top of page

How far was gender expressed or defied by shopping, fashion and appearances? (II)

By Lara Froes

Edited by Rebecca Ogbonna and Mark Potter





Historiographical debate surrounds the changes on gender, caused by the fast pace development in Victorian consumer culture. Deborah Cohen argued that new consumption behaviours brought changes. For instance, through questioning the husband's authority over how much money his wife spent.[1] This implies that once well-established values concerning gender were being questioned, showing that what constituted manliness and womanhood was changing. On the other hand, Valverde brings a class element to the discussion, by pointing out that for working-class women, the environments where new consumption practices took place, were sources of exploitation and moral supervision.[2] This shows a more negative side of changing values, hinting that there was more expression than defiance of gender, due to class limitations. In order to answer the question, I will be looking at different aspects which formed the Victorian concept of gender: the division of public and private spheres, respectability, class, and the male role in this developing scenario. Also, I will assess how each of these were either defied or expressed through new shopping behaviour, fashion, and appearances. The time period I will focus on is from mid- to late- nineteenth century, as it was one of intense changes in fashion, consumption, and appearances. In general, the essay will be focused on women, however, a paragraph will be reserved for manliness. Evidence points out that there was a subtle defiance of gender, mainly achieved through shopping, even though appearances and fashion also played a role in this.


From the 1850s, Britain saw a change on how shopping was made, namely with the rise of

department stores. This was a result of the increasing demands from the industrial middle-class, that was also expanding both in size and in income. With the rise of real wages, the working classes also began to take part in this consumer culture, mostly from 1870s, and the types of shops which met their needs were chain stores, such as Marks & Spencer.[3] Both forms of establishments substituted small shops and attracted their customers by offering lower prices. Even though there is debate as to what extent this was a “retail-revolution,” the changes in consumer behaviour -revolutionary or not- had impacts beyond shopping, per se. As an example, in fashion, consumers started to buy ready-made clothing, which was not common in the previous century.[4] Also, beauty became more accessible, and changes to its production as well as commercialisation, impacted on appearances. All of these defied different aspects of gender. For instance, women circulating more on the public sphere, as well as changes in fashion, meant that their respectability became a matter of questioning. Nevertheless, not all people were impacted in the same way since those from lower classes were not as engaged with this new consumer culture as the wealthy portion of the population. Also, men were having their position, as the centre of the economic decisions of the home, challenged. Therefore, the new consumer culture in Victorian Britain was a key factor to the defiance -albeit subtle- of the gender norms at the time since it affected key concepts of nineteenth-century notions on gender.


The emergence of department stores brought new shopping habits, which were crucial to the

defiance of Victorian conceptions of gender. The main way in which gender was defied, was

by challenging the notions of public and private spheres. An early example is Whiteley, being

this one of the first British department stores. This shop raised concerns because it 'disorganised class, gender, moral and economic categories’.[5] This demonstrates how Victorian dynamics were being challenged through this new form of consumption. More specifically to gender, department stores offered a space which allowed women to spend long hours out of the home, breaking away from the image of angels in the house. Such defiance led to many fears, such as that of women becoming prostitutes and drunkards, because these were associated with the public sphere. As an example, John Chapman, the editor of Westminster Review, was a believer that these new shopping habits could cause prostitution.[6] Therefore, evidence points out that department stores were defying an important concept attached to gender: the notion of women as belonging to the private sphere. Rappoport supported this, by arguing that new type of consumers emerged with the retailing culture of mid-nineteenth century.[7] In this context, female shoppers became an active part of the public sphere. However, an article in Punch, from 1844, advises women to ‘walk leisurely’ on the streets when shopping.[8] This implied that before the rise of department stores, women were more present in the public sphere than historiography has suggested. Hence, department stores would not have been critical in defying the division of public and private spheres. However, the fact that such stores included facilities, such as lavatories and restaurants -which were not available in shopping streets- allowed women to spend more time out of the home than in previous years. Hence, the advice in the article is referring to the duration of shopping, while department stores went beyond that. Therefore, the rise of department stores shows how shopping defied Victorian notions of gender.


Middle-class women were strongly bound to the idea of respectability, which was subtly defied by fashion and beauty. One example from fashion was the rise of tight lacing. Orson Fowler considered women who partook in tight lacing as ‘infanticides’ (since he believed it caused sterility), thus, the practice went against the view of women as family oriented. Furthermore, he wrote in 1898, that such practice could prompt consumption, as well as provoke unchristian feelings.[9] This reflects that tight lacing was defying the Victorian notion of respectability, as consumption was linked to prostitution. Furthermore, willingly taking part in activities which caused unchristian feelings, contradicted the notion of a respectable woman as being passionless. Appearances also played a role on defying Victorian respectability. Changes to female beauty standards and increased production among the perfumer professionals, allowed the rise of female beauty culturists. As a consequence, more women were in the public sphere, forming forty-five per cent ‘of Bond Street beauty vendors’ towards the end of the century.[10] Furthermore, engaging with beauty was increasingly common, but most people did this in secret.[11] This implied that respectability was subtly defied, because the focus on the naturalness and secrecy of these procedures, expressed this concept, by limiting drastic changes in appearances. Advertisements demonstrate such worry with respectability, by emphasising how natural procedures were. For instance, Mrs. Fairbanks’ advertisement claimed that her establishment offered grey tint for the hair, in ‘every natural shade’.[12] This demonstrated how the rise of beauty shops subtly defied conceptions of respectability, since there were still worries around having a natural appearance, even though the means for this were artificial. However, the fact that women were becoming shop owners, hints to a more overt challenging of gender. In summary, fashion and appearances subtly challenged respectability, and consequently, gender.


When considering these aspects in relation to the working-class, gender was more expressed

than defied. As an example, in fashion, women from the working classes tended to be accused of finery. This was used to maintain the class divisions among them, by claiming that they were imitating upper-class women, through cheap clothing.[13] Hence, their outfit was judged in relation to their class rather than their gender, demonstrating how class differences, implied on different forms of challenging womanhood. Furthermore, when engaging with fashion, working women were mainly spending their discretionary income on Sunday best clothing, indicative of how restricted their participation in new fashion trends was.[14] Even though the 1850s saw a rise in the standard of living, and a change in shopping habits, working-class women’s consumption was still quite restricted.[15] For instance, working-class women spent their discretionary income on food, more specifically on fish and eggs whenever possible.[16]This information reveals that differently from the wealthy part of the population, working-class shopping was still bound by necessity, which reduced their participation on beauty and fashion trends, thus limiting their defiance of gender through such means. Moreover, evidence points out that the wealthy were the ones who ignored criticisms, and persisted with their beauty practices, supporting the view that the working classes were excluded from this.[17] Hence, working-class engagement with fashion and appearances, expressed gender more than defied it.


Nevertheless, this does not mean that there was no defiance of gender among the working

classes. Richardson pointed out that ‘women from all classes promoted “ethical”consumption

practices’.[18] This allowed them to engage with politics, which defied the idea of women as not being politically active. This sort of shopping was also promoted through other means, such as pamphlets, showing that ethical consumption was the first layer to a wider political activity, being this pivotal on defying gender.[19] Pawning was another way in which working-class women challenged gender. In order to deal with the household needs during periods of economic hardships, these women engaged with complex negotiations through pawning, without men knowing about it.[20] This implied that working women were taking the forefront on the economic decisions of the house, which defied the concept of men being the main economic figure of the family, as the breadwinner. Furthermore, in order to pawn objects, women had to defy the authority of the man in the home, as male goods were more expensive, and their negotiation was done in secret.[21] Hence through pawning, working-class women managed to defy both the economic and hierarchical dynamics of the home. This shows how shopping defied gender among the working-class. Hence, working women defied gender in a different way than middle- and upper-class women did. In the public sphere, there was more expression, since they little engaged with fashion and appearance trends. However, ethical consumption practices and pawning were pivotal to allowing women to challenge gender. Therefore, class differences highlight how shopping was central to defying Victorian gender.


Fashion and appearances also allowed men to defy the ideas surrounding manliness. As an

example, Kunzle posited that some men partook in tight lacing and corset wearing, sometimes together with their wives.[22] This implies that men defied gender norms through fashion, since they were part of an activity which was largely female. However, primary evidence questions this, as seen in the account of a visitor from the United States, in London. He wrote that men did not ‘in general dress even with neatness’.[23] This account suggested that men were not so concerned with fashion, and as a result expressing gender. Nevertheless, it reinforces Kunzle’s argument that tight lacing was done by a minority of male Victorians. Hence, evidence suggests that Victorian men were subtly defying gender through fashion, due to their limited involvement with female practices, here exemplified by tight lacing. However, this was not the case with appearances. The author of the account points out that in 1859 London, it was common to see men with powdered hair and wearing wigs.[24] This implies that cosmetic practices were strongly present among men, and that this was not as subtle as among women. Hence, appearances among Victorian men were defying gender, since beauty was an increasingly female activity, and because they were not so discreet with it. Therefore, the limited use of tight lacing, implied that men were not so engaged with fashion, hence, it subtly defied gender for them. However, the account from the American tourist, indicated that many men engaged with cosmetic practices, implying that appearances defied notions on masculinity more than fashion.


The role of men and women in the home reflects key information about consumption and how this expressed gender. John Tosh argued that men were invested in the home. This hints that they had a say on aspects such as decoration, which would defy the vision of men being

detached from the private sphere. However, according to Jennings, among other Victorian

home advisors, an absolute middle-class home should contain ‘distinctive gendered material

cultures’.[25] This division was more present in wealthy families, which reflected their level of consumption, implying that the more a family can shop, the more gendered their spaces were.[26] Hence, this expressed gender by perpetuating the divisions from outside the home, inside it. As an example, more sociable areas, such as the dining room were linked to men -therefore, decorated accordingly- which reinforced the idea of men as belonging to the sociable public sphere. Moreover, Thad Logan argued that ‘women were responsible for the interior decoration’.[27] This point resonated with John Ruskin’s ideal of home, being this: ‘wherever a true wife’ is, because both put the woman as central to the house.[28] Therefore, in addition to having gendered spaces, the existence of such relied on women, who decorated them. Thus, through consumption for the home, the idea of the private sphere as female was perpetuated, hence, expressing gender. In summary, the dynamics of consumption to the house allowed gender to be more expressed than defied.


In conclusion, fashion and appearances from mid-nineteenth century, played a role in defying gender, as they challenged the notion of women as being naturally beautiful and passionless. Also, men were becoming part of this increasingly female world, which defied masculinity. Nevertheless, this was not the case for all classes. For instance, working-class women had limited engagement with fashion, when compared to wealthier consumers. Nevertheless, they engaged with political shopping, together with women from the other classes. Meanwhile, wealthy women were going to department stores, which challenged the notions of the public sphere as a masculine space. Hence, shopping was defying gender more overtly, and this was common to all classes, which shows how important it was for changing Victorian concepts surrounding gender. Fashion and appearances were also defying different aspects of gender; however, this was subtle because of the strong values which still surrounded Victorian society.


Notes


[1] Deborah Cohen, 'Buying and Becoming: New Work on the British Middle Classes', The Historical Journal, 46:4 (2003): p. 1003.

[2] Mariana Valverde, 'The Love of Finery: Fashion and the Fallen Woman in Nineteenth-Century Social Discourse', Victorian Studies, 32:2 (1989): p. 168.

[3] Susie L. Steinbach, Understanding the Victorians: Politics, Culture and Society in Nineteenth Century Britain (New York: Routledge, 2017), p. 107.

[4] Steinbach, Understanding the Victorians, p. 108.

[5] Erika D. Rappaport, '"The Halls of Temptation": Gender, Politics, and the Construction of the Department Store in Late Victorian London', Journal of British Studies, 35:1 (1996): p. 61.

[6] Valverde, 'The Love of Finery’, p. 178

[7] Cohen, 'Buying and Becoming', p. 1002.

[8] Victorian London, ‘Direction to Ladies for Shopping’, Punch <http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm> [accessed on 25 November 2020].

[9] D. Kunzle, 'Dress Reform as Anti-feminism: A Response', Signs, 2:3 (1977): p. 571.

[10] Jessica P Clark, The Business of Beauty: Gender and the Body in Modern (London: Bloomsbury, 2020), p. 196.

[11] Clark, The Business of Beauty, p. 25.

[12] Baroness Staffe, ‘The Lady's Dressing Room, Mrs. Fairbanks, Specialist for the Hair’, Victoria London, <http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm> [accessed on 25 November 2020].

[13] Valverde, 'The Love of Finery', p. 168.

[14] Steinbach, Understanding the Victorians, p. 111.

[15] Cohen, 'Buying and Becoming', p. 1003; Steinbach, Understanding the Victorians, p. 111.

[16] Steinbach, Understanding the Victorians, p. 111.

[17] Clark, The Business of Beauty, p. 196.

[18] Sarah Richardson, The Political Worlds of Women: Gender and Politics in Nineteenth Century Britain (New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 10.

[19] Richardson, The Political Worlds of Women, p. 11.

[20] Ellen Ross, ‘“Fierce Questions and Taunts”: Married Life in Working-Class London, 1870-1914’, Feminist Studies, 8:3(1982): pp. 588-590.

[21] Ross, ‘Fierce Questions and Taunts’, p. 590.

[22] Kunzle, 'Dress reform as anti-feminism’, p. 573.

[23] W. O'Daniel, ‘Ins and Outs of London’, Victoria London <http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm> [accessed on 25 November 2020].

[24] O’Daniel, ‘Ins and Outs of London’.

[25] Jane Hamlett, ‘“The Dining Room Should Be the Man's Paradise, as the Drawing Room Is the Woman's”: Gender and Middle-Class Domestic Space in England, 1850–1910’, Gender & History, 21:3 (2009): p. 576.

[26] Hamlett, ‘“The Dining Room Should Be the Man's Paradise, as the Drawing Room Is the

Woman's”’, p. 583.

[27] Cohen, 'Buying and Becoming’, p. 1001.

[28] John Ruskin in Deborah Epstein Nord (ed.), Sesame and Lilies, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 77.


Bibliography


Baroness Staffe, ‘The Lady's Dressing Room, Mrs. Fairbanks, Specialist for the Hair’,

Victorian London <http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm> [Accessed on 25

November 2020]


Clark, Jessica P, The Business of Beauty: Gender and the Body in Modern London. London:

Bloomsbury, 2020


Cohen, Deborah, 'Buying and Becoming: New Work on the British Middle Classes', The

Historical Journal, 46:4, 2003


Hamlett, Jane, ‘“The Dining Room Should Be the Man's Paradise, as the Drawing Room Is

the Woman's”: Gender and Middle-Class Domestic Space in England, 1850–1910’, Gender

& History, 21:3, 2009


Kunzle, D., 'Dress reform as anti-feminism: a response', Signs, 2:3, 1977


O'Daniel, W., ‘Ins and Outs of London’, Victoria London,

<http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm> [Accessed on 25 November 2020]


Rappaport, Erika D., '"The Halls of Temptation": Gender, Politics, and the Construction of

the Department Store in Late Victorian London,' Journal of British Studies, 35:1, 1996


Richardson, Sarah, The Political Worlds of Women: Gender and Politics in Nineteenth

Century Britain. New York: Routledge, 2013


Ross, Ellen, ‘“Fierce Questions and Taunts”: Married Life in Working-Class London, 1870-

1914’, Feminist Studies 8:3, 1982


Ruskin, John, in Deborah Epstein Nord (ed.), Sesame and Lilies. New Haven: Yale

University Press, 2002


Steinbach, Susie L., Understanding the Victorians: Politics, Culture and Society in

Nineteenth Century Britain. New York: Routledge, 2017


Valverde, Mariana, 'The Love of Finery: Fashion and the Fallen Woman in Nineteenth-

Century Social Discourse', Victorian Studies, 32:2, 1989


Victorian London, ‘Direction to Ladies for Shopping’, Punch

<http://www.victorianlondon.org/index-2012.htm> [Accessed on 25 November 2020]

Comments


bottom of page