« gone employed! | Main | big-ass mushroom revisited »
August 18, 2005
manor house
While watching the PBS reality show Manor House, which takes present day personalities and places them in the early 20th century Edwardian era, I was fascinated to see 21st century egalitarians being thrust into a world where each person stands on a different step of the social ladder. You are restricted to who you can talk to and what you can do depending on which part of the ladder you stood. Each rung has its own privilages and constraints, with little place for changing one's situation.
The house was broken into "Upstairs" and "Downstairs". Living as a servant downstairs meant long hours, back-breaking work, and submission to those above you. Yet it also meant being part of a community of people that you worked and laughed with. Living upstairs as an aristocrat meant roaming the house with leisure, wearing beautiful clothing, and dining with dignitaries. But it also meant spending very little time with ones children and being restricted in discussion and pursuits depending on gender, age, and marital status.
It seemed that the two highest ranking members of the household, Sir John and Lady Olliff-Cooper, took most easily to their roles in the house. In Lady Olliff-Cooper's reflections on her experience she wrote:
"Our experience in the house showed me that if you want to get a project off the ground quickly and efficiently then you need to impose a hierarchy. This is not to say that such a hierarchy is necessarily fair. I don't think I was any more worthy than Morrison to be the mistress. But if everyone has a place and everyone pulls together, a huge amount can be achieved. So even if it is unfair it may be better for everyone than the anarchy of egalitarianism."
Even when coming from an egalitarianism-minded society, it is easier and more desirable, to step into the role of master rather than servant. Lady Olliff-Cooper isn't completely wrong, it does take each person playing a designated role to accomplish great things. The value of egalitarian society she is missing is the recognition and compensation for the work each person does and the ability to take advantage of opportunity and ambition. In short, each person being able to chose their own path by having equal rights and privileges.
The influences of an egalitarian-minded society couldn't be completely suppressed in this project. For example, the 21st century female servants were in a less vulnerable position of being taken advantage of than true Edwardian female servants who didn't benefit from 21st century values of the rights of women.
I've been trying to be honest with myself about which role I would desire to play. A master or servant? I have no doubt that if I in fact lived in Edwardian times, I would desire to be the aristocrat. But what about as a role in this project? The comaraderie of the servants is appealing, the working as a team is appealing, the clear purpose of work is appealing. But would I rather spend my three months working hard and building community or eating delicious meals, roaming around a beautiful manor house, and having time for all the leisure I could think of. Would you believe me if I said it's a difficult decision?
in the world | By charity | 12:56 PM
Comments
Do the servants have to wear corsets? That seems, to me, to be a huge factor in the decision-making process.
Posted by: jeremy at August 19, 2005 11:34 AM
good point! i don't think the servants had to wear corsets. i think i would have heard them complain about it they did. Lady Olliff-Cooper did say by wearing the corset she lost wait, because she couldn't eat as much. :-/
Posted by: charity at August 19, 2005 04:03 PM