Many, if not most, children now grow up with a bedroom of their own; most families have at least one private bathroom not shared with other families - even hotel guests no longer need to walk down the corridor carrying sponge bag & towel
We have seen a massive growth in the numbers of people, not just the elderly bereaved, who live entirely on their own - one person households, to use the jargon
This increase in privacy goes along with a welcome increase in the anonymity of our public transactions; we do not have to face the disapproving bank clerk when withdrawing our last £10, or the disapproving keeper of the corner shop when buying that bottle of sherry or packet of chocolate biscuits
One person sharing household was a term adopted by statisticians in the 1930s to allow them to distinguish those who, though single, lived happily with others from those who, ideally, would prefer their own space & independent living arrangements. The test then was the sharing of meals; boarders who shared meals with the host household were presumed to enjoy sharing; lodgers - those who merely rented space but made their own catering arrangements - were assumed to be forced into sharing accommodation by the lack of anywhere else to live. How ironic that even the most close-knit of families are now unlikely to share most of their meals
The facility for eating on ones own, whenever one feels like it, is a consequence of changes in the technology & division of labour in food production & preparation, most recently the explosion in the availability of ready meals & the microwave. A century ago the people who prepared the food would have had to operate much closer to the consumer; if you were lucky enough, & rich enough, an army of servants would be living in your house ready to cater to your whims, but this privilege came at the price of lack of privacy
It is very uncomfortable to have people constantly there to observe your foibles, to make you feel constantly watched; it is at least equally uncomfortable for those whose survival & comfort depends on serving your whims. When the servers belong to an identifiably different race from those they serve, the potential for grievance multiplies & the likelihood of explosion is so much the greater
These musings have been prompted by my reading of William Russells Indian diary of 1858/9. William Russell is the man who is credited as the first modern war correspondent, who made his name reporting the Crimean War for the Times. Not long after that he spent a year following the last stages of the Indian Mutiny & the transfer of power from the East India Company to the British crown. As with his Crimean reports, his Indian dispatches compelled a change in policy; the army had to stop its tactic of indiscriminate retribution (a soft word for hanging, torture & pillage) against anyone they thought guilty of the least kind of support for the Indian mutineers - guilt which could be manifest simply in the colour of skin or the village one lived in
In this Diary William Russell displays a fascinating combination of the most modern arguments in favour of respect - for different cultures, religions & peoples - with the most hair-raisingly racist comments, not just about mutineers but about the servants who were closest to him. He also takes a relaxed attitude towards looting, from which he sometimes benefited personally, & shows an almost unquestioning acceptance of the right & duty of the British to govern an Indian empire
Travel in India was difficult then, & for Russell it was made even more so after an accident in which he was kicked in the groin by his horse. The available medical treatment consisted of bleeding or blistering, which one can only marvel at his ability ultimately to survive. Out in the field with the army, he had no option but to keep on the move, but the only way in which he could do this was in a kind of litter or palanquin, carried on the shoulders of 'coolies'; since he weighed 13 stone he had to have more than the usual number of bearers &, though he never says so, he must also have depended on servants for much more intimate kinds of help
Modern disability campaigners make a point about the need for as much independence as possible; psychology tells us about the resentments nourished by unavoidable dependency. Even Princess Diana resented not being able to make herself the occasional cup of coffee
And so we can understand the ambivalent feelings of the English in India who believed that they came from a superior civilisation, but who at the same time depended on Indians not only for the essentials of every day life but for the organisation of economy & society as well. And we can understand the resentments of Indians forced to serve these people, people whose sense of superiority was often not matched by their behaviour
Today we mourn the loss of extended family, of community; we bemoan the fact that we may not know our neighbours. But community & family also confine us, put us in boxes: I am the musical one, you are the plain one, she is the mad old bat who lives down the street. In a wider world, one which is less restricted & enclosed, I can also be the one who doesn’t understand jazz, you can be the model with the very interesting face, she can be the world expert & famous writer on medieval religions
Family or community can also be confined by the wider group. Thus the family has to keep its secrets, to hide the member who brings shame by not conforming to the norm; the community has to react with aggression to criticism of its beliefs
The modern combination of anonymity & communication provides alternative safety valves; the internet or radio phone-ins provide both platforms for sharing with others what otherwise had to be suppressed and opportunities for the relief of finding that you are not uniquely shameful as a group or as an individual
The modern focus on self brings its own problems of victimology, itself a kind of avoidance of responsibility. The old stiff upper lip, the getting on with it, the determination to ignore the gossip, had considerable advantages. We need people who can just get on & solve the next problem. To dwell on past hurts, to mix only with others with the same problem, to demand the pity of others, is to put yourself in the position of the leper
The paradox then, as so nicely illuminated by the current battles over press intrusion, is that in order to be able to operate properly in public space, we each & all need a totally private space to retreat to; in order to operate in that space to which we cannot control access we need a space where access is strictly by invitation only
----------
Final aside: nudity was particularly offensive or shocking in a world that did not provide the personal space for physical withdrawal. The nudist imposes on the viewer an unacceptable intrusion, & vice versa
Famously the definition of a dwelling for the 1981 Census was characterised as 'a space in which you can walk around naked if you want to'. Is it a coincidence that public nudity has become less shocking, now that withdrawal to a private space is possible for the one who does not want to be forced to watch as well as for the one who does not wish to be exposed?
--------
Further research: Servants in C19th novels - often not mentioned though they must be there
Related posts
Link
