|
This dissertation analyses the extent of women’s return to domesticity and motherhood in Britain in the years 1919-1939. Applying to the primary sources taken from women’s magazines, newspapers and novels and utilising the feminist approach and the social constructionist approach, the research identifies social, political and historical reasons to explain women’s position at the beginning of the twentieth century.
The findings of the paper suggest that after the First World
War the country began to revive the cult of domesticity, returning to
the traditional stereotypes in regard to females. Those women who
continued to work were rejected by society. However, British women
managed to turn the principles of domesticity and motherhood into a new
direction, combining their domestic duties with professional careers.
Thus, some received results are consistent with the previous
researches, while other results provide new findings, concerning the
discussed issue. In this regard, the interwar revival of domesticity
does not represent women’s loss of independence, but instead
contributes to the creation of a new female identity.
1 Statement of the problem
Although the beginning of the twentieth century in Britain
demonstrated the rise of the suffrage movement and the implementation
of the voting rights for females, the period of 1919-1939 revealed
women’s return to domesticity and motherhood. Despite the fact that
there were some tensions between the former ideologies and new
principles of females’ independence, British women successfully coped
with the existing domestic restrictions and renewed the ideals of
motherhood. However, the conditions of domesticity slightly differed in
middle-class and working-class families due to different social status
of these groups.
2 Introduction
During the First World War the usual females’ roles in Britain were
exposed to some changes: women substituted men in munition factories
and other plants, achieving a certain degree of independence. They
faced new perspectives and managed to acquire financial security.
However, in the post-war period the cult of domesticity gained much
strength, and British females were forced to return to domesticity and
motherhood. This sudden shift in roles can be explained by various
social and political events occurred within the country. British
society that experienced considerable difficulties after the War began
to idealise women who devoted themselves to a family and, on the
contrary, expressed enmity to those females who wanted to work and
acquire economic independence. Thousands of women were discharged from
factories and they could not find another place of employment.
According to Jude Giles, the popular British papers constantly
advocated the principles of domesticity and motherhood, strongly
criticising unmarried females who challenged the existing social
stereotypes1. British fiction and films depicted women within domestic
sphere, while all other spheres were restricted for females. Although
the voting rights for females were preserved, constant attempts were
made by some politicians to introduce certain restrictions into the
process of voting.
Thus, British society gradually returned to the traditional division of
gender roles; and, as Martin Pugh puts it, the period of 1919-1939
“marked the start of a long-term trend towards marriage”2. However,
women considerably changed their marriages and their relations with
men, demonstrating independence and strength. The aim of the
dissertation is to analyse women’s return to domesticity and motherhood
in Britain in the years 1919-1939. The research is divided into several
parts. Chapter 1 provides a statement of the problem that uncovers the
principal thesis of the paper. Chapter 2 conducts a general overview of
the discussed historical period and the position of women in Britain
since 1900. Chapter 3 discusses the critical works that are written on
the issue of domesticity and motherhood at the beginning of the
twentieth century. Chapter 4 discusses the research methods that
provide the basis for theoretical explanation of the changes in the
position of both middle-class and working-class females. Chapter 5
investigates in depth various aspects of the issue, such as the impact
of historical events on women in the years 1919-1939, the social and
political changes that resulted in women’s return to domesticity and
the depiction of these changes in British literature and mass media of
the twentieth century. Chapter 6 analyses the results of the research,
while Chapter 7 points at the limitations of the dissertation and gives
suggestions for further research of the discussed issue.
3 Review of the literature
The issue of domesticity and motherhood in Britain in the years
1919-1939 has been widely researched by critics. Deirdre Beddoe points
out that it was the period when the “notion that women’s place is in
the home” was revived3. The researcher analyses women of middle-class
society, suggesting that they greatly changed the ideals of domesticity
and motherhood after the First World War. Sue Bruley goes further in
her analysis; she pays much attention to women of working class, trying
to give “a synthesis which will give us [readers] an overview of
twentieth century femininity in Britain”4 and demonstrating women’s
difficulties in dealing with household duties and work.
Bruley regards the period of 1919-1939 as the times when a new family
with a great emphasis on domesticity and motherhood was formed, but
when many women were still engaged in various kinds of work outside
home, such as military, banking, nursing and teaching spheres. Susan
Kingsley Kent draws a parallel between the ideals of domesticity and
various stages of the inter-war period. In particular, the researcher
claims that at the beginning of the First World War British society
adhered to the traditional division of gender roles, that is, women
spent much time at home and men took part in the battle. Kent considers
that, as the War progressed, women acquired males’ places, while men
revealed passivity and became rather feminised5. In the post-war period
the women’s suffrage was widely opposed and criticised by British
society, while females’ domesticity was maintained by all possible
means. However, Pat Thane challenges this viewpoint by stating that
“there is reason to question the assumption that a reasserted ideology
of domesticity was successfully imposed upon women in the 1930s”6.
Applying to a detailed observation of social, historical, economic and
political contexts of 1919-1939 Thane demonstrates that the First World
War did not change the position of women, but only slightly improved
it.
Billie Melman demonstrates that the cult of domesticity in Britain was
maintained through British media, especially through such famous
newspapers as the Express and the Mail. As the researcher states, “From
the beginning of 1919 the contemporary young woman was criticised on
every conceivable ground. Her appearance was derided, her manners
deplored and her newly gained freedom was regarded with suspicion”7.
Melman considers that the British government was afraid of females’
independence and made everything to eliminate it. The only possible way
to decrease the spread of the suffrage movement and females’ employment
was to force women to return to domesticity and motherhood. As a
result, unmarried working females were accepted with great enmity,
creating poor conditions of living for them, especially for
working-class females.
Sue Bruley even claims that single British females “were vilified as
useless members of society”8. Such a prejudiced viewpoint reveals the
attempts of the British government to utilise gender differences for
their own benefits. During the First World War females were treated as
an important gender group that maintained industries, that is why
working females were provided with certain rights. But the attitude
towards working females was greatly changed in the post-war period,
when it was necessary to improve an economic situation in the country
and decrease the level of men’s unemployment. Deirdre Beddoe maintains
the similar notion, as she states, “In the inter-war years only one
desirable image was held up to women by all the mainstream media
agencies – that of housewife and mother”9. However, Marcus Collins
suggests that at the beginning of the twentieth century patriarchal
marriages in Great Britain were replaced by marriages based on equality
and freedom, despite the attempts of the British government to destroy
this equality10. In view of such ambiguous critical opinions, further
analysis makes an attempt to overcome these differences and evaluate
the extent of females’ return to domesticity and motherhood.
4 Research methodology
The research is conducted, applying to two theoretical methods – a
feminist approach and a social constructionist approach. These theories
provide an opportunity to analyse the issue of women’s return to
domesticity and motherhood in Britain at the beginning of the twentieth
century from different perspectives and historical context. As a valid
tool of analysis, the feminist approach observes women’s position in
Britain in the inter-war period, demonstrating the changes within
society. It is also aimed at evaluating various literary works through
political, social, economic and historical contexts, trying to reveal a
truthful portrayal of females in both men’s and women’s writing. The
social constructionist approach demonstrates that women follow the
norms of society that assigns specific roles for both males and
females. Thus, females’ sexuality is defined by cultural and social
factors.
5 Discussion
5.1. Historical Background
Until the end of the nineteenth century British women had been
prohibited any display of free will and independence; instead, they had
to follow the existing social norms that defined them the roles of a
wife and a mother, depriving females of the opportunity to receive
education or work. This especially regarded women of the upper and
middle classes who had to subdue males in everything, because men
controlled all aspects of social, cultural and political life in
Britain. They also controlled family’s property, thus a wife received
nothing, if she decided to divorce; even her children remained with a
husband. In view of such norms, it was a disgrace for a man, if his
wife expressed a desire for work; as Jane McDermid puts it,
“Middle-class women were ladies for whom waged work was demeaning,
indeed a slur on middle-class manhood”11. However, the position of
British women began to slightly change with the rise of the suffrage
movement, on the one hand, and the inability of females to find an
appropriate match, on the other hand. Some females made weak attempts
to receive education and achieve independence, but in the majority of
cases parents did not allow them to acquire specific professions.
Gradually, the number of British women who did not have any occupation
and could not marry became so intensified that British society realised
the necessity of providing women with some occupation and professional
skills. But as Anthea Callen reveals, “the question of creating
employment for needy gentlewomen posed severe social problems in a
period when ‘lady’ and ‘work’ were contradictions in terms”12. The fact
is that British patriarchal society continued to impose restrictions on
females’ occupation, wishing to preserve their position of a wife and a
mother and forbidding them to interfere into males’ jobs. As “the
majority of girls in Britain received a crucial part of their education
in the home”13, they could only work as governess, nurses or teachers.
If women in Britain wanted to receive another occupation, such as
drawing or banking, they had to acquire specific vocational training.
Although some educational establishments, like Bedford College, the
Female School of Design and Queen’s College were established to provide
females with necessary knowledge in teaching skills and art, the number
of women in these colleges was disastrously low. British society
continued to maintain its previous stereotypes and considered it
inappropriate for females to be earnestly engaged in such activity as
art or writing, because “the serious pursuit of art was incompatible
with the demands of marriage and domesticity – it unsexed women”14.
When the First World War began, British females received an opportunity
to replace men in the working places. Women of the middle-class society
were mainly engaged in civil activity, while females of the
working-class society worked on munition factories and other
industries. As Pugh states, in 1918 more than 110,000 females worked in
different places15. However, by 1919 the situation in Britain had
changed and women started to gradually return to domesticity and
motherhood. On the other hand, this return was different for
working-class females and middle-class females. The first group of
women had used to work before the First World War and their position
did not change much in the post-war period, except some improvements in
employment. But the second group of females “entered occupations which
they would have never dreamt of pursuing in normal circumstances”16. As
a result, some of them abandoned the work after the end of the First
World War, while others continued to perform their professional duties,
though the British government made everything to suppress such females’
activity.
5.2. Domesticity and motherhood in Britain in the years 1919-1939
The First World War aggravated the living conditions of British people
and intensified the problems that had already existed in the country in
the pre-war period. For instance, the spread of venereal diseases began
to threaten women’s fertility17, and various social changes inspired by
the War resulted in the decrease of the country’s power, especially in
the sphere of economics.
The conditions of females and children in Great Britain were especially
complex. In the absence of men, females began to realise that they had
to take responsibility for their homes and children on themselves;
however, they were also forced to substitute males on their working
places. In addition, those males who were not killed in the War were
psychologically destroyed by the war experience and the difficult
economic conditions, with which people collided in the post-war period.
As Sally Alexander puts it, “After the War, the sexual division of
labour was again a source of friction”18. Thousands of British males
who came back home in 1919 realised that their jobs were taken away by
females. Thus, men could no longer support their families in an
appropriate way and women refused to abandon their jobs. Such a shift
in economic positions of women and men resulted in men’s unemployment
that was proved by the official data of the twentieth century19. Some
men had to send their children in search of a work to South or even
sell them, this especially regarded young girls of British miners who
lost their jobs in the post-war period. Men started to experience the
lack of dignity that usually resulted in the destruction of a family or
their own personalities.
The situation was complicated by serious economic depression of 1921
that was a direct consequence of the First World War, as many
industries in Britain were destroyed. Besides, the country that lost a
great part of male population during the War was impaired and required
fresh force to cope with the negative consequences of the War. As Kent
claims, “marriage and marital sex bore the brunt of restoring social
harmony in post-war Britain”20. The British government understood that
it was crucial to restore the traditional division of gender roles. As
women returned to domesticity and motherhood, they were gradually
transformed into new females. In the pre-war period British women
occupied lower legal, cultural and social position than males, but the
changes inspired by the War and the suffrage movement resulted in the
improvement of women’s conditions21.
In particular, females turned from passive creatures to active figures,
while men changed into indifferent personalities. In addition, “the
British parliamentary franchise was extended to women aged 30 years and
over who were occupiers, or wives of occupiers, of land or premises of
not less than five pounds annual value”22. It was also given to those
females who had a university degree. This was an important change in
females’ position, because since 1832 franchise had been given only to
males in Britain, according to the Great Reform Act23. New females made
constant attempts to improve their marriages and their education,
following the ideas of freedom and equality. For instance, they managed
to create a great number of Women’s Clubs and gathered there to discuss
various females’ issues or oppose some legal decisions. The fact is
that, although British government provided females with the voting
rights, it still restricted their participation in certain spheres of
political, economic, cultural and social life24. Some British
politicians considered that young females would support only one
political party, thus they challenged the necessity to give legal
rights to women, instead suppressing their freedom of actions and
choice. As a result, “the impact of women as voters on politics and
policy was slight, except possibly to reinforce conservative and
Conservative Party values, including traditional values of
domesticity”25.
However, as women began to succeed in both domestic and working
spheres, they proved their abilities to combine professional careers
with the position of a wife and a mother. Females realised that family
is their main responsibility, but according to Rheta Dorr, “Home is not
contained within the four walls of an individual home, Home is the
community. The city full of people is the Family. The public school is
the real Nursery. And badly do the Home and the Family and the Nursery
need their mother”26. If British females failed to prove their rights
in peace negotiations with political leaders, they turned to active
military actions that usually ended in their imprisonment.
The years 1919-1939 in Britain are characterised by the spread of
hunger-strikes among women that were usually suppressed by the
government. Therefore, these women passed the way from ‘the gallant
girls’ of the eighteenth century to ‘domestic women’ and feminists of
the twentieth century. Some females worked as hard as men both during
and after the First World War, running the risk of miscarriage,
starvation or death, though British media, as Deirdre Beddoe claims,
concealed these facts, instead introducing the stereotypic ideals of
females that were changed from time to time due to social, cultural and
political changes27. The British government continued to implicitly
oppose women’s involvement into the working industrial process,
maintaining the notion that if married females earned money, they
deprived men and unmarried females of the opportunity to earn their
living28. Such a viewpoint can be understood, if taken into account
serious unemployment in Britain in 1920s. As a result, the greater part
of married British women was unemployed in the period of 1919-1939.
Even in 1928 when females managed to achieve equality in voting rights,
their “political involvement declined still further, reinforced by
powerful and effective social pressure upon women to give primacy to
their domestic roles”29. Specific official policies were implemented in
Britain to make women return to domesticity, as the First World War was
over30. Those married women who still worked were exposed to social
rejection and punishment; in other cases, women were driven over the
edge, as owners of industrial companies made them perform the same
amount of work as men who were physically stronger than women. As one
female worker claimed, “He [husband] might as well have a wooden woman.
We’re that tired by the end of the evening we’re fit for nothing”31. As
a result, many British companies preferred to hire men for different
kinds of work, especially in factories, while women were hired only for
seasonal or temporary activities, if there was shortage of man power
during complex periods of manufacturing.
As British women received training only in housekeeping and crafts,
they were not allowed for qualified jobs in offices or banks32. In
fact, they were suited only for household work, especially if women
were more than thirty. Young girls were more appropriate for a job,
because they required less salary than men and older women. Thus, women
had no choice but to fully involve in domesticity and motherhood,
finding new interests in this routine. It was only in 1939 that the
attitude towards women began to change, and many industries preferred
to hire women rather than girls or men. The formation of trade unions
in Britain greatly contributed to these changes. However, British women
were still forbidden to work at night and, in this regard, their
earnings were comparatively low33. Such a situation had existed until
the end of the twentieth century.
British literature of the twentieth century reflects the conditions of
women after the First World War, simultaneously revealing that women’s
return to domesticity and motherhood did not deprive females of the
opportunity to take part in certain occupations, especially, art,
writing, home design, nursing, gardening, banking34. For instance, in A
Diary of a Provincial Lady Elizabeth Monica Delafield creates a woman
who lives in English countryside in the midst of Two World Wars and who
tries to combine her household duties with her attempts to become a
writer. This female character has to deal with a lazy and tedious
husband, disobedient children, quarrelsome servants and other arrogant
people who surround her in the village, such as Lady Birkenshop and
Lady Boxe. She tries to please the members of her family in all
possible ways, but receives nothing in return, except complaints and
whims. In particular, her husband Robert constantly keeps silence and
ignores her, as the Provincial Lady claims, “Speak of this to Robert,
who returns no answer. Perhaps he is afraid of repeating himself?”35
Robert is used to sit lazily and read a newspaper or a book, while his
wife controls everything in the house: “Robert comes very late and says
he must have dropped over the Times”36.
Robert makes no attempt to understand his wife and does not want to
help her; instead he is absorbed in his inner world, in his thoughts
and affairs. However, the Provincial Lady is truly devoted to Robert
and her children Robin and Vicky, although she tries to conceal her
feelings from other people, especially her neighbours. Delafield shows
that British society does not understand such devotion and love;
instead, it forces people to adhere to strict norms and act like
machines that possess no emotions and feelings. When the Provincial
Lady talks with Lady B. about Robin, she states that “I refer to [him]
in a detached way as ‘the boy’ so that she shan’t think I am foolish
about him”37. In fact, the Provincial Lady implicitly criticises
society, in which she lives, when she uncovers her inner thoughts
through her diary. On the other hand, Delafield embodies her ideals of
domesticity in the character of the Provincial Lady, portraying her as
an ideal mother, a wife and a woman who successfully copes with all
affairs, including children’s upbringing.
The writer intensifies these images of domesticity and motherhood by
contrasting the Provincial Lady with other characters, such as Robert,
Lady Boxe and Lady Birkenshop. As the narrator claims at the beginning
of the Diary, “Plant the indoor bulbs. Just as I am in the middle of
them, Lady Boxe calls. I say, untruthfully, how nice to see her”38.
These words reveal that the Provincial Lady tries to maintain good
relations with everyone, including her family, friends, relatives and
neighbours, but simultaneously they demonstrate that she is overwhelmed
with household duties, while other people lead lazy existence. Although
her family belongs to middle-class society, the Provincial Lady
considers that it is her responsibility to take control over her
household. She realises that in such a complex inter-war period she
needs all her strength and wit to support her family and save it. On
the contrary, her husband avoids any household work, failing to realise
that his wife is the only person who tries to save her family from
destruction. In this regard, the Provincial Lady proves to be stronger
than her husband who is portrayed as a passive creature without any
hopes and desires. However, the principal female character perceives
reality with enthusiasm and understanding.
It is an unusual sense of humour that helps the Provincial Lady to
perfectly deal with various people and events. For instance, when she
goes to her son’s school for a meeting, she ironically describes this
visit: “Find that history, as usual, repeats itself…Discover strong
tendency to exchange with fellow-parents exactly the same remarks as
last year, and the year before it”39. In this regard, this female
character demonstrates not only a complete devotion to her family, but
also wit and politeness. The latter features also allow her to write
essays and sketches for The Provincial Lady Goes Further. Although this
woman is used to live in middle-class society that is obsessed with
gossips and secrets, she constantly reveals her difference from other
members. The Provincial Lady often challenges daily life of women
throughout the narration, claiming that she is not able to understand
them and their style of life. According to the feminist approach, women
were usually misrepresented in literature40; however, such female
writers as Elizabeth Monica Delafield, Jan Struther and Virginia Woolf
make attempts to overcome the traditional image of women, instead
introducing a truthful portrayal of middle-class females.
The female character of Jan Struther’s literary work Mrs. Miniver is
also a symbol of British domesticity before the Second World War.
Portraying daily life of Mrs. Miniver, the writer uncovers the tensions
between domestic ideologies of 1919-1939 and the feminist movement that
emerged at the end of the nineteenth century. However, through the
principal female character that belongs to the middle-class society
Struther reveals that at the beginning of the twentieth century women
managed to overcome domestic restrictions by reviving domesticity and
motherhood, but not by opposing these ideologies. In fact, Struther
demonstrates the attempts of females to balance new domestic ideology
with traditional domesticity. Similar to the Provincial Lady, Mrs.
Miniver describes her household duties and her struggle for
independence in the inter-war period. As Jan Struther herself managed
to combine her duties of a wife with a career of a writer, she was well
aware of the inability of some females to accept the pressure of social
norms.
In Mrs. Miniver the writer depicts domestication through the
character’s privacy and self- respect. She is an ideal of a good woman
and a wife who is not destroyed by household duties and children’s
upbringing. Instead, Mrs. Miniver utilises domesticity to shape her
personality and improve her inner world. As Judy Giles puts it,
“educated women may have enjoyed a degree of privacy, directly
connected to the home and its pleasures, in which to nurture forms of
selfhood unknown to either their mothers or their daughters”41. Despite
the fact that Mrs. Miniver has fewer servants than she used to have in
the pre-war period, she has more freedom and more opportunities. After
the War middle-class society lost their servants, as they were young
girls who began to work on factories; however, some devoted servants
remained in the disposition of these people. As Mrs. Miniver does not
have to work hard to earn her living, she utilises her knowledge to
reveal her self through domestic activity, including cooking,
upbringing, childcare and interior design. Gradually, a woman manages
to create a true home, ‘a private room of one’s own’, as Virginia Woolf
claims in her essays42.
As a housewife has much free time, she is able to improve her skills in
some occupations. A woman no longer feels herself in a prison, but
instead she transforms her home into a sacred place; such a change is
obvious throughout Struther’s narration. As Mrs. Miniver states, “Not
that she didn’t enjoy the holiday: but she always felt… a little
relieved when they were over. Her normal life pleased her so well that
she was half afraid to step out of its frame in case one day she should
find herself unable to get back”43. The principal female character does
not make an attempt to run away from reality, but she finds many
pleasurable things in her home, unlike females of the nineteenth
century who suffered much under the control of their parents and
husbands. Domesticity becomes an important part of her soul; the writer
describes her domestic activities in much detail to reveal Mrs.
Miniver’s obsession with her work: “Tea was already laid… Three new
library books lay virginally on the fender-stool… The clock on the
mantelpiece chimed, very softly and precisely, five times”44.
Mrs. Miniver, similar to the Provincial Lady, likes her home and is
truly devoted to her family. She manages to find her independence in
domesticity and motherhood; besides, she receives an opportunity to
think much about her life and the world around her. Mrs. Miniver’s
domestic activity satisfies her needs, although she collides with
difficulties from time to time. But the character’s intelligence allows
her to create an unusual approach to domestic affairs: “she managed to
keep household matters in what she considered their proper place. They
should be no more, she felt, than a low, unobtrusive humming in the
background of consciousness: the mechanics of life should never be
allowed to interfere with living”45. Mrs. Miniver follows such an
approach in everything, even in children’s upbringing. She reveals
certain respect towards children – Judy, Vin and Toby - and provides
them with freedom of actions, simultaneously maintaining her own
independence. This viewpoint positively contributes to her relations
with a husband Clem, because Mrs. Miniver considers “every relationship
as a pair of intersecting circles”46. Although Mrs. Miniver is really
close to her husband, she is also separated from him, as she preserves
some parts of her identity to herself.
Therefore, this female character is portrayed as a splendid mother and
a wife, but she is also a great individual, because she does not allow
domesticity to destroy her identity, although many females were
psychologically destroyed by household duties in the nineteenth
century. Mrs. Miniver strives for privacy; thus almost nothing is known
about her, except her thoughts and humour. However, it is through her
words, domestic affairs and relations with other people that Struther
uncovers Mrs. Miniver. Applying to the character of Mrs. Miniver, the
writer wants to prove that domesticity provides an opportunity for
self-development. In this regard, domesticity is not a barrier to
independence and growth; on the contrary, as the feminist approach
demonstrates, it can bring many positive results for both a woman and
her family, if a person knows how to rightfully utilise them47. Mrs.
Miniver does not lose her sense of humour, her power and independence
even under really complex conditions.
When the Second World War begins, she makes constant attempts to
preserve her home and save the members of her family. The character
does everything with enthusiasm and reveals unusual spirit in all
affairs. When Mrs. Miniver goes shopping, she observes other people;
when she does some work, she tries to diversify this daily routine.
Similar to the Provincial Lady, Mrs. Miniver maintains close
connections with society, but she also strives for solitude and
privacy, sometimes hating social meetings and gossips. She exposes
herself better in domestic affairs and in her relations with children
and her husband. Mrs. Miniver seems to find pleasure in many things,
such as shooting, games, countryside, but, above all, she loves her
home. She does not like to speak about her household duties, she likes
to do them. As Struther claims, “That was the kind of thing one
remembered about a house: not the size of the rooms or the colour of
the walls, but the feel of door-handles and light-switches… minute
tactual intimates, whose resumption was the essence of coming home”48.
Thus, every thing in her home is precious to Mrs. Miniver, because she
does everything by herself; she puts much efforts in the creation of
cosy environment for her household and she feels delight when she
manages to spend time with her family.
Mrs. Miniver adores her children and she makes constant attempts to be
not only their mother, but also their friend. Some females of the
twentieth century suffered from poor upbringing and they made
everything to create close relations with their children, as they
created their own families. Mrs. Miniver is one of such females who
adhere to new ways of childcare. As the War starts, Mrs. Miniver
realises that it is a threat to her domestic life, and she experiences
some negative emotions; however, unlike her friends, she tries to
adjust to new conditions and acquires some skills. She fills her days
with various activities, rightfully considering that it is impossible
to endure the War, if one does nothing. Mrs. Miniver is unable to
passively accept reality, although many females are brought up with
such lifestyle. This is constantly accentuated by Virginia Woolf in her
essay work A Room of One’s Own. Throughout the narration the writer
draws a parallel between the positions of men and women.
She points at material and educational differences, but, above all,
Woolf demonstrates that history provides little information as to the
daily life of a woman; thus, she creates fictitious images of women to
uncover rather complex conditions of females at the beginning of the
twentieth century. In particular, she introduces such female characters
as Judith Shakespeare, Mary Seton, Mary Carmichael and Mary Beton.
Although all these females are engaged in domestic affairs, they also
make attempts to reveal their talents in writing. The narrator herself
demonstrates that a woman needs financial independence, if she wants to
achieve success as a writer. Woolf describes everyday life of females
in much detail, observing their choice of food and clothes, their
duties and affairs, as well as social stereotypes. She divides women’s
life on social and private spheres, claiming that a woman can
successfully create only in a private room. As women were usually
restricted the access to libraries and educational establishments, they
had to spend time in gossips and leisure. However, as the narrator
receives a legacy from her aunt, she simultaneously achieves financial
security and “the freedom to think of things in themselves”49.
When the narrator comes home, she starts to ponder on domestic issue,
trying to understand whether domestic work of women is as valuable as
that of men. But as she further claims, domestic work is not
appreciated by men and has no value, because society adheres to the
principles of gender division that regard men’s work as crucial and
women’s work as useless. According to Alexander, “the common
understanding of sexual difference organized around a maternal ideal
and a sexual division of labour”50. However, such attitude is closely
connected with cultural and social norms. In particular, Penny Tinkler
claims that females’ education in the twentieth century greatly
depended on “gender and social class, as well as race, ethnicity,
disability, religion, sexuality and locality”51. Virginia Woolf seems
to reflect the similar notion, as she points out in A Room of One’s Own
that in the process of social changes, females’ nature is also changed.
As females start to receive education similar to men’s education, the
differences between men and women are intensified; however, Woolf
considers that these differences are crucial, because they reveal the
identities of both genders. As a woman is closely connected with a
domestic sphere, she applies to domestic issues in her writing, while
men are more interested in various political and social affairs. Woolf
pays much attention to the observation of material things in the life
of a woman, but such a viewpoint is justified. According to the writer,
“Intellectual freedom depends upon material things. Poetry depends upon
intellectual freedom. And women have always been poor, not for two
hundred years merely, but from the beginning of time… That is why I
have laid so much stress on money and a room of one’s own”52. This is
just the case with domesticity: middle-class women had more
opportunities to successfully maintain their household, while working
women lacked this particular chance. In addition, these working women
were strongly criticized for their attempts to support themselves, as
they violated the ideals of domesticity maintained by British society.
According to Beddoe, a role of a wife and a mother “was presented to
women to follow and all other alternatives were presented as wholly
undesirable”53. The fact is that the attempts to revive conventional
gender roles after the First World War can be explained by the
reluctance of the patriarchal British society to admit women into
political and social affairs. The War weakened females’ subordination
and provided them with certain freedom of action, but in the post-war
period the British government made another attempt to suppress women’s
independence. British politicians could not allow such freedom, because
political freedom could result in social and sexual freedom. Thus,
media presented an image of a crazy flapper, a young woman who opposed
moral values of British society, contrasting her with a female who
adhered to the ideals of domesticity and the existing morality. A woman
who had much freedom was regarded by British society as a threat to the
social values, because her wish to get rid of parents’ control and
receive sexual pleasure was equalled to low morality.
In his novel A Handful of Dust Evelyn Waugh reveals that the rejection
of domesticity and females’ freedom may result in many negative
consequences. On the example of a female character Brenda, the writer
demonstrates that the monotony of domestic life in a village makes
Brenda initiate a sexual affair with another man and abandon her
husband Tony after the tragedy with their child. As Brenda’s mother
explains, “Brenda must have felt a tiny bit neglected – people often do
at that stage of marriage”54. During a divorce Tony makes everything to
protect his wife’s reputation, implicitly revealing the impact of
social stereotypes on him. After the scandal with a divorce Tony Lasts
decides to go somewhere for a certain period of time, as Evelyn states,
“He was going away because it seemed to be the conduct expected of a
husband in his circumstances, because the associations of Hetton were
for the time poisoned for him, because he wanted to live for a few
months away from people who would know him or Brenda”55. Tony’s divorce
with Brenda is an autobiographical event, as Waugh’s wife Evelyn also
abandoned her husband, when she met another person.
Society made attempts to support Waugh, as he claimed to Harold Acton,
“Evelyn’s family and mine join in asking me to ‘forgive’ her whatever
that may mean… I did not know it was possible to be so miserable and
live but I am told that this is a common experience”56. Although both
Brenda and Tony belong to the upper-class society of the inter-war
period, they are different. Tony Last adheres to all traditional
stereotypes of aristocratic society and makes his wife live in a
village. Lady Brenda is greatly influenced by various social and
political changes and is engaged in relations with a rather ambitious
man John Beaver. Brenda is unable to follow the conventional ideals of
domesticity and she opposes them. Later she decides to leave John
Beaver and marry Jock Grant-Menzies, an influential politician;
however, at the end of the novel she experiences loneliness and Tony
appears in the hands of a crazy Mr. Todd. Thus, Waugh maintains the
ideals of domesticity existed in Britain in the years 1919-1939,
criticizing those females who make attempts to reject domesticity and
motherhood.
After all, they destroy not only themselves, but also close people, as
is just the case with Brenda’s husband and child. Brenda’s sexual
desires are evoked, as she starts to experience boredom. In fact,
Lesley Hall claims that sexuality is closely connected with such
aspects as education, work and social beliefs. According to the
researcher, British society of the twentieth century maintained the
idea that a woman simultaneously responded for the creation of
domesticity and the destruction of domesticity57. Females’ education
and freedom were a threat to the cult of domesticity, because females
with good education challenged the necessity to become mothers. As
Brenda lacks appropriate education, she depends much on males; she is
brought up and lives in an aristocratic environment, but she also
experiences the impact of the First World War on her. For instance, the
War gave rise to females’ sexuality, but the consequences of illegal
sexual intercourses were negative. The spread of divorces and incurable
illness became one of the most difficult problems of the post-war era.
According to Hall, such illness as syphilis resulted in “miscarriages,
stillbirths, deaths in early infancy and the birth of wizened puny
babies”58.
Thus, British society began to restrict sexual behaviour of females and
reject those women who could not control their sexual desires. However,
the social constructionist approach reveals that it is society that
shapes females and inspires their sexuality59. During the First World
War women appeared in the conditions that aroused their sexual desires.
Waugh shows that Brenda’s evoked sexuality destroys her relations with
Tony and turns her to the edge of an abyss. She becomes a social
outcast and looses her child. Waugh’s wife Evelyn was also rejected by
British society, treating Waugh as the victim of her sexual desires.
Although Waugh suffered much from divorce, he gradually realized that
it was useless and he claimed: “I have decided that I have gone on for
too long in that fog of sentimentality and I am going to stop hiding
away from everyone”60.
In this regard, the writer draws a parallel between his character and
himself, although Tony is not able to overcome his inner suffering.
However, Tony is also responsible for his wife’s failure, because he
completely ignores her, being obsessed with his family countryside
house. In the character of Tony, Waugh embodies British aristocracy in
whole, that is, Tony is presented as a person who marries a virgin
woman, has sex with her from time to time and is further involved in
various affairs, except domesticity. As a result, Brenda seeks solace
in the hands of another man, whom she further abandons as well. Brenda
seems to reject not only the principles of domesticity, but also the
ideals of motherhood. This is especially obvious in the scene when she
is informed of the death of a close person and her first thought is of
her lover’s death, while in reality it is her son who is killed. She
feels an immense relief in the fact that it is her son, but not her
lover is dead: “John… John Andrew… I… Oh thank God”61. Applying to such
a portrayal of Brenda, the writer reveals that females’ freedom changes
a woman and her interests, making her challenge the traditional gender
roles. Brenda lives in society, in which divorce is considered to be an
undesirable outcome, thus partners who are divorced are exposed to
social condemnation.
Divorce is an opposite side of domesticity and motherhood, that is why,
even the solicitors who deal with divorce affairs are rejected by
British aristocracy. As Waugh puts it, “Tony did not employ the family
solicitors in the matter but another less reputable firm who
specialized in divorce”62. Due to such a negative attitude of society
to a divorce, Tony is forced to play a practical joke to prove his
betrayal and save his wife. In this regard, in A Handful of Dust Waugh
criticizes a new woman, ignorant and sexual, who challenges social
ideals and supports the ideas of freedom. Brenda is a destroyer of
traditional norms of British society, of patriarchal aristocracy. In
her pursuit of sexual pleasure Brenda Last runs the risk of social
alienation, but she does noting to suppress her desires. On the example
of Brenda, Waugh shows the consequences of thoughtless actions and the
wish to follow natural instincts.
On the other hand, the writer gives a rather ambiguous vision on the
issue of domesticity and motherhood. Although Waugh seems to condemn
Brenda who rejects these ideals, he nevertheless implicitly maintains
the principles of freedom through his narration. According to George
McCartney, “Waugh’s response to the modern was marked by certain
fruitful ambivalence. In his official pose he was the curmudgeon who
despised innovation, but the anarchic artist in him frequently
delighted in its formal and thematic possibilities”63. This is
especially true in regard to A Handful of Dust, where the writer
uncovers a destruction of domesticity in the inter-war period,
revealing that traditional stereotypes and ideals of British
aristocracy do not always survive in the world exposed to social and
political changes. Waugh demonstrates that initially Tony is obsessed
with the ideals of his upper-class, but he has to destroy them after
his wife’s deed. Tony lives in his own world and truly believes his
wife and his children, but when he realises the truth, he decides to
escape. As the writer states in regard to Tony, “For a month now he had
lived in a world suddenly bereft of order; it was as though the whole
reasonable and decent constitution of things, the sum of all he had
experienced or learned to expect, were an inconspicuous, inconsiderable
object mislaid somewhere on the dressing table”64.
In fact, Tony adheres to the cult of domesticity more than Brenda who
appears to find pleasure in entertainment and sexual intercourses.
Tony’s escape to South America and his wish to find an imagined city
demonstrate the character’s longing for domesticity; he is in search
for a place “Gothic in character, all vanes and pinnacles, gargoyles,
battlements, groining and tracery, pavilions and terraces, a
transfigured Hetton”65. However, everything that Tony manages to
discover is the house of Mr. Todd, situated in the forest and full “of
mud and wattle”66, where the principal character remains. According to
Bruno Bettelheim, “the house in the woods and the parental home are the
same place, experienced quite differently because of a change in the
psychological situation”67.
Applying this idea to Tony’s search for domesticity, it is obvious that
Todd’s house symbolizes the changes occurred within a character,
because this house is both his lost home and a new place. This found
home reveals Tony’s psychological state of mind, his return to
childhood and domesticity. In this regard, Brenda differs both from
Tony and from female characters of Delafield and Struther who are
deeply involved in domesticity and motherhood. However, Brenda is not
the only woman in A Handful of Dust who rejects the ideals of
domesticity. Mrs. Beaver is another female character that follows the
principles of freedom and opposes the existing cult of domesticity.
Milly, the prostitute, knows little about domesticity, as she has to
work hard to support her family. When she speaks of her daughter’s
birth, she claims that “I was only sixteen when I had her. I was the
youngest of the family and our stepfather wouldn’t leave any of us
girls alone”68. In this regard, Sally Alexander stresses the necessity
of a woman to perform a role of a mother and a wife. The researcher
considers that when a woman spends more time at work than with her
husband and children, she will finally lose69.
However, Alexander demonstrates that many British females in the period
of 1919-1939 managed to combine their domestic roles with work,
gradually changing their identities and forming new ideals of
domesticity. On the contrary, males experienced complex mental
disorders, especially those who became unemployed after the First World
War. At first these unemployed working men isolated themselves from
other people, but further they began to realise that “the family and
home provided neither employment nor the necessary companionship”70.
But the situation was different in the middle-class families. The fact
is that females in the working females tried to help their husbands and
usually appeared the main bread-winners. Thus, they could neither
console their husbands, nor create appropriate domestic environment for
their children who were neglected by both parents. However, females
from the upper-class had much time and financial possibilities to
maintain the principles of domesticity and motherhood, simultaneously
performing some work.
Such an aspiration for independence is explained by the fact that
“middle-class women were apt to regard the emancipation of their sex as
an accomplished fact by the inter-war period”71. But their choice of
occupation depended on many factors, upbringing, education and
professional skills. On the other hand, working women still attempted
to take care of their families, while their husbands began to occupy
themselves with political affairs, instead of helping their wives with
domestic duties. They continued to regard domestic work as the
responsibility of females. Thus, a woman was expected to combine
childcare with her work on a factory, household duties, such as
washing, cleaning, cooking with her professional career. The relations
between two marriage partners were complicated as a result of females’
independence and men’s unemployment, because not all men could agree
with their lower positions. But domesticity and motherhood of the
working females depended on females’ skills and the conditions of their
houses. For instance, Rhondda’s females were appreciated for their
splendid household skills, because they had appropriate conditions for
housewifery, while women of Deptford and Liverpool lived in awful
conditions and were deprived of the possibility to create cosy homes.
The similar situation was in Blackburn, where women had to work hard
and they had no opportunity to perform their household duties. They did
everything to protect their children and husbands from hunger,
neglecting their own nutrition. As Alexander claims, “wives were least
well nourished; the strain and nervous pressure told on their physical
– in particular their maternal – health”72. Such strict marriage
expectations suppressed females’ wish for full-time jobs; it was
advantageous for British society. Women began to work at home, doing
laundry and ironing and receiving some payment for this work. But
“domestic labour – the natural feminine quality and capacity –
nevertheless had to be forced”73. Therefore, the country had preserved
females’ training only in household duties and crafts. Starting from
1922, females received no help from the labour services and were forced
to adhere to a live-in job system.
The Anomalies Regulation of 1931 and local governments implemented the
marriage bar that put women on their appropriate places. As Selina Todd
points out, in the inter-war period “domestic service remained their
[women’s] largest employer”74. However, some individual females
challenged the necessity of marriage, they experienced poverty and they
wanted better future for themselves, although they realized that
British society negatively treats unmarried women. In her essay work A
Room of One’s Own Virginia Woolf states that marriage was not the
principal aim of women in the interwar period, because females were
well aware of the fact that those men who returned after the First
World War were not able to support them75. On the other hand, marriage
provided a female with an opportunity to destroy parents’ control and
give birth to their own children. As many females strove for
independence, but could not earn much because of difficult economic
conditions, they preferred to marry and create their household.
However, as Todd puts it, “finding a middle-class husband was not the
only form a “good match” could take”76. The fact is that a household
depended both on females’ domestic skills and men’s abilities to earn
enough money to support his family. As such a mutual contribution to
domesticity was not always possible, women’s employment and
independence allowed them to achieve control over males and destroy any
kind of subordination. However, females who were initially oppressed by
males realized that the relations between a wife and a husband should
be based on equality, thus they made constant attempts to replace older
ideals of domesticity for new ones. Thus, a new image of a housewife
had emerged by 1930s. The ideology of new domesticity was maintained by
the majority of British females. The fact is that many middle-class
females appeared without servants and had to adjust to new
circumstances, gradually mastering household skills. The same regards
working-class females who received an opportunity to live in better
houses and who had to learn new ways of housekeeping. Women began to
improve their skills in house design that became really popular in
1920-1930s.
6 Conclusions
Analysing the position of British females at the beginning of the
twentieth century, the research suggests that in the years 1919-1939
women returned to domesticity and motherhood due to certain social and
political changes. After the First World War economic conditions of the
country were considerably aggravated, men were either killed or
psychologically destroyed by the War, many females suffered from
incurable illnesses or struggled for their independence. In the complex
post-war period females took responsibility for the family on
themselves, simultaneously making attempts to receive education or find
some occupations. British government extensively maintained the cult of
domesticity through mass media, while the writers depicted these
principles of domesticity and motherhood in their literary works. This
especially regards such pieces of British fiction as Diary of a
Provincial Lady by Delafield, Mrs. Miniver by Jan Struther, A Room of
One’s Own by Virginia Woolf and A Handful of Dust by Evelyn Waugh. In
these literary works the writers revive the ideals of domesticity
rather than oppose them, demonstrating that a woman may combine her
role of a wife and her occupation. The female characters of this
fiction are obsessed with domestic affairs that allow them to reveal
their identities and find their selves. They achieve independence in
their domesticity and motherhood, contributing to the formation of a
new modern family that is created on the principles of respect,
devotion, love and freedom. On the other hand, female characters of
Evelyn Waugh’s narration A Handful of Dust reject the ideals of
domesticity. On the example of Brenda and Mrs. Beaver, the writer
demonstrates the negative consequences of females’ freedom in the
inter-war period, simultaneously proving the necessity for a woman to
be a good mother and a wife. However, in the majority of cases these
literary works described domesticity and motherhood of middle-class
females, while the situation was different with working-class women. As
they had no opportunity to receive appropriate education, they either
had to work hard with small salary or remained unemployed.
They spent much time, trying to find an appropriate working place; as a
result, they usually ignored their household duties. But despite these
difficulties, women continued to be the principal supporters of
domesticity that acquired new features in the period of 1919-1939. They
managed to be the principal breadwinners and simultaneously to take
care of their families and households. Thus, in general terms women’s
return to domesticity and motherhood at the beginning of the twentieth
century is considered to be a positive phenomenon that resulted in
certain changes for females. In particular, this return provided
females with independence and new identities, equality and power in
gender relations. In modern world, according to Marcus Collins, “an
intimate equality should be established between men and women through
mixing, companionate marriage and shared sexual pleasure”77.
7 Limitations / Suggestions for further research
Although the research has analysed various aspects of the issue of
women’s return to domesticity and motherhood in Britain in the period
of 1919-1939, the paper has certain limitations that can be eliminated
in further studies. In particular, it restricts analysis to the
discussion of the situation in Britain, while further analysis may be
aimed at comparing the issue of domesticity in several countries,
including the United States of America, Germany, Italy and France. Such
a comparison can provide better understanding of the importance of the
cult of domesticity in Britain at the beginning of the twentieth
century. It will be also crucial to compare the position of women in
the twentieth century with females’ position in the twenty-first
century. As Zweiniger-Bargielowska puts it, “Women in 2000 have many
more choices and opportunities that women in 1900 but genuine equality
between men and women remains elusive”78. In this regard, it is
necessary to broaden the discussion of females’ sexuality and attitude
of society towards it, as this aspect has not been discussed in detail.
In addition, further researches may investigate racial issues,
uncovering the differences between the position of British females and
females of other races that lived in Britain at the beginning of the
twentieth century.
Works Cited
Alexander, Sally. "Becoming a Woman in London in the 1920s and 1930s", in
Metropolis London: Histories and Representations since 1800, ed. David
Feldman and Gareth Stedman Jones. London and New York: Routledge, 1989,
pp. 245-271.
Alexander, Sally. "Men’s Fears and Women’s Work: Responses to Unemployment in
London Between the Wars", in Gender and History, Vol.12, N2, July 2000,
pp.401-425.
Beddoe, Deirdre. Back to Home and Duty: Women Between the Wars, 1918-1939.
London: Pandora, 1989.
Beddoe, Deirdre. Discovering Women’s History: A Practical Guide to the Sources of
Women’s History, 1800-1945. London: Rivers Oram Press, 1993.
Bettelheim, Bruno. The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy
Tales. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976.
Bruley, Sue. Women in Britain since 1900. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999.
Callen, Anthea. Angel in the Studio: Women in the Arts and Crafts Movement 1870-
1914. London: Astragal Books, 1979.
Collins, Marcus. Modern Love: An Intimate History of Men and Women in Twentieth
Century Britain. London: Atlantic Books, 2003.
Delafield, E.M. Diary of a Provincial Lady. Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers,
1991.
Dyhouse, Carol. Feminism and the Family in England 1880-1939. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1989.
Eichengreen, B. “Unemployment in Interwar Britain", in New Directions in Economic
and Social History, ed. Digby, Feinstein and Jenkins. Vol II. London: Macmillan,
1992, pp.115-128.
Giles, Judy. Women, Identity and Private Life in Britain 1900-1950. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
Gilligan, C. In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982.
Hall, Lesley. Sex, Gender and Social Change in Britain Since 1880. Basingstoke and
London: Macmillan, 2000.
Harrison, Barbara. "Women and Health", in Women’s History: Britain, 1850-1945,
ed. June Purvis. London: University College London Press, 1995, pp. 157-192.
Holden, Katherine. "Family, Caring and Unpaid Work", in Women in Twentieth Century
Britain, ed. Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska. Harlow, England: Pearson Education
Limited, 2001, pp.134-148.
Kent, Susan Kingsley. Making Peace: The Reconstruction of Gender in Inter-War
Britain. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Leydesdorff, S. "Politics, Identification & the Writing of Women's History" in Current
Issues in Women’s History, ed. Arina Angerman, Geerte Binnema, Annemieke
Keunen, Vefie Poels, Jacqueline Zirkzee. London/New York: Routledge, 1989,
pp.13-20.
McCartney, George. Confused Roaring: Evelyn Waugh and the Modernist Tradition.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.
McDermid, Jane. "Women and Education" in Women's History: Britain, 1850-1945,
ed. Purvis, June. London: University College London Press, 1995, pp.107-130.
Melman, Billie. Women and the Popular Imagination in the Twenties: Flappers and
Nymphs. London: Macmillan, 1988.
Mill, J.S. "The Subjection of Women", in Essays on Sex Equality,
ed. A.S. Rossi. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970, pp. 125-156.
Pugh, Martin. Women and the Women's Movement, 1914-1959.
London: Macmillan, 1992.
Smith, H. Llewellyn. The New Survey of London Life and London Labour, Vol.2,
Industries I. London: P.S. King, 1932.
Smith, Harold L. British Feminism in the 20th Century. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press, 1990.
Spender, Dale. Time and Tide Wait for No Man. London: Pandora Press, 1984.
Struther, Jan. Mrs. Miniver. London: Virago, 1989.
Thane, Pat. "What difference did the vote make?” in Women, Privilege and Power:
British Politics, 1750 to the Present, ed. Amanda Vickery. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, 2001, pp.253-285.
Tickner, Lisa. The Spectacle of Women. London: Chatto and Windus, 1987.
Tinkler, Penny. "Girlhood and Growing Up", in Women in Twentieth Century Britain,
ed. Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited,
2001, pp.45-60.
Todd, Selina. "Poverty and Aspiration: Young Women’s Entry to Employment in
Inter-War England", in Twentieth Century British History, Vol.15, No 2, 2004,
pp.119-142.
Tucker, Elizabeth M.M. British History 1760-1914. London: Edward Arnold, 1982.
Vance, Carole S. "Anthropology Rediscovers Sexuality: A Theoretical Comment.",
in Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader, ed. Parker, Richard, and Peter
Aggleton. Philadelphia: University College London, 1999, pp.39-54.
Vickery, Amanda, ed. Women, Privilege and Power: British Politics, 1750 to the
Present. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Waugh, Evelyn. A Handful of Dust. London: Penguin, 1951.
Waugh, Evelyn. The Letters of Evelyn Waugh. Ed. Mark Amory. New Haven: Ticknor
and Field, 1980.
Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One's Own. London: Penguin Books, 1945.
Zweiniger-Bargielowska, Ina, ed. Women in Twentieth Century Britain. Harlow,
England: Pearson Education Limited, 2001.
|
