England, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Trimmer, S. 1799, The Silver Thimble, London.
Veblen, T. 1957, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of
Institutions, London: George Allen and Unwin.
Weatherill, L. 1988, Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain, 16601760, London, New York: Routledge.
White, J. 2006, ‘A world of goods?: the consumption turn and eighteenthcentury British history’, Cult. and Social. Hist. 3(1), 93-104.
Wilson, K. 2004, Tea with Jane Austen, Madison (Wis.): Jones Books.
34