How Did Marriage Evolve during the 1960s and 1970s? By Amy Worcester

ATV Today, ‘Police Wedding’ (ITV, 9/7/1970), Media Archive for Central England

During the twentieth century, marriage developed from being an institution of convenience to one of love and romance. Langhamer has called the twentieth century the time of ‘emotional revolution.’[1] This ‘emotional’ culture was due to post-war reconstruction, when a loving family was seen as important in bringing Britain back from the horrors of war.[2] Therefore, ‘love’ became a dominant requirement when choosing future spouses.[3] The Women’s Liberation Movement had a big impact on the institution of marriage, as many of the legislation passed granted women more rights within marriage.[4] In this atmosphere of equality, marriage evolved into being an equal contract. This promise of equality created a more ‘symmetrical’ family, with wives entering the workforce, and husbands becoming more ‘homebound.’[5] However, although marriage developed culturally with new ideas of equality, in reality it was still very male dominated. Vox pop interviews made for the television programmes Midland Montage and ATV Today reveal how it was the ‘wife’ who was expected to maintain a ‘happy marriage.’ In the vox pops, many of the respondents are women because the questions are directed at women. Therefore, it can be argued that ideas on marriage did evolve during the 1960s and 1970s, but wives were still dependent on their husbands.

In this culture of the ‘emotional revolution,’ love held no bounds.[6] As Lane argues, marriage changed from the Victorian ideal of practical partnerships, to the 1960s culture of love and romance.[7] Langhamer’s research shows how marital experts of the 1960s saw ‘love as an increasingly dominant requirement within spousal selection; the factor to which all consideration should give way.’[8] In this atmosphere of love, there was an increase in mixed-race couples. This increase was due to idea that love ‘knows no colour bar.’[9] The 1970 ATV Today item ‘Police Wedding’ is an example of a mixed-race couple who have married for their love.[10] During the fifties and sixties there was hostility towards interracial relationships. As Clive Webb has investigated, during the 1950s mixed-race marriages ‘generated more heat and roused deeper and fiercer passions than any other aspect of the race/colour situation.’ However, unlike the United States during this time, mixed race-couples could and did marry in Britain. By the early 1970s interracial relationships became more accepted because of the ‘emotional revolution’, which led people to marry for love rather than for practical advantages.[11] In the case of the ‘Police Wedding,’ the couple’s marriage is accepted because of love. This acceptance is seen in the way their police colleagues are there to celebrate the newlyweds. The footage presents the couple positively, seen when the camera films their colleagues joking around with them.[12] The fact that this couple’s wedding was reported in the news, suggests mixed-race couples were rare but were slowly becoming more common and accepted by the early 1970s. Yasmin Brown cites a survey conducted in 1963 that revealed interracial marriages had been recorded in 84 of 1,000 church parishes.[13]

ATV Today, ‘Police Wedding’ (ITV, 9/7/1970), Media Archive for Central England

In this culture of love and romance, marriage was an unavoidable idea. Langhamer argues that romantic love was increasingly positioned as a key resource upon which post-war selfhood was built.[14] In a Spare Rib article in 1972, ‘Family Everafter,’ Michelene Wandor describes this culture of love in Britain: ‘the whole of our upbringing, education and entertainment lead us to believe that love and marriage do indeed go together like a horse in carriage.’[15] From an early age, especially for girls during this period, marriage was the aim in life. A 1956 marriage survey revealed that 94 per cent of 14-year-old girls and 69 per cent of boys anticipated marrying in the future.[16] This education on love and romance saw more young couples getting married in the 1960s. Langhamer has described this period as the ‘golden age’ of marriage.[17] The 1960 Midland Montage vox pop on ‘Marriage Minded Maidens’ explores marriage at a young age.[18] Interestingly, most of the women who are asked by the interviewer when they would get married say they would wait until they were 21 or 25. There are only two women in the film who were already married at the young age of 18. Although most of them say they would want a career first, it is implied that all the women want to get married. This is suggested in how the questions are directed at women and all of the respondents are women.

Midland Montage, ‘Marriage Minded Maidens’ (ITV, 21/1/1960), Media Archive for Central England

Langhamer argues that staying single in this period was widely viewed as a denial of a woman’s destiny of being mother and wife.[19] By 1970 only eight per cent of women aged between 45 and 49 had never been married.[20] The 1977 ATV Today vox pop on a ‘Happy Marriage’ reveals how it was often assumed that women and men in a couple were already married.[21] The interviewer takes a straightforward approach, by asking random people on the streets about their marriage, without knowing if they were married. All of the respondents asked are either in a marriage or have been married. This suggests that during this period marriage was popular due to the culture of ‘love at first sight.’ It also reveals how women were still expected to get married at some point in their lives, although, in the atmosphere of the Women’s Movement, marriage was thought of increasingly in terms of equality.

Equal partnership became the main concept of a modern marriage. As Sandbrook argues, the relationship between spouses began to evolve from living in ‘separate spheres’ to where couples did everything together.[22] Lane’s article ‘Not the Boss of One Another’ argues that this equal partnership developed among all social classes. The working classes developed more middle-class traits due to improvements in housing, shorter working hours and higher wages that contributed to a more home-centred lifestyle.[23] A 1969 ATV Today vox pop item, which asked the question, ‘Does your husband chat you up in the evenings?’, reveals how this equal contract was developing for many people, while for others marriage was still very male dominated.[24] The first respondents, who appear to be upper class, do not expect their husbands to talk to them if they have had a hard day at work, saying, ‘it depends on what sort of day he has had, if he is prepared to talk, I am prepared to listen.’ An older woman has the same response saying that she does not bother anymore, because she does not expect her husband to talk to her after his ‘hard day at work.’ This reveals that for many the wife was still a servant to her husband’s needs. In the 1972 article ‘Family Everafter’ in the feminist magazine Spare Rib, Wandor describes how the new promise of an equal contract in marriage was appealing, but realistically it does not work, ‘because of the woman’s economic and psychological dependence on her husband, she is sexually dependent, continuing to need and want his approval’.[25] The ATV footage and the article reveal that, even by 1972, equality within marriage had not fully developed for all British couples. However, the vox pop does present a woman who has equal status to her husband. This sense of equality is seen in her response, as she says she would be depressed and upset if her husband refused to talk to her, and if he did she would know something was up.[26] Therefore, it can be said that the ideal marriage in the 1960s and 1970s was based on the concept of equal partnership. However, in reality, the husband was still the dominant figure in many families.

By the 1960s, the working wife began to develop within a modern marriage. McCarthy argues that the working wife became part of the culture of equality.[27] This change in marriage has been described by Langhamer as the ‘democratisation of love.’[28] McCarthy has studied how sociologists at the time argued optimistically that the employment of ‘wives strengthened marriage through the material security guaranteed by a second wage and by building a greater commonality of interest between spouses’.[29] In the ATV Today footage of the ‘Police Wedding’ the couple have a shared interest, both being police officers.[30] The 1978 Daily Mail article ‘Happiness is a Working Wife’ looked into the benefits of a married woman working, suggesting that ‘she is more fulfilled, independent and interesting for her husband and children’. The article cites Professor Robert Rapoport in persuading the reader on the benefits of married women working, with the conclusion being that it prevented ‘boredom building up into marital violence and stress and led to a more harmonious married life.’[31]

The 1960 Midland Montage vox pop on ‘Marriage Minded Maidens’ reveals how in the early 1960s the idea of the ‘working wife’ had not yet fully developed.[32] This is presented in how many of the women say they want to have a career first before entering marriage. One woman explains how she has been studying for seven years and does not want to give it up and would rather be in a good position and in a good job before thinking about marriage. As Sandbrook has investigated, in the 1950s and into the early 1960s working wives were said to be selfish and unnatural for putting their own ambitions above the needs of their children and husband.[33] The 1960 vox pop reveals how this idea of working wives being ‘selfish’ was still present, with many of the women choosing to have a career while they remain unmarried.

Midland Montage, ‘Marriage Minded Maidens’ (ITV, 21/1/1960), MACE

In the atmosphere of the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1970s, there was an increase in ‘working wives’. In 1971, 52.6 percent of women worked in Britain; by 1979 this increased to 56.9 percent.[34] However, although more than half of women aged between 16 and 64 were now working by the end of the 1970s, women were still economically dependent on their husbands. The Spare Rib 1972 article ‘Family Everafter’ argues that ‘most women […] are either totally or partially dependent on their husbands. If they work they are either paid at a lower rate, have jobs of a lower status or work part-time, thus earning an income secondary to their husbands.’[35] This article suggests that even if a wife was able to work she would still be dependant on her husband. As Sandbrook and McCarthy have investigated, many men still wanted their wives to stay at home and look after them and the children.[36]

The ‘sexual revolution’ has been iconic in the study of the 1960s. As Brown argues, the 1960s marked an important decade in the ‘long sexual revolution’, manifested in ‘radical sexual behaviour’ amongst the unmarried.[37] The talk of ‘sex’ became central to 1960s culture. This focus on sex is seen in the introduction of the contraceptive pill for married women in 1961.[38] The introduction of the pill, meant married women could enjoy sex without the risk of falling pregnant every time. For marriage experts, the satisfaction of both spouses was equally important in the making of a happy marriage. Akhtar and Humphries argue that sexual expectation was high; a marriage without good sex was not a happy marriage.[39] After the Divorce Reform Act of 1969, there was a huge increase in divorces. By 1978 one in three marriages had ended in divorce.[40] The rise in divorces saw the rise of paranoia around the institution of marriage. The 1977 Daily Mail article ‘I Thee Wed… Till My Next Love Do Us Part’ shocks the reader with claims like, ‘Divorces last year rose by more than 6,000 to a total of 126,700.’[41] Strimpel argues that by 1980 there was a rise of single people, which was due to the rise of divorcees.[42] The paranoia over the institution of marriage that resulted saw an increase in advice within the media on how to save a marriage. Amongst marital experts, good sex was the main component in saving marriages from divorce.

ATV Today, ‘Vox Pops on a Happy Marriage’ (ITV, 16/2/1977), MACE

In the ATV Today vox pop on a ‘Happy Marriage’, the theme of good sex is in question after the publication of the book Total Joy.[43] The interviewer asks the people of Birmingham, ‘should wives phone up their husbands and say that they want their bodies?’ Interestingly, the question insinuates that ‘wives’ should take more of a role in maintaining a good sex life for the benefit of their marriage. This sense in inequality in the question is mentioned by two of the women, one saying, ‘Well, it’s okay if they want to, but it would be good if the man did the same as well.’ The last woman asked, mentions that she is about to get divorced, which changes the subject of the question to, ‘do you think if you rang up your husband at work saying that you wanted his body, would have made a difference.’ The inequality of the question is highlighted as the woman responds, ‘No, definitely not. But if he’d done that to me, that might have done.’ This interview reveals that although the question asked exposes the inequalities in marriage, it does reveal that by 1977 many women expected their husbands to take an equal responsibility in maintaining a happy marriage.

ATV Today, ‘Vox Pops on a Happy Marriage’ (ITV, 16/2/1977), MACE

In conclusion, the ideas of marriage began to evolve during the 1960s and 1970s. For many married couples during these decades, marriage was meant to be founded on love. The footage of the ‘Police Wedding’ reveals how love held no bounds.[44] New ideas on marriage made it unavoidable, especially to women, during the 1960s. Women were now promised that they would have equal status to their husbands.[45] Although it can be said that ideas about marriage evolved during these decades, in practice it was still very male dominated. The vox pops and Spare Rib article reveal how the survival of marriage was down to women. The questions asked are always directed at women, meaning many of the respondents in the vox pops are women. By the time of the 1977 vox pop on a ‘Happy Marriage’, it is possible to see the evolution of equality, especially on the subject of sex. Wives now expected their husbands to take on equal responsibility in maintaining a happy marriage.

 

Notes:

[1] Claire Langhamer, The English in Love: The Intimate Story of an Emotional Revolution’ (Oxford, 2013), 1.

[2] Laura King, Family Men Fatherhood and Masculinity in Britain, c. 1914-1960 (Oxford, 2015), 89.

[3] Langhamer, English in Love, 25

[4] King, Family Men, 123.

[5] Helen McCarthy, ‘Women, Marriage and Paid Work in Post-war Britain,’ Women’s History Review, 26:1 (2017), 45-52 (47).

[6] Clive Webb, ‘Special Relationships: Mixed-race Couples in Post-war Britain and the United States,’ Women’s History Review, 26:1 (2017), 110-129 (111).

[7] Margaret Lane, ‘Not the Boss of One Another: A Reinterpretation of Working-Class Marriage in England, 1900 to 1970,’ Cultural & Social History, 11:3 (2014), 441-459, (442).

[8] Langhamer, English in Love, 25.

[9] Webb, ‘Special Relationships,’ 111.

[10] ATV Today, ‘Police Wedding’ (ITV, 9/7/1970), Media Archive for Central England (hereafter MACE), University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-09071970-police-wedding.

[11] Webb, ‘Special Relationships,’ 112-114.

[12] ATV Today, ‘Police Wedding’.

[13] Webb, ‘Special Relationships,’ 114.

[14] Claire Langhamer, ‘Love, Selfhood and Authenticity in Post- War Britain,’ Cultural & Social History, 9:2 (2012), 277-297 (278).

[15] Michelene Wandor, ‘Family Everafter,’ Spare Rib, 5 (1972), 10.

[16] Langhamer, English in Love, 91.

[17] Langhamer, English in Love, 4.

[18] Midland Montage, ‘Marriage Minded Maidens’ (ITV, 21/1/1960), MACE, University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/midland-montage-21011960-marriage-minded-maidens.

[19] Langhamer, English in Love, 4.

[20] Langhamer, English in Love, 4.

[21] ATV Today, ‘Vox Pops on a Happy Marriage’ (ITV, 16/2/1977), MACE, University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-16021977-vox-pops-happy-marriage.

[22] Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties (London, 2006), 688.

[23] Lane, ‘Not the Boss of One Another,’ 441.

[24] ATV Today, ‘Marriage Vox Pops’ (ITV, 20/5/1969), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/139694716 (log-in required).

[25] Wandor, ‘Family Everafter,’ 10.

[26] ATV Today, ‘Marriage Vox Pops’.

[27] McCarthy, ‘Women, Marriage and Paid Work’, 46.

[28] Langhamer, English in Love, 3.

[29] McCarthy, ‘Women, Marriage and Paid Work’, 47.

[30] ATV Today, ‘Police Wedding.’

[31] Antony Smith, ‘Happiness Is a Working Wife,’ Daily Mail, 16 February 1978, 3.

[32] Midland Montage, ‘Marriage Minded Maidens’.

[33] Sandbrook, White Heat, 694

[34] ‘Female Employment Rate (aged 16 to 64, seasonally adjusted)’, Office of National Statistics, https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/lf25/lms.

[35] Wandor, ‘Family Everafter,’ 10.

[36] Sandbrook, White Heat, 695; McCarthy, ‘Women, Marriage and Paid Work’.

[37] Callum Brown, ‘Sex, Religion, and the Single Woman c. 1950-75: The Importance of a “Short” Sexual Revolution to the English Religious Crisis of the Sixties,’ Twentieth Century British History, 22:2 (2011), 189-215 (190).

[38] Miriam Akhtar and Steve Humphries, The Fifties and Sixties: A Lifestyle Revolution (London, 2002), 177.

[39] Akhtar and Humphries, Fifties and Sixties, 174, 186.

[40] John Stevenson, ‘I Thee Wed… Till My Next Love Do Us Part,’ Daily Mail, 7 July 1977, 3.

[41] Stevenson, ‘I Thee Wed’, 3.

[42] Zoe Strimpel, ‘Computer Dating in the 1970s: Dateline and the Making of the Modern British Single’, Contemporary British History, 31:3 (2017), 319-342 (323).

[43] ATV Today, ‘Vox Pops on a Happy Marriage.’

[44] Webb, ‘Special Relationships,’111.

[45] McCarthy, ‘Women, Marriage and Paid Work’, 47.

How Were Page 3 Girls Presented in the Media during the 1980s? By Abigail Roberts

The 1960s witnessed significant changes in society and a wealth of ‘permissive’ legislation. However, historians have contested the concept of the ‘permissive society’ to argue that not all of Britain experienced the effects of ‘permissiveness’ at the same time.[1] During the 1960s, the lived experience of the permissive society was limited during to the central hub of permissiveness, London. Other areas of Britain had yet to witness such changes, with the Midlands particularly remaining conservative when it came to attitudes to sex. However, in the 1970s, popular culture and the media across Britain became increasingly sexualised. This essay will analyse ATV and Central TV footage from the Media Archive for Central England (henceforth MACE). It will argue that the media exploited the idea of permissiveness, forging a general attitude that accepted the idea of the ‘Page 3 girl’, promoted by the producers of ATV and Central in the 1980s and how ‘Page 3’ when criticised was defended on the grounds of a ‘permissive society’.

The range of material on topless modelling and Page 3 available in MACE illustrates that such topics must have been popular with ATV and Central producers as well as audiences. The emergence of the Page 3 girl can be placed in the 1960s, as Rebecca Loncraine states that Page 3 had its origins during the 1960s permissive society.[2] The permissive society allowed for the development of female pin-up culture. However, its origins can be examined as part of a long tradition of newspaper pin-up features.[3] Furthermore, Adrian Bingham argues that Page 3 was an evolution from previous practice rather than a ‘revolutionary new development’.[4] This shows how sex throughout the twentieth century had long been a key selling point for newspapers. The 1960s, however, offered a valuable alibi and justification to the editors to defend Page 3 as the period witnessed an apparent ubiquity of toplessness in British culture.[5] Bingham shows how the Sun consistently defended Page 3, with editors arguing that the newspaper was doing no more than responding to the changes in contemporary culture, stating that ‘the Permissive Society is a fact, not an opinion. We have reflected the fact where others have preferred to turn blind eyes’.[6] Loncraine explores how popular newspapers have always included pin-ups, but the Sun exploited the 1960s fashion for public nudity and fused it with an older tradition of popular newspaper female pin-ups, the pictures of ‘pretty girls’ that was pioneered by the Daily Mirror in the 1940s.[7] The Page 3 girl became a regular feature in the Sun from 1970 as its introduction had resulted in an increased circulation. It was heavily publicised in this period, so much so that it became a central part of the paper’s appeal and a ‘defining symbol of British popular journalism’.[8] The breadth of coverage of Page 3 in ATV and Central programming could therefore be seen as an attempt to capitalise on the popularity of sex in the media. Thus, the idea of the ‘permissive’ society was exploited.

Albert ‘Larry’ Lamb, the editor of The Sun who introduced the ‘Page 3 Girl’.

Although ‘provocative’ and ‘suggestive’ stories had been featured in the newspapers since the 1940s, television news reporting tended to avoid ‘sexually explicit’ content and imagery until the 1980s. Jonathan Bignell’s study illustrates that during the 1980s there was an increase in the number of programmes related to sex and sexuality, partly due to the introduction of Channel 4 in 1982.[9] The 1980 Broadcasting Act presented the statutory public service remit which required Channel 4 to be ‘innovative, distinctive, stimulate public debate on contemporary issues, reflect the cultural diversity of the UK, champion alternative points of view and inspire change in people’s lives’.[10] One of the ways Channel 4 did this was by broadcasting increasingly sexual programmes. This commitment to public service and cultural programmes meant that Channel 4 could promote these ‘sexual’ programmes as cultural whilst remaining safely within the realms of ‘respectability’ and ‘acceptability’. Simon Cottle demonstrates that the 1980s was a period that witnessed technological advance, political deregulation and ‘increased competitive and commercial pressures’.[11] Thus, ATV and Central’s preoccupation with Page 3 and topless models seems to be a result of competition with Channel 4. However, the 1981 Broadcasting Bill illustrates the nature of Channel 4 and its relationship with ITV (that operates all regional television), stating that the channels had to ‘maintain a proper balance and wide range in their subject matter’.[12] Furthermore, Cottle explains how ATV and Central incorporated the mission to report major events and happenings in line with generalized news values in the pursuit of ‘respectable news effort’, yet also sought to work with the ‘entertainers’ predisposition for “populist appeal”’.[13] This involved deliberate measures that sought to engage viewers by purposefully ‘fashioning stories in such way as to heighten their human-interest appeal’.[14] Hence, regional programming attempted during the period to appeal directly to the experiences, interests and emotional sentiments of its imagined audience.[15] Moreover, Cottle illustrates that ATV and Central news programmes were to ‘reflect what is happening in the region, likewise, it is dominated by the region’, with the Midlands region being predominantly of a working-class population.[16] Although ATV and Central did not present their programmes on topless modelling as cultural, they did present them as both ‘acceptable’ stories that appealed to the experiences of the audiences, predominantly a working-class audience in the Midlands.

The style in which the subject of topless modelling and Page 3 was broadcast by ATV and Central highlights an openness in presenting sex in the media by sexualising the female body. Many of the news broadcasts in MACE include samples of the Sun’s Page 3 images or interviews with young aspiring models, some of whom are topless. Thus, the model’s sexualised body becomes central to the interviews. Deborah Cameron argues that public debates, whether or not they be on television, about the representation of gender in popular media have tended to focus on images more than words, and especially images of the female body that are presented as a sexual spectacle.[17] The Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood, Clare Short, drew on the images of Page 3 in a speech she made in the House of Commons in 1986 to state that they ‘portray women as objects of lust to be sniggered over and grabbed at, and do not portray sex as something that is tender and private’.[18] Certainly, Page 3 girls were presented and described in the media as food – ‘luscious Linda Lusardi, ‘dishy Helen Steed’, ‘scrumptious Sandra Jane’, ‘tasty Tracey Elvik’ – thus showing how these women were presented as objects.[19] By broadcasting such images to a wide audience, producers were illustrating their attitudes towards this notion of female toplessness and women as objects of desire. Furthermore, by presenting these images on television, producers were further exploiting the images to present a permissive society, a society which finds these images to a degree as ‘acceptable’. However, it could also be said that by ‘sensationalising’ topless models, producers, especially on Central Weekend, were pushing the topic as a ‘contemporary issue’, playing on the question of what images are private or public. Loncraine demonstrates that Page 3 during this period participated in wider debates about the nature of obscenity, about what was ‘acceptable’ to show in public and in defining what was in fact ‘public’.[20]

Vox pop footage provides us with an insight into the reactions of the general public. This element of gaining public opinion on the streets captured the reactions of both the middle and working classes on the ‘issue’ of Page 3. In a vox pop feature aired on Central Weekend in 1986, there is a lack of a dissenting voice; it is virtually absent. The tone in which this vox pop is presented highlights how Page 3 was viewed as ‘harmless fun’, as playful music is played in the background suggesting that none of the producers took the issue seriously. This is agreed upon when a model suggests that ‘I think you have to look at Page 3 with a sense of humour’.[21] Three working men when asked what they think about Page 3 and whether they found it offensive reply ‘can’t complain about that’ when showed an image of a Page 3 model.[22] It appears that the dissenting voice is pushed aside to some degree. However, some men and women interviews object to Page 3 being in the media, with two men stating, ‘I don’t think it should be in the newspapers’, going as far as to say that ‘I think it trivialises it’.[23] This shows, however, how consideration needs to be taken over how the voices of vox pops are more than likely to have been carefully selected to represent the attitudes of the producers of Central and not the entirety of the Midlands.

The footage from MACE reveals how class played a significant role in shaping attitudes towards pin-ups and Page 3 during the period. Teresa Stratford highlights how ‘class is central to the Page 3 issue’.[24] Furthermore, she states that, during the period,

Middle-class people tend not to read the Sun. Middle-class girls tend not to dream about appearing on Page 3. They have no need; most of them have job prospects which promise more interest, more respect and a long career elsewhere. It is no accident that most Page 3 Girls came from working-class homes.[25]

Notions of class are not, at first, evident in the MACE footage. However, close analysis demonstrates that Stratford’s argument can be applied to the evidence in the archival footage. Jill Neville, a young woman who appears in the Central News item ‘Young Model’, appears to have had a hard time convincing her parents that her job was ‘acceptable’.[26] Many found topless modelling ‘acceptable’ if it was presented in a certain way in the media. Neville’s father was accepting of Jill’s choice of career, ‘providing it’s done in good taste’.[27] Another Central Weekend debate in 1986 that discussed the issue of pornography sees another gentleman state, ‘I don’t see anything wrong with girls posing in Page 3. In the Sun that is done tastefully.’[28] This demonstrates editor Larry Lamb’s aim to display sex in the newspapers not in the form of pornography, but in the form of ‘tastefully posed’, ‘ordinary women’.[29] Certainly, sex could be displayed in the period. However, it had to be presented under the disguise of ‘good taste’ and as presenting the experiences of ‘ordinary women’. In the Sun and the ATV and Central footage, the majority of topless models are presented as aspirational working-class figures: attractive women who had been ‘liberated’ by glorying in their sensuality.[30] This is agreed upon by Bingham and Conboy, who state that these models were ‘aspirational figures’, and that the media exploited this image to emphasise how many young women sought to be topless models.[31]

Samantha Fox begins her career as a Page 3 model (image from the Huffington Post)

A Central News East report demonstrates how young models wanted to follow in the footsteps of one of the biggest Page 3 models, Samantha Fox, stating that ‘thousands’ wanted to be a topless model.[32] This illustrates how the younger generation of women were ‘not ashamed to bear all’, highlighting how permissiveness had altered the younger generation.[33] If there was a dissenting voice, then it often came from the older generation, who had more conservative values. Parents and families of models, however, were accepting of the choice of career, as it was a career for working-class women. In an interview, Samantha Fox stated that ‘all of my family is proud of me, we all came from a working-class family, so for one of us to do well has really brightened up the family’.[34] This suggests that there was a lack of opportunities for young women during the period. One model stated that ‘it’s nice to be noticed’, suggesting society’s disregard for working-class women during the period.[35]

The reaction to Page 3 in the 1980s reveals dissent in how women were presented in the media. Bingham demonstrates that Page 3 girls and the debates surrounding them reveal much about the contemporary attitudes to women and to public sexual display.[36] Interestingly, Loncraine highlights how the Sun’s mascot of Page 3 was designed to provoke a response from various groups outside its target readership of the working class. Editors of the Sun clearly wanted a reaction from the middle-class members of society, and they got one.[37] Criticism from establishment figures on moral grounds was welcomed by editors, as it validated the Sun’s aim of being a ‘permissive’ newspaper.[38] However, what was not accepted was feminist criticism, as MP Clare Short found out in the 1986 when she took a bill to Parliament that would ban Page 3 girls from newspapers. Feminists such as Short felt that Page 3 was pornography, emphasising how it ‘institutionalises the sexual subordination of women to a mass market, cheaply and on a daily basis, and should therefore be relegated to pornographic magazines’.[39] The criticisms during the period were not grounded in ‘morality’, but in feminist arguments about women being ‘demeaned’ and ‘stereotyped’.[40] A Central Weekend debate taking place shortly after Clare Short addressed the Commons with her bill reveals how Midlands television wanted to present the attitudes of ‘ordinary’ people, Page 3 models and Clare Short towards the bill the topic of Page 3 in general. The debate draws on how women as Page 3 models were stereotyped as ‘dumb’, ‘topless’ and ‘brainless’.[41]

A protestor objecting to The Sun‘s representation of women.

As a result of these criticisms, the popular press was forced to develop a new language to defend their pin-ups.[42] Stratford shows that the women who criticised the papers for featuring Page 3 girls in contrast were called ‘boring’, ‘dowdy prudes’ and were secretly jealous that they did not possess the girls’ ‘wonderful figures’.[43] Clare Short was the main target of this abuse and was subjected to repeated insults by the tabloid press. Stratford has shown that Short’s objections to Page 3 were described as an ‘overreaction’, and that Short’s bill and the support for the bill by other feminists was treated as a ‘sign of panic’.[44] The tabloid press made many references to Short’s physical appearance, naming her ‘the buxom Ms Short’.[45] The popular press, particularly the Sun went as far as to suggest that she was not quite sane, with its ‘Crazy Clare’ campaign.

The Sun’s campaign suggests how the popular press and Midlands television portrayed the Page 3 girl as part of the ‘fabric of British culture’.[46] Stratford draws on this to illustrate that Page 3 by the 1980s appeared to be firmly entrenched in popular culture, going as far as to state that ‘it seemed an institution’.[47] This can be seen in the footage of Central Weekend, as Page 3 model Lindy states of the bill, ‘I would have thought that it’s a total waste of time. Page 3 has been running very successfully for so many years now.’[48] Moreover, other Midlands television footage demonstrates how Page 3 and topless models were viewed as an institution and a part of Britain’s permissive culture. An ATV Today report from 1976 reveals that pub stripper shows had already ‘been going on for a long time’ in the Midlands, with a father of a topless model interviewed on Central News East suggesting that topless women were the norm by stating ‘that’s life 1986, 1987, in’t it?’.[49] This illustrates how Page 3 during the 1980s was able to withstand the resurgence of the feminist movement, as the female pin-up tradition was firmly entrenched within society and the male-dominated Fleet Street, and their newspapers had enough ‘cultural power’ to deflect the criticisms of Short.[50]

To conclude, the majority of the public accepted Page 3, highlighting that to some degree society had become ‘permissive’ by the 1980s. The Central TV and ATV footage illustrates that there was some level of freedom to display sexualised images on television, suggesting that society had progressed from its conservative views and values during the 1950s and 1960s. This was in part due to the increase of sexualised imagery presented in the media. As a result, the British public became exposed to sex in their everyday lives, whether it was through newspapers or television. Yet, permissiveness did not reach the whole of society and there were still those who objected to Page 3, sexual imagery, and how women were represented in the media. The coverage of Page 3 by ATV and Central by itself cannot suggest a complete timeline of permissiveness. It does, however, demonstrate how the Midlands, particularly working-class people, perceived Page 3. Furthermore, it shows the development of the permissive society by the 1980s. Even though Page 3 faced dissenting voices from both the members of public and feminists such as Clare Short, the institution was able to withstand the backlash. This shows that by the 1980s Page 3 had become so firmly entrenched within society, it had become part of the ‘British way of life’.

 

Notes:

[1] See Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties (London, 2006) and Arthur Marwick, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy and the United States, c. 1959-1974 (Oxford, 1999).

[2] Rebecca Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation: Page Three in the 1970s and 1980s’, in Mina Gorji (ed.), Rude Britannia (London, 2007), 96-111 (96).

[3] Adrian Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture and Page 3 in the Popular Press’, in Maggie Andrews and Sallie McNamara (eds.), Women and the Media: Feminism and Femininity in Britain, 1900 to the Present (New York, 2014), 184-198 (185).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Adrian Bingham, Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life and the British Popular Press 1918-1978 (Oxford, 2009), 222.

[7] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 97.

[8] Bingham, Family Newspapers, 202.

[9] Jonathan Bignell, An Introduction to Television Studies (London, 2004), 239.

[10] ‘What is Channel 4?’ [online source] https://www.channel4.com/corporate/about-4/who-we-are/what-is-channel-4 accessed on 3 May 2018.

[11] Simon Cottle, TV News, Urban Conflict and the Inner City (London, 1993), 38.

[12] ‘Broadcasting Act 1981’, 1981 [online source] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/68/pdfs/ukpga_19810068_en.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2018.

[13] Cottle, TV News, 64.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 65.

[16] Ibid., 67.

[17] Deborah Cameron, On Language and Sexual Politics (London, 2006), 29.

[18] Clare Short, Commons Sitting, 12 March 1986, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 93 (1986), c. 937-940.

[19] Teresa Stratford, ‘Page 3- Dream or Nightmare?’, in Kath Davies, Julienne Dickey and Teresa Stratford (eds.), Out of Focus: Writings on Women and the Media (London, 1987), 57-62 (60).

[20] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 96.

[21] Central Weekend [Programme 11], ‘Page 3 Debate’ (ITV, 18/4/1986), Media Archive for Central England (hereafter MACE), University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/240812056 (log-in required).

[22] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[23] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[24] Teresa Stratford, ‘Women and the Press’, in Andrew Belsey and Ruth Chadwick (eds.), Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media (London, 1992), 130-136 (131).

[25] Ibid., 131.

[26] Central News East, ‘Young Model’ (ITV, 17/11/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/152979170 (log-in required).

[27] Ibid.

[28] Central Weekend [Programme 18], ‘Pornography Industry Debate’ (ITV, 20/6/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/236076287 (log-in required).

[29] Patricia Holland, ‘The Politics of the Smile: “Soft News” and the Sexualisation of the Popular Press’, in Cynthia Carter, Gill Branston and Stuart Allan (eds.), News, Gender and Power (London, 1998), 17-33 (23).

[30] Bingham, ‘Pin Up Culture’, 193.

[31] Adrian Bingham and Martin Conboy, Tabloid Century: The Popular Press in Britain, 1896 to the present (Oxford, 2015), 158.

[32] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’ (ITV, 9/5/1986), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/153085506 (log-in required).

[33] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’.

[34] ‘The Story of Page 3 Girls’ (1985), YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aT5HUzz06k.

[35] Central News East, ‘Penthouse Roadshow’.

[36] Bingham, Family Newspapers, 203.

[37] Loncraine, ‘Bosom of the Nation’, 104.

[38] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 194.

[39] Clare Short, Dear Clare… This Is What Women Feel about Page 3 (London, 1991), 43.

[40] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 186.

[41] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’.

[42] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 186.

[43] Stratford, ‘Women and the Press’, 131.

[44] Ibid, 132.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 184.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Central Weekend, ‘Page 3 Debate’, https://vimeo.com/240812056 (log-in required).

[49] ATV Today, ‘Lunchtime Strippers’ (ITV, 11/2/1976), MACE, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/153086574 (log-in required); Central News East, ‘Young Model’.

[50] Bingham, ‘Pin-Up Culture’, 195.

An Analysis of Fatherhood in Mid-Twentieth Century Britain. By Jake Acton

Coles 1941 Compilation. Home movie, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation

Through in-depth analysis of how the nature of fatherhood and the role of the male within the family visibly changes across three films from the Media Archive for Central England (MACE), and placing these films into a historical context, this essay will explore how fatherhood and masculinity evolved in mid-twentieth century Britain.

The first film is titled ‘Coles: 1941 Compilation’. The film follows the Coles family during trips to two farms in 1941. The father is almost entirely absent in this film, and it is notable as an example of 1941 fatherhood for this very reason. For the majority of the film the young children of the Coles family are shown being carefully guided around and protected by a group of women. The father has one notable moment within the film. Following a title card that reads ‘John wants to be like Daddy’, young John is shown parading in what appear to be his father’s work clothes, and stumbling towards his father who is presumably operating the camera.[1]

Coles: 1941 Compilation. Home movie, Media Archive for Central England (MACE), University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation

This demonstrates there is a clear separation between motherhood, in which the women in the family carefully tend to the young children and are active and hands-on presences, and fatherhood, in which the male’s involvement is as a breadwinner and a provider, as shown by his most significant presence in the film being reduced down to his work clothes. Martin Francis notes that during the early twentieth century ‘[w]hile it was acceptable for fathers to take time to play with older children […] men took little interest in the rearing of infants.’[2] Laura King supports this statement, asserting that whilst ‘Fatherhood was a crucial aspect of adult masculinity in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries […] [e]conomic provision for dependants formed the central core of fatherhood throughout the second half of the nineteenth century and beyond’.[3] This suggests, as does the film itself, that there were distinct gendered spheres of influence within the 1941 family, with the mother as parent and the father as provider.

There is a notable male presence in the film that requires exploration. About halfway through the film, an elderly man is shown playing with Brenda and John whilst they are ‘bathing and paddling in the pools at Monsal Dale’.[4] However, it is unlikely to be the children’s father for one key reason, and that is his advanced age, making him much more likely to be a grandfather or other relation. Whilst King discusses the limitations within fatherhood during the period this film was produced, there is a large historiography that acknowledges the factors that permitted transgressions of these limitations, one of them being age. King herself notes that whilst men across all social classes were reluctant to be seen pushing a pram or otherwise being visibly involved in the traditionally feminine sphere of domesticity that is child rearing, to do so was ‘permissible for grandfathers, hinting at the differing masculinities understood to be appropriate for different age groups’.[5] Joanna Bourke similarly notes that ‘[p]ushing a pram was often cited as the most humiliating of tasks, although a grandfather could do it’.[6] King posits that this disparity in appropriate masculinity when it comes to fathers and grandfathers could be due to ‘“softening” of masculinity as men got older, perhaps due to a waning desire to assert their manliness, or alternatively because of a security in a masculinity already achieved’.[7] In this context it seems more likely that the man playing with the children is a grandfather, and the father remains at a respectable distance for fear of ridicule and attacks upon his masculinity, and to preserve his role as master and provider.

Coles: 1941 Compilation. Home movie, Media Archive for Central England (MACE), University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation

Finally, the father’s absence is interesting for the time period in that he is likely operating the camera. In the film, when John is wearing his father’s clothing, at several points he is drawn towards the camera and whoever is operating it, demonstrating the authority that the operator has over John.[8] Roger Odin states that, within the family hierarchy inherent in home movies, ‘the father has a particular position; it is he who directs the formation of familial memory […], who takes the photographs; and, obviously, it is he who shoots the films.’[9] By operating the camera, the father of the Coles family is taking control of how the family views itself, as well as the outward image of the family, and is enforcing a certain family hierarchy. The father of the Coles family staged John’s wearing of his clothes, and would no doubt have been the one to include the title card stating how much John wanted to be like his father. The father wanted to distance himself from the more traditionally domestic spheres of child rearing and motherhood, yet also present himself as valuable, expressing his value through his work clothes as symbols of his role as provider. This brand of fatherhood, so dominant from the late Victorian period and through the interwar years in Britain, would be replaced across a period of drastic change in the mid-twentieth century, resulting in something resembling modern fatherhood, more active and with less strict gendered spheres of control and influence.

The second film is titled ‘All in a Day’ and documents a day in the life of the Whitcombe family in Lincolnshire in 1952. Only eleven years separate this film from the film of the Coles family, yet the difference in the visible displays of fatherhood and masculinity are remarkable, though there are also similarities that remain. One key difference is the massively increased presence of the father within the film. The father in this film is shown actually physically interacting and playing with his child, making her dance, carrying her, and helping her to interact with the family dog.[10]

All in a Day (1952). Home movie, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/all-day

This more involved fatherhood, as evidenced within the film, was caused by a number of factors. One important factor was the increasing attraction of home life in the post-war period due to improved quality of housing and the surge of household appliances designed to make home-making and maintenance easier and more enjoyable. Evidence of this can be seen in the film as the mother uses a vacuum cleaner.[11] In an article written in the 1950s concerning the popularity of domestic life, British social scientist Mark Abrams stated that ‘the working-class home, as well as the middle-class home, has become a place that is […] in fact, pleasant to live in. The outcome is a working-class way of life which is decreasingly concerned with… values wider than those of the family.’[12] The fatherhood and masculinity displayed by the father from the first film had its source in environments outside of the family such as in the workplace. However, by the 1950s, fatherhood and masculinity were more able to be based on roles within the family, as men were able at times to swap traditional homosocial environments for the now more attractive environment of the family home. Francis notes that the validation from traditionally masculinity began to take place largely in the male imagination, as men could be ‘attracted to the responsibilities (and pleasures) of marriage and fatherhood, but also equally enchanted by fantasies of the energetic life and homosocial camaraderie of the adventure hero.’[13] Thus men felt more able to be active participants within the household and the family.

Another cause of this change in fatherhood that is evident in this film is the effects of World War II. 5,896,000 men served in the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom during World War II, which constituted 7 out of every 10 men born in Britain between 1915 and 1927.[14] By the end of the war 264,443 had been killed, 41,327 were missing, 277,077 were injured, and 172,592 were prisoners of war, amounting to a total 755,439 casualties.[15] The impact this had on men and masculinity in Britain was understandably massive. Having experienced the hardships and ‘adventure’ of war on a first-hand basis and in an environment entirely devoid of femininity, upon their return many men were more willing to be more active within the traditionally feminine environment of the home, and were less likely to shirk these responsibilities in favour of the homosocial environments from which masculinity had traditionally been derived. When Mass Observation asked the public in 1943 what home meant to them, one soldier on leave stated that ‘I never appreciated home before the war so much as I do now.’[16] Clare Langhamer argues that World War II had a significant effect on both male and female attitudes towards the home and family in this way, as its ‘protracted nature’ and ‘the social dislocation effected by large-scale evacuation schemes and the geographical mobility of civilian war-workers, as well as servicemen and women, fostered […] an intensified romance with home life’.[17] King and Angela Davis echo this sentiment, stating that, for men returning from the front, ‘[f]atherhood was a convenient way to help [them] position themselves and be positioned socially within “normal”, peacetime, family life, and away from soldierhood and war’, which gave rise to ‘increasing involvement of men in family life’.[18] This change in perspective after the war could help to explain the differences in the visible displays of fatherhood and masculinity displayed between the two films thus far discussed, as one takes place in the very early stages of the war, whilst the other takes place some years after as the changes alluded to by the Mass Observation respondent and the historiography were taking place.

Whilst there are clear changes in fatherhood apparent between the two films, it is also important to note that these changes were not universal or absolute, and this is evident with the film of the Whitcombe family. Much of daily life for the Whitcombes appears to involve the mother doing all of the housework. She vacuums, she bathes and dresses the baby, she brings her husband drinks and his meals, she takes the dog for walks (along with the child, notably being the one to push the rather expensive-looking pram), bathes the dog, and goes out to buy food and groceries. The only times the father is seen is when he is receiving food or beverages from his wife, is at play with the child and dog, and one instance of housework when he takes a scythe to some overgrown bushes in the garden.[19]

All in a Day (1952). Home movie, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/all-day

This demonstrates that there was still clear gendered distinction within marriage and parenthood, between what fell into the male sphere and the feminine sphere of responsibility. Davis and King note that even by this period in 1952 ‘women’s role still remained primarily in the home, and this reinforced the distinction of men’s involvement as “help”’.[20] Langhamer also takes this view of men as playing a subordinate role to mothers in the home, stating that men were limited to more masculine jobs such as yard work (as seen in this film) and mending, as they were ‘time-limited jobs rather than more expansive responsibilities’.[21] This attitude can be seen in Mass Observation responses in 1948 to the question of whether men should help around the house. One male respondent states firmly that ‘I consider all domestic work as secondary to other kinds of work […]. I would postpone [domestic work] should other work appear as more urgent.’[22] This supports Davis and King’s opinion that women were still primary actors within the home and the family whilst men were secondary. Whilst men were willing to be more involved within the home and family than they had been a decade previously, there was still a lingering focus and prioritisation of work outside the home, preserving the image of the father as the provider that was present in the first film, which leads them to become more ‘helpers’ than fully involved modern fathers as might be recognisable today.

The final film is titled ‘Caravan and Boating Holiday, Devon’ (1957) and follows a family caravan holiday to Dartmouth in 1957, thus taking place sixteen years after the first film discussed and five years after the second. This film distinguishes itself from the others in the willingness of the father to more obviously transgress traditional gender boundaries. Whilst in the second film the father was clearly more involved and more present than in the first, his presence was still ultimately rooted in gender specific areas such as the workplace, some appropriate domestic chores, and in play. In this film, however, the father appears less concerned about maintaining a strict traditional masculinity. In the film the father appears at one point to cross-dress, stuffing his top to imitate a woman’s body whilst another woman laughs, and also allows either the women or the children to braid his hair in a feminine fashion that is clearly met with some amusement by those involved.[23] This demonstrates a comfortability and an acceptance of femininity that is not present in the earlier films. This difference could potentially be explained by the differing economic and social circumstances surrounding each home movie. Francis states that, during the depression and the hard years of the inter-war period, ‘unemployment struck at the very heart of the self-respect and independence which had remained so important in the fashioning of working-class masculinities since the nineteenth century.’[24] Even in the years immediately post-war, during a period of full employment, one engineer’s wife remarked to Mass Observation that, regarding the promise of improved housing and household goods and appliances, ‘[i]t’s one thing knowing that “Britain Can Make it” but what I want to know is when Britain can get it.’[25] In comparison, by the late 1950s, Britain was enjoying greater prosperity than ever. It is possible that this rising affluence allowed for a more stable masculinity that was less afraid of appearing feminine or engaging with femininity. Nicky Hart notes that during the 1950s ‘one concomitant of the dimunition [sic] of class consciousness which accompanied the growing affluence of manual workers was a decline in gender inequality’.[26] The masculinity being expressed in this film was a more secure and comfortable one than that in the previous two films.

However, it is also important to note, and it is especially apparent in this film, that class played an important role in how people and families experienced parenthood and fatherhood. In this film the possessions on display suggest the wealth of a middle-class family. The camera lingers over camping equipment, caravans, boats, clothes, cars and other expensive items. The very fact that the family is on a seaside holiday at all suggests a certain degree of wealth. On the effects of class on fatherhood King states that, ‘[w]hilst working-class fathers might be required to take baby out in a pram to allow female family members to undertake other housework, for upper-class fathers such an activity would be optional, as a nurse or nanny would usually care for children.’[27] The experience of a middle- or upper-class family such as this one could also not be used to explore working-class gender identities and role during this period. Langhamer states that the working classes, especially those ‘rooted in areas of heavy industry, identified the maintenance of more rigid gender roles.’[28] However, Langhamer also notes that in general ‘it seems accurate to conclude that there was an increasingly active masculine role within postwar domesticity, albeit within a wider framework of continuity in female responsibility for actually running the home.’[29] So, whilst it is important to note that these films do not exist in individual vacuums, and are each subject to different influences based on locality, social class, age, and numerous others, they do ultimately represent a general movement in fatherhood and masculinity in the mid-twentieth century, a movement away from traditional strict gendered roles of father and mother to create more active and involved fathers.

In conclusion, the films demonstrate a clear progression in the nature of fatherhood in the mid-twentieth century. In the first film, the father is largely absent, and his presence is only felt through his workplace-based masculinity that can be seen in the behaviour of his son. There is clearly a strict separation between a mother as an involved parent and a father as a provider. In the second film, these boundaries are less rigid, and a more involved and present fatherhood is evident. The father plays with his children, and engages in some household chores. However these boundaries are not entirely destroyed, as the father still prioritises work other than household work and garners some masculinity from the workplace, and the extent of his involvement is limited both by limitations to his time and limitations to the number of gender appropriate household chores like yard work. This is representative of changes in Britain due to a shift towards prioritisation of the home and the family, as well as the after effects of World War II and its effects on masculinity. The third film demonstrates the most stable version of fatherhood and masculinity of the three. The line between feminine and masculine is even more blurred, as the father is comfortable not only interacting with his children but in practicing other traditionally feminine behaviours through cross-dressing. Whilst these changes represent a general movement in fatherhood in Britain, it is also important to note that individual cases can be influenced by class, amongst other things, and these films, by virtue of being home movies filmed on family cameras, portray a middle-class fatherhood that may not be representative of other experiences. However the historiography and primary sources would still support the idea of a general changing and loosening of gendered boundaries surrounding fatherhood and masculinity in mid-twentieth century Britain. This is an interesting area of study as the distance in fatherhood explored in this essay inevitably often leads to mothers being the central area of investigation when it comes to the family and child-rearing. It would be interesting to take a look at more modern sources, such as Homer from The Simpsons, and explore whether these modern representations of fatherhood are accurate and what influences they have had on fatherhood in Britain.

All in a Day (1952). Home movie, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/all-day

 

Notes

[1] ‘Coles: 1941 Compilation’, Media Archive for Central England (MACE), University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation.

[2] Martin Francis, ‘The Domestication of the Male? Recent Research on Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century British Masculinity’, Historical Journal 45:3 (2002), 637-652 (639)

[3] Laura King, ‘Hidden Fathers? The Significance of Fatherhood in Mid-Twentieth-Century Britain’, Contemporary British History 26:1 (2012), 25-46 (26).

[4] ‘Coles: 1941 Compilation’, MACE, http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation.

[5] Laura King, ‘Now You See a Great Many Men Pushing Their Pram Proudly’, Cultural and Social History 10:4 (2013), 599-617 (601).

[6] Joanna Burke, Working Class Cultures in Britain, 1890-1960: Gender, Class, and Ethnicity (London, 1994), p. 77.

[7] King, ‘Now You See a Great Many Men’, 608.

[8] ‘Coles: 1941 Compilation’, MACE, http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation.

[9] Roger Odin, ‘The Home Move and Space of Communication’, in Laura Rascaroli, Gwenda Young and Barry Monahan (eds.), Amateur Filmmaking: The Home Movie, The Archive, The Web (New York, 2014), pp. 15-26 (p. 16).

[10] ‘All in a Day’, MACE, http://www.macearchive.org/films/all-day.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Mark Abrams, ‘The Home-Centred Society’, The Listener (1959), pp. 914–915.

[13] Martin Francis, ‘A Flight from Commitment? Domesticity, Adventure and the Masculine Imaginary in Britain after the Second World War’, Gender & History 19:1 (2007), 163-185 (181).

[14] British Government, Strength and Casualties of the Armed Forces and Auxiliary Services of the United Kingdom 1939 to 1945 (Cambridge, 1946), p.2. UK Parliamentary Papers, Command Papers CMD-6832.

[15] Ibid., p. 7.

[16] Mass-Observation Archive (M-OA), File Report 1616, March 1943, p. 2.

[17] Claire Langhamer, ‘The Meanings of Home in Postwar Britain’, Journal of Contemporary History 40:2 (2005), 341-362 (348).

[18] Angela Davis and Laura King, ‘Gendered Perspectives on Men’s Changing Familial Roles in Postwar England, c.1950–1990’, Gender & History 30:1 (2018), 70-92 (71).

[19] ‘All in a Day’, MACE, http://www.macearchive.org/films/all-day.

[20] Davis and King, ‘Gendered Perspectives’, 83; Angela Davis, Modern Motherhood: Women and Family in England c.1945–2000 (Manchester, 2012) pp. 198-199.

[21] Langhamer, ‘The Meanings of Home’, 356.

[22] M-OA, Directive Respondent (DR) 4815, March 1948.

[23] ‘Caravan and Boating Holiday, Devon’ (1957), MACE, https://vimeo.com/251631665 (log-in required).

[24] Francis, ‘The Domestication of the Male?’, 650.

[25] M-OA, FR 2441, December 1946, p. 15.

[26] Nicky Hart, ‘Gender and the Rise and Fall of Class Politics’, New Left Review 175 (1989), 24.

[27] King, ‘Now You See a Great Many Men’, 603-604.

[28] Langhamer, ‘The Meanings of Home’, 357.

[29] Ibid.

Vox Pop Interviews Concerning Enoch Powell in the 1960s and 1970s. By Willem Lewis-Henderson

Controversial Speech by Enoch Powell, Midlands News (ATV, 27/8/1968), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-27081969-controversial-speech-enoch-powell

During the twentieth century, Britain experienced the arrival of thousands of peoples moving into the country from around the world. Most of these people were from the British Commonwealth and a large amount of these people were non-white immigrants after the 1948 British Nationality Act gave commonwealth the right to settle in the country. The West Midlands, in particular, received the greatest number of non-white immigrants from the West Indies.[1] The area was already facing crises in housing and job shortages, but the arrival of a large amount of people into the area caused tensions in local communities. From these tensions, political figures rose to prominence, such as Enoch Powell, who used and sometimes stoked these tensions for political advantage by speaking what others ‘don’t have the nerve to say’, according to some local people.[2] The Media Archive for Central England (MACE) holds a great deal of material related to Powell from vox pop interviews to recordings of his speeches, for which he is best known. This essay will use a selection of clips, including some short interviews, to analyse how Powell and his views on non-white immigration were presented on Midlands television. Alongside this, it will argue how this form of primary source material is both interesting and important for studies of this kind because it provides a unique window onto the views of everyday people. Also, studies of Powell and immigration in this period are of particular relevance today because of the recent Windrush scandal, as well as some people, such as Tomlinson, arguing that the current political climate resembles that of Powell’s day, with parties like UKIP who see ‘themselves to be the victims of a globalisation that has outsourced jobs outside the country and to immigrants inside’.[3] Additionally, with help from scholarship, this essay will contextualise the archive material used. The clips analysed range from 1968 to 1974, which are the years in which Powell was most outspoken in his views on the large amount of immigration facing Britain.

Enoch Powell is an important figure for exploring the effects of non-white immigration into the Midlands and Britain as a whole. He is representative of many of the tensions which emerged in the region, particularly the West Midlands in the Birmingham and Wolverhampton areas where Powell represented in parliament as MP for Wolverhampton.[4] He is most well known for his 1968 speech known as the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. Powell argued that further integration of non-white immigrants into Britain would cause violence. Thus, he argued that stricter immigration laws should be introduced and that immigration should actually be reversed to some extent. Although the speech was considered controversial at the time by many, Powell was supported by many people in his local area, as will be seen in interview clips analysed.[5] Joe Street believes Powell was able to ‘tap into the latent fears of dark strangers’ in the West Midlands.[6] As well as this, he was able to build on the views which developed from the MP for Smethwick (near Birmingham), Peter Griffiths, whose campaign during the 1964 general election criticised non-white immigration to gain his seat in Parliament. The criticisms of immigration into the West Midlands targeted issues such as shortages in housing, employment and schools, even though, as Lindsey points out, the region was already facing these shortages before the large amount of immigration and thus the area follows the trend of blame being placed onto non-white minorities.[7] It is interesting to see how these views are expressed by members of the public in some of the clips analysed. Focusing the research on Enoch Powell allows an insightful look into how racial tensions manifested in the West Midlands during the twentieth century. It is clear that Powell was a very recognised person in the area because there is a lot of material in the archive concerning him. Furthermore, there are numerous vox pop interviews on the subject of Powell and none of the interviewees do not know who he is.

The clips used in this essay are mostly vox pop interviews. ATV News, from which the clips are taken, began using vox pops in 1956 and used them very frequently throughout the twentieth century. Kathleen Beckers, Stefaan Walgrave and Hilde Van den Bulck have described a vox pops as ‘an apparently randomly chosen, ordinary individual with no affiliation, expert knowledge or exclusive information, who is interviewed by journalists and gives a personal statement in a news item’.[8] They are simple, quick and easy ways for television journalists to engage with public opinion on news stories and topics. They are somewhat symbolic of ATV’s style of gathering news stories at the time, as they had a limited budget and had to gather local stories for broadcast quickly. The vox pop also allowed journalists to record and present the views of more ordinary people rather than the more elite sources which had been used traditionally. Vox pop interviewees can be replaced by any other member of the public.[9] This makes the interviews useful for historians because the views of ordinary peoples are particularly targeted whereas in many sources that view is left out. Additionally, the television journalist and broadcaster has full control over the balance of the views presented in news clips containing vox pops. This is useful because we can see if the reporter has attempted to make reports balanced or not. This could be through having a balanced number of ‘for or against’ interviewees, or by having a range of different types of people interviewed. This is important for this era of television broadcasting because BBC and ITV were attempting to keep news broadcasting balanced and not present any one point of view too strongly. Therefore, vox pop interviews are useful for presenting the views of ordinary people while also showing us how balanced or unbalanced certain topics were reported on.

Enoch Powell Vox Pops, ATV Today (ATV, 26/7/1965), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-26071965-enoch-powell-vox-pops

The first of the clips analysed has simply been labelled ‘Enoch Powell Vox Pops’ by the archive. Like many of the clips found in MACE it is not a complete news report. However, the questions and answers from interviewees are as they would have appeared in the broadcast. The questions in this clip are focused on asking residents of Wolverhampton whether or not they think Enoch Powell would make a good leader of the Conservative Party. This video is from 1965 which is three years before Powell’s controversial speech which made him well known, nevertheless it is clear from the clip that Powell is familiar in the area. Of all the eleven people interviewed on the street, only one is not in favour of Powell becoming the party leader. The majority believe him to be ‘strong’, ‘dynamic’ and would be able to show the rest of the Commonwealth that ‘England is wonderful’ if he was to become the leader of the party in 1965.[10] It is interesting to see that Powell was already an established name in the area before his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech made him well known across the country. It is unclear from this clip if the interviewees were in favour of Powell due to his views on immigration because they only go as far as to mention his characteristics and not his political views. This shows that Powell may have been widely respected by people in the West Midlands before he made his views on immigration explicit in 1968. It is clear from these, however, that the interviewer was not wholly attempting to supply a balanced report with these vox pops. It could be that the reporter was unable to find many people who were against Powell becoming Conservative Party leader, but the overwhelming opinion presented in this clip is supporting Powell, which does not present a balanced account of views. Alongside this, in response to his own question being directed back at him, the reported says that he also has ‘hope’ that Powell will be successful. This without doubt shows an unbalanced report and furthermore implies that Midlands television represented Powell in a positive way, in this occasion supporting him possibly becoming Conservative Party leader. Powell was unsuccessful in his bid for party leadership and Edward Heath became the Conservative leader in 1965.[11]

Vox Pops on Latest Enoch Powell Speech, Midlands News (ATV, 10/6/1969), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-10061969-vox-pops-latest-enoch-powell-speech

Powell made many speeches against immigration during the 1960s and 1970s after the ‘Rivers of Blood’. Many were considered just as controversial and were reported upon in Midlands News. The second clip takes place in 1969 in response to suggestions that the government could pay for non-white immigrants to travel back to the countries from which they migrated.[12] Again, this clip is comprised of vox pop interviews, but this time the interviewer has seemingly targeted non-white immigrants to represent their view on the idea. This in some way goes against the idea that a vox pop interviewee can be replaced by any member of the public, however the interviewees are not prepared for the interviews therefore it can still be considered vox pop interviews.[13] There are mixed reactions: some say they will go if they are paid to leave and all of their property is paid for. Others say they would not go home even if the government paid the full amount. They say that there is nothing for them ‘back home’ and some say that they enjoy living in England and so would not leave. A student says he will probably return home after his studies. One woman says that if she wants to go back she will pay her own way so it would be her own choice. This clip is interesting because it shows a great range of different peoples from a shopkeeper to a student. This implies that to some extent the views of non-white immigrants are represented well by ATV in this instance. This could be important for studying racial tensions caused by immigration in the Midlands during the 1960s and 1970s because it shows how not everyone was supportive of Powell’s views. Powell was not supported on the whole nationally either, as newspapers from the time show how even his own political party saw him as tending to ‘stir up’ racial tensions.[14] The Daily Express reported that members of the same Shadow Cabinet Powell was a part of ‘did not agree’ with the way Powell made his arguments.[15] Although not shown in this clip, many people in the Midlands did support Powell. Therefore, it can be said that the Midlands is important for looking at racial tensions in the period because views similar to Powell’s were not reciprocated by politicians from other areas of Britain and thus evidence of particular racial tensions could be missed without the Midlands. The clips analysed, however, do not make reference to how Powell was not supported by his party in regards to his controversial views on immigration. The second clip shows how Midlands television was attempting to represent the views of non-white immigrants during the period. Although, again it can be argued that the clip was not balanced as it only shows the perspective of immigrants.

Resignation of Enoch Powell, ATV Today (ATV, 8/2/1974). MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-08021974-resignation-enoch-powell

The third clip is concerned with Powell’s resignation from the Conservative Party in 1974 and shows how some of the local sentiment remained unchanged from the first clip from 1965. This meant that Powell left his office in Wolverhampton and the clip begins with an interview with Robin Pollard, the Conservative agent for Wolverhampton.[16] This clip was broadcast in colour, which ATV began to do in 1969. Pollard praises Powell for the work he did for his constituency. He is not worried about getting a new candidate to replace Powell but says it is unlikely that there will be someone as individual and successful as Powell. Pollard represents what can be considered an ‘elite’ source for news interview as he is qualified on the subject and cannot be replaced by anyone.[17] The second half of the clip turns to vox pop interviews to find the views of ordinary people on the street. They begin with a lady outside a local shop, who is ‘heartbroken’ and says Powell is a ‘far-seeing man’. A second woman says he spoke his mind on issues and expressed what many people felt, which seems to mirror the views of the man from the first clip. Kassimeris and Jackson explain that Powell was seen by many as the politician that was ‘courageous’ enough to speak the opinions of the ordinary working-class person on the issues of immigration.[18] A man says he has worked hard for Wolverhampton for a very long time, which suggests this man supported Powell before and during his ‘Rivers of Blood’ controversy. Another woman says he was a ‘sick man’ so thought it was coming, which seems to show some balance in a report with mostly positive things to say about Powell. A final man also says that Powell said what a lot of people were thinking and just had the nerve to speak out, which supports Kassimeris and Jackson. Independent television, like the clips found in the MACE archive, quickly became popular after its creation in 1955 and was able to break the BBC’s monopoly on broadcasting.[19] As well as this, television had grown to have more authority than other forms of mass media during this stage of the twentieth century.[20] Therefore, news reports such these are important for the ways they represent views on topics. Especially considering Beckers, Walgrave and Bulck’s argument that views expressed in vox pops by ordinary people are more likely to be agreed with by viewers because they feel their views are supported by others.[21]

To conclude, it has been shown through news clips taken from the MACE archive why the Midlands is important for the study of racial tensions during the 1960s and 1970s caused by non-white immigration. The clips show how controversial views expressed by one of the region’s most prominent and controversial politicians were represented and dealt with on local independent television. Furthermore, it has been considered why vox pop interviews are important as they help to indicate the views of ordinary people as well as indicating how news broadcasters attempted to balance their news reports. Additionally, the clips help to show to what extent ATV was attempting to represent the large amount of non-white people who had immigrated into the region during the twentieth century.

 

Notes

[1] Lydia Lindsey, ‘The Split-Labor Phenomenon: Its Impact on West Indian Workers as a Marginal Working Class in Birmingham, England, 1948-1962’ The Journal of Negro History 78(2) (1993), 83-109, 86.

[2] ‘Enoch Powell Resignation’, ATV Today (ATV, 8/2/1974), Media Archive for Central England (MACE), University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-08021974-resignation-enoch-powell.

[3] Sally Tomlinson, ‘Enoch Powell, Empires, Immigrants and Education’, Race Ethnicity and Education 21(1) (2008), 1-14.

[4] Robert Shepherd, Enoch Powell: A Bibliography (London, 1996), 78-103.

[5] Amy Whipple, ‘Revisiting the “Rivers of Blood” Controversy: Letters to Enoch Powell’, Journal of British Studies, 48(3) (2009), 717-735 (717-718).

[6] Joe Street, ‘Malcolm X, Smethwick, and the Influence of the African American Freedom Struggle on British Race Relation in the 1960s’, Journal of Black Studies 38(6) (2008), 932-950 (933).

[7] Lindsey, ‘The Split-Labor Phenomenon’, 86.

[8] Kathleen Beckers, Stefaan Walgrave and Hilde Van den Bulck, ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, Journalism Studies 19(2) (2018), 284-296 (284).

[9] Beckers, Walgrave and Bulck, ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, 285.

[10] ‘Enoch Powell Vox Pops’, Midlands News (ATV, 26/7/1965), MACE, University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-26071965-enoch-powell-vox-pops.

[11] Chas Early, ‘July 27, 1965: Edward Heath is the surprise new leader of the Conservative Party’ On This Day BT.com 28 April 2017 [Online Resource] http://home.bt.com/news/on-this-day/july-27-1965-edward-heath-is-the-surprise-new-leader-of-the-conservative-party-11363994287360 Accessed 17 March 2018.

[12] ‘Vox Pops on Latest Enoch Powell Speech’, Midlands News (ATV, 10/6/1969), MACE, University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-10061969-vox-pops-latest-enoch-powell-speech.

[13] Beckers, Walgrave, Bulck. ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, 285.

[14] Arthur Butler, ‘”Curb Immigrants” Powell Sensation’, Daily Express, 10 February 1968.

[15] Arthur Butler, ‘Challenge to Powell’, Daily Express, 4 October 1968.

[16] ‘Enoch Powell Resignation’, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-08021974-resignation-enoch-powell.

[17] Beckers, Walgrave and Bulck, ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, 285-288.

[18] George Kassimeris and Leonie Jackson, ‘Negotiating Race and Religion in the West Midlands: Narratives of Inclusion and Exclusion during the 1967-69 Wolverhampton Bus Workers’ Turban Dispute’, Contemporary British History 31(3) (2017), 343-365 (343).

[19] Catherine Johnson and Rob Turnock, ‘Introduction: Approaching The Histories of ITV’, in Catherine Johnson and Rob Turnock (eds.), Independent Television Over Fifty Years (Maidenhead, 2005), 1-13: 1.

[20] Gavin Schaffer, The Vision of a Nation: Making Multiculturalism on British Television, 1960-80 (London, 2014), 67.

[21] Beckers, Walgrave and Bulck, ‘Opinion Balance in Vox Pop Television News’, 285-288.

How Were Post-war Youth Sub-cultures Represented in the Media? By Sarah Bothamley

Cheltenham Mods and Rockers, ATV Today (ATV, 28/9/1965), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

Throughout the post-war era, Britain witnessed unquestionable improvements to living standards through full employment and comprehensive welfare provisions, which mainly benefitted the young.[1] Young people in the 1960s were perceived to be iconic figures, not only because of what they achieved but how they personified so many issues of society.[2] To outline what this essay means by ‘young people’, Mark Abrams’s comprehensive definition asserts that youth was limited ‘from the time they leave school until they marry or reach 25’.[3] Throughout this period some young people organised themselves into a succession of youth sub-cultures: the Teddy Boys, Mods and Rockers. In an analysis of three videos from ATV Today and Midlands News from the Media Archive for Central England (MACE), this essay will explore how these youth sub-cultures were presented in the media by news programmes from the 1950s to the 1970s. The first clip is a recording from Midlands News on a Ted’s speech at the Teddy Boys Conference, who wants to form a youth association, first broadcast on 3 November 1958.[4] The second video from ATV Today examines Teddy Boys in Birmingham after the post-war era shown in 17 August 1973.[5] The final footage, also from ATV Today, investigates the tensions between the Mods and Rockers after the recent disturbances, aired on 28 September 1965.[6] All three clips reveal the growth of youth sub-cultures within the post-war era, or at the very least amongst those in the Midlands.

The 1950s and 1960s were both the outcome and personification of the wider cultural as well as social changes. Before the 1960s men were expected to get a job, get married, have children and live a happy life.[7] The departure of this societal expectation enabled young men to have the freedom to experience their youth. Moreover, this notion of new-found youth was motivated by the increase of real earnings unconstrained by the responsibility to contribute to the overall family wage. Certainly, young male manual workers benefited the most from this change.[8] Whilst young men witnessed a transformation in disposable income, young women’s jobs within domestic service were replaced with clerical work, which expanded to employ in 1964 nearly 40 per-cent of girls aged 15 to 17.[9] Despite this expansion, young women continued to earn less than their male peers. Yet, most young people had sufficient spending money, and the newly created ‘teenage girl’ became vital to the success of the consumer market.[10] Evidently, the freedom from the expectation from contributing to the family encouraged young people to spend their money on consumer goods. However, Mike Brown argues that some families still relied on their children wages.[11] This suggests that not all teenagers experienced complete freedom to spend their wages as they pleased. Nevertheless, it did signify a difference from the austerity witnessed during the previous decade, when it would have been considered sheer luxury not to contribute to the family income. Therefore, teenagers had limited freedom to spend their wages on consumer items. Although consumerism was not a new concept in the post-war era, Britain’s position within world trading had declined with the domestic consumer market becoming progressively dominant to the economy.[12] Instead of buying ‘white goods’ (televisions and fridges) which had dominated adult consumerism in the 1950s, teenagers now spent their money on records and clothes.[13] The development of consumerism which propelled an affluent society combined with the emerging youth sub-cultures was vital to the transformation of the teenager. Though, Richard Grayson maintains that the affluent teenager was problematic for several reasons: ‘it made young people less subject to parental control, as they became financially independent at a younger age and it promoted a sense of individualism focused on material acquisition’.[14] Yet Selina Todd discredits this by contending that post-war teenagers were ‘not constructed by the popular or social investigator but by the aspirations of working-class parents’.[15] Evidently, the encouragement from parents demonstrates that they supported the active nature of youth culture. Although both historians disagree over whether teenagers were perceived to have a positive impact on society, they do agree that the concept of the teenager had been firmly established by the post-war era. Ultimately, the framing of young people as consumers in conjunction with being involved in youth culture as a social problem has focused on the moral and cultural disorder.

Teddy Boys Conference, Midlands News (ATV, 3/11/1958), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-03111958-teddy-boys-conference

Teddy Boys were the first collective youth sub-culture to make their mark with defiance and anger, thus promoting moral panic with society as well as the media.[16] Teddy Boys in the early 1950s wore clothes that were intended for young upper-class men. Nevertheless, Tony Jefferson noted the adoption of the upper-class style as representative of an illogical ideal from the Teddy Boys, ‘who were destined for lower paid jobs and manual labour’ but attempted to raise their status through buying clothes.[17] Hence this suggests that Teddy Boys were predominately from working-class backgrounds and were ambitious to move up social classes. Indeed, Arthur Marwick argues that, despite their intentions for social mobility, it was only (the later) Mod style that spread up the class structure, whereas Teds were excluded.[18] Failure of the Teddy Boys to utilise social mobility demonstrates that not all youth sub-cultures could disguise their class origins. Furthermore, this confirms that Teds could not promote social progress unlike other youth groups, thus this group was not as influential as previously thought. Regardless of this, Teddy Boys began to emerge in the media in the early 1950s, with the first mention within the press being in The Times on 25 June 1954, describing how ‘a 13-year old boy who established a reign of terror and carved the initials T.B (Teddy Boy) with a knife on the arms of four schoolmates’.[19] This concept that a Teddy Boy cut into the flesh of his ‘innocent’ victims conveys a powerful image, which strongly enforced the idea of the delinquent youth in 1950s mainstream culture.[20] The media played a vital role in cultivating this troublesome image through describing the moral and cultural disorder in their reports which focused on Teddy Boys’ actions of criminality, violence and sexual promiscuity. Indeed, the speech by a Ted at the ‘Teddy Boy Conference’ captured by Midlands News on 3 November 1958 revealed how the group would gather on ‘street corners and be moved on by the police’.[21] Though this broadcast provides an insight into how the sub-culture came to be associated with troublemakers, it also highlights how the Teddy Boys wanted to be more organsied into a collective group. The Ted speaker further claims how they want to ‘form an association including our friends at Leamington and other places, we will be as one body’.[22] Midlands News’s coverage of the Teddy Boy Conference is similar to the national press, with both reports revealing how the Teds have been perceived to be a problem within society. Both reports have publicised the disorder created by the Teddy Boys. Yet the Midlands News report does differ from the national news by presenting an alternative stance of the Teds, aspiring to belong to a united youth sub-culture, which indicates the intention for them to be not only considered more influential within society but to also distance themselves from the troublemaker persona that the national and to an extent regional media has created.

Birmingham Teddy Boys, ATV Today (17/8/1973), http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-17081973-birmingham-teddy-boys

However, this call for unity in 1957 came at a time when Teddy Boys were in decline, as tastes in fashion had changed and the popularity of the group was being overshadowed by the emergence of the Mods and Rockers.[23] Despite the decline of Teddy Boys, ATV in January 1973 confirmed that Teddy Boys continued to be a functioning group within Birmingham. Reporter Chris Tarrant exposed how the Teddy Boys, or rather now men, continued to embrace the fashion identity and distanced from modern fashion. By the 1970s the majority of people who partook in youth sub-cultures had got married and settled down ‘like everyone else’.[24] Whilst most of the older Teds in the report are married, they continue to a part of this group. The continual existence of the Teddy Boys even after its heyday confirms that the Ted movement continued to be appealing. Indeed, ATV Today and Midlands News’s coverage of the Teddy Boys confirms that they were a popular topic in both television and newspapers, even after the post-war era. Although ATV presented their pieces on the Teds as cultural, they also confirm how this youth culture continued to be influential despite the growing and eventual surpassing of the Mods and Rockers. Midlands News’s use of revealing a different narrative of the Teds highlights that the group had support from both its members and some of society, at a time when the movement was generally opposed. Moreover, the coverage of the Teds being influential validates the purpose of the Teds of not what they did, but the importance of popularising their youth culture and the ones that followed. Although the media focused on the Teds creating moral and cultural disorder, their actions were not as dramatic as those depicted in the clashes between the Mod and Rockers.

For many people, they find it impossible to talk about the Mods without also discussing their famous rivals, the Rockers. Mod culture developed in the early 1960s and by 1964 the embodiment of what had become associated with continental culture and fashion had been replaced by the more widely known second incarnation. This version of Mod became instantly recognisable within youth sub-cultures. The typical second-wave Mod wore a smart shirt, short boxed-shaped jacket, narrow trousers, gleaming black boots and hair cropped neatly.[25] In comparison, the Rockers took their inspiration from America. They wore leather jackets, often with metal studs, white t-shirts, tight blue jeans, cowboy boots and wore their hair long and greasy.[26] Yet the differences in appearance also extended to geographical and class divisions. Although both groups emerged during the early 1960s from London suburbs, the Mods started from a small group of fashion-conscious teenagers in North London, whereas the Rocker originated predominantly from South London.[27] Therefore, both groups were distinctly opposite in almost every way, apart from their intention to partake in youth sub-cultures. By 1962-3 the Mods and Rockers divisions already existed, but by 1964 this had greatly intensified.[28] The lack of amicability between the two groups, signified partly the typical gang rivalries, but also the genuine class division. To the middle-class Mods, the Rockers were backwards, primitive and uncouth; to the working-class Rockers, the Mods were pretentious, precious and effeminate.[29] This division can readily be found in both newspaper and television reports. Daily Mail reporter Brian Saxton revealed that a Rocker described Mods as ‘lots of sissies. Some of them wear make-up. Right lot of pansies they are! Rockers hate Mods-nothing serious mind you’.[30] Although Saxton highlights the divisions between the groups, the Rockers downplay that it is serious, thus suggesting it is more of a rivalry. Indeed, the ATV report on ‘Cheltenham Mods and Rockers’ shown in September 1965, at the height of the division, also supports this notion with a Rocker stating, ‘Mods put lipstick on their face. They’re pansies’.[31] Both regional and national news confirm that the Rockers belittled the status of Mods within youth sub-culture. The ATV report focuses on the reactions to the recent disputes in the Montpellier district of Cheltenham. Both groups claim that the other started the fight with the Rockers claiming that ‘ten Mods beat up a Rocker’, whilst the Mods maintain that ‘we don’t cause any trouble, but then the greasers started causing trouble, kicking scooters, pushing around smaller people than them’.[32] The ATV report concentrates on sensationalising this incident through capturing the hostility to strengthen the perception that youth sub-cultures were a negative aspect of society. This national and regional youth debate can be viewed as another way of discussing the post-war society.[33] Yet this youth debate intensified with the increased clashes between both groups both on locally and nationally.

Cheltenham Mods and Rockers, ATV Today (ATV, 28/9/1965). http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

Many of the media reports relating to the clashes in seaside towns were greatly exaggerated. This is supported by Dominic Sandbrook, who argues that most teenagers caught up in the Clacton conflict of April 1964 had not come to fight, but to wander around with ‘the intention of meeting girls’; they were bored and directionless rather than crazed and looking to fight.[34] Evidently, the moral panics generated from the exaggeration of supposed disturbances like Clacton were not so much about the Mods and Rockers dispute, but about the post-war affluence and sexual freedom they represented.[35] Rockers were left behind from this post-war affluence: they were unfashionable and unglamorous because they appeared to be class-bound. Imagery projected by the media conveyed them as thugs which they had inherited from the Teds; in comparison, Mods were seen to the lead youth sub-cultures.[36] Hence Mods were considered by themselves and society to be superior to the Rockers. Regardless of this opposition, both groups were responsible for facilitating thousands of young men and women to mobilise to create the first successful collective geographical youth sub-cultures in Britain.[37] Whilst the expression of Mods was real enough, the commercial exploitation of fashion and television programmes such as Ready Steady Go! enabled them to dominant.[38] The dominance of this youth sub-culture encouraged the Mods to become a wide spread national movement which not only inspired fashion and television programmes but also enabled ordinary people to participate. For many young people like Marilyn who identified a Mod, her involvement was based on the ‘music and fashion’ she enjoyed, and not because she was involved in the disputes with the Rockers.[39] Clearly, this account demonstrates Marilyn enjoying her youth and being on the edge of Mod sub-culture. Hence enjoyment in conjunction with freedom was central to the popular memory of 1960s youth sub-culture. This is supported by Becky Conekin, who contends how this sub-culture offered a ‘more complex subcultural opportunity for girls’ mainly because it was located within working-class teenage consumerism.[40] Most youngsters who linked themselves with these sub-cultures were manufactured by consumerism rather than the rebellion, and their main interests, therefore, reflect those dominant values and are no means are in opposition.[41] Consequently, this dilutes the original ideas of what it was to be either a Mod or Rocker. Teenage cultures were evolving in the post-war era with the consumerism focus of Mods paving the way for the introduction and acceptance of the teenager as a social category.

To conclude, both regional and national media played heavily on the image of the delinquent youths when discussing 1950s and 1960s youth sub-cultures. This diverse range of youth groups in post-war Britain was not limited to class and or gender.[42] By itself, the coverage from ATV Today and Midlands News cannot completely reveal the impact of youth sub-cultures in the Midlands. However, it does determine how all three group were presented within the media, particularly focusing on the division from both the rest of society and other youth sub-cultures. Moreover, Midlands News does differ from national media by presenting a more sympathetic stance, revealing how the Teddy Boys were frustrated with police attention and wanted to unite to form a coherent group. The development of consumerism throughout the post-war era was vital to cultivating the ‘affluent teenager’. Evidently, this focus on the teenage market did not only promote youth sub-cultures but also changed the ideals of these groups as they became more mainstream. However, further study would be required to evaluate the impact youth sub-cultures had on society and how different television programmes aired by the BBC and other regional news programmes depicted these groups.

 

Notes

[1] Stephen Brooke, ‘Gender and Working-class Identity in Britain during the 1950s’, Journal of Social History 34 (2001), 773-795 (773).

[2] Dominic Sandbrook, White Heat: A History of Britain in The Swinging Sixties (London, 2006), 205.

[3] Mark Abrams, The Teenage Consumer (London, 1959), 3.

[4] ‘Teddy Boys Conference’, Midlands News (ATV, 3/11/1958), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-03111958-teddy-boys-conference

[5] ‘Birmingham Teddy Boys’, ATV Today (ATV, 17/8/1973), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-17081973-birmingham-teddy-boys

[6] ‘Cheltenham Mods and Rockers’, Midlands News (ATV, 28/9/1965), MACE, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

[7] Alright in the 1960s (Channel 4, 5/1/2018), BOB National Archive. https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/prog/0AF0DEDE?bcast=125853939#

[8] Bill Osgerby, ‘“Well, It’s Saturday Night an’ I Just Got Paid”: Youth, Consumerism and Hegemony in Post-War Britain’, Contemporary Record 6 (1992), 287-305 (293).

[9] Andrew August, ‘Gender and 1960s Youth Culture: The Rolling Stones and the New Woman’, Contemporary British History 23 (2009), 79-100 (81).

[10] Ibid, 81.

[11] Mike Brown, The 1960s Look: Recreating the Fashions of the Sixties (Sevenoaks, 2016), 58.

[12] Osgerby, ‘Well, It’s Saturday Night an’ I Just Got Paid’, 290.

[13] Jonathon Green, All Dressed Up: The Sixties and the Counterculture (London, 1999), 3.

[14] Richard Grayson, ‘Mods, Rockers and Juvenile Delinquency in 1964: The Government Response’, Contemporary British History 12 (1998), 19-47 (23).

[15] Selina Todd and Hilary Young, ‘Baby-boomers to ‘“Beanstalkers”: Making the Modern Teenager in Post-war Britain’, Cultural and Social History 9 (2012), 451-467 (463).

[16] Stanley Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of Mod and Rockers (London, 2002), 204.

[17] Nick Bentley, ‘New Elizabethans: The Representation of Youth Sub-cultures in 1950s British Fiction’, Literature & History 19 (2010), 16-33 (25).

[18] Arthur Marwick, The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States 1958-1974 (Oxford, 1998), 77.

[19] ‘Initials Carved on Arms of Schoolmates’, The Times, 25 June 1954, 3.

[20] Bentley, ‘New Elizabethans’, 18.

[21] ‘Teddy Boys Conference’, http://www.macearchive.org/films/midlands-news-03111958-teddy-boys-conference

[22] Ibid.

[23] Grayson, ‘Mods, Rockers and Juvenile Delinquency in 1964’, 25.

[24] Brian Saxton, ‘Down among the Young Ones’, Daily Mail, 6 April 1964, 12.

[25] Sandbrook, White Heat, 206.

[26] Ibid, 207.

[27] David Fowler, ‘From Jukebox Boys to Revolting Students: Richard Hoggart and the Study of British Youth Culture’, International Journal of Cultural Studies 10 (2007), 73-84 (75).

[28] Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, 210.

[29] Sandbrook, White Heat, 207.

[30] Saxton, ‘Down among the young ones’.

[31] ‘Cheltenham Mods and Rockers’, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

[32] ‘Cheltenham Mods and Rockers’, http://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-28091965-cheltenham-mods-and-rockers

[33] Osgerby, ‘Well, It’s Saturday Night an’ I Just Got Paid’, 288.

[34] Sandbrook, White Heat, 206.

[35] Arnold Hunt, ‘“Moral Panic” and Moral Language in the Media’, British Journal of Sociology 48 (1997), 629-648 (631).

[36] Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, 211.

[37] Fowler, ‘From Jukebox Boys to Revolting Students’, 75.

[38] Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics, 211.

[39] Helena Mills, ‘Using the Personal to Critique the Popular: Women’s Memories of 1960s Youth’, Contemporary British History 30 (2016), 463-483 (473).

[40] Becky Conekin, ‘Fashioning Mod: Twiggy and the Moped in “Swinging” London’, History and Technology 28 (2012), 209-215 (211).

[41] Osgerby, ‘Well, It’s Saturday Night an’ I Just Got Paid’, 290.

[42] Bentley, ‘New Elizabethans’, 16.

Wedding of Hazel Guy to Brian Williams (1950). By Matthew Smith

Watch the film on Vimeo (log-in required)

The film is an 11 minute 50 second amateur recording in colour of both the day leading up to and the actual wedding of Hazel Guy to Brian Williams in 1950. The presence of colour film is not uncommon as by the 1950s the cost to buy and produce colour film had been dramatically reduced.[1] The film progresses through two distinct parts before displaying the actual wedding, the first (from 00:05 to 00:39) appears to be a drinks reception for one or both families involved, while the second (from 00:40 to 01:39) records a beach and individuals, likely to be family members relaxing on it. The film then (from 01:47 onwards) records the actual wedding and wedding reception.

The reason for the good quality footage can be explained by Rascaroli, Young and Monahan who note that by 1950 several companies such as Kodak had released popular and successful manuals on how to shoot home movies.[2] This is further supported by an advertisement for home cameras as an ideal Christmas present in The Times newspaper in November 1950.[3] Therefore, both the quality of the footage and the fact that the wedding was filmed presumably by a family member is due to both the ease of access to filmmaking equipment and the presence of instructions on how to best use it.

In addition, it is important to analyse the way in which the film has been made. For example, despite the film from 01:46 covering the wedding day the actual ceremony is not filmed and the newly married couple are not shown until 05:45, indicating perhaps that the individual filming the wedding could not or did not film for long inside the church. This appears to be a personal choice by the filmmaker rather than there being a ban on filming in a church, clearly evidenced by an article from The Times in 1951 (a year after this film was recorded) concerning a church that had won the right to continue to play films in its crypt without a licence, thus making the likelihood of a ban against recording wedding services unlikely.[4] Therefore, the people and events the filmmaker chose to record is likely due to their personal preference and not restrictions on what they could film.

It is also vital to understand why home movies such as this were created. Baron notes that home filmmaking was often popular due to its use within families to promote togetherness and as a result many home films were tailored towards a specific and limited audience, i.e. immediate family and friends, while developments in technology meant these films could be preserved for longer.[5] This is further supported by a similar homemade film of a wedding which focuses on similar areas to the first film, for example it dedicates the entirety of its three-minute runtime to recording the post-service reception and celebration.[6] Therefore, it can be argued that main reason the film was made was for later viewing by family and friends of both Hazel Guy and Brian Williams.

This links to the significance of the film as the popularity of creating amateur films such as this led to the development of new 8mm film to meet the growing public demand.[7] Holmes further supports this by arguing that home television viewing of films was on the rise, thus home films such as the Wedding of Hazel Guy and Brian Williams represent part of a shift away from cinema film viewing and towards a more home centred experience consisting of television and amateur moviemaking.[8] However, Roberts counters this interpretation by noting how throughout both the 1950s and 1960s amateur filmmaking was ‘still a relatively expensive hobby’, thus the film represents a very specific part of home leisure rather than major part of home film consumption.[9]

Therefore, the overall significance of the film is that it is an example of the growth in home moviemaking during the 1950s. However it must be considered when using films such as this that both their creation and showing was expensive thus making amateur film highly useful for research when used alongside other primary sources (notably newspapers), but not as a standalone source as its limited audience and production make general inferences difficult.

 

[1] Annette Kuhn and Guy Westwell, A Dictionary of Film Studies (Oxford, 2012), 89.

[2] Laura Rascaroli, Gwenda Young and Barry Monahan, Amateur Filmmaking: The Home Movie, the Archive, the Web (London, 2014).

[3] ‘Public Notices’, The Times, 27 Nov. 1950, 1. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 26 Feb. 2018. http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=TTDA&userGroupName=ulh&tabID=T003&docPage=article&searchType=BasicSearchForm&docId=CS17386363&type=multipage&contentSet=LTO&version=1.0. First Accessed 26/02/2018

[4] ‘Films in Church Crypt’, The Times, 15 Sept. 1951, 8. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 26 Feb. 2018. http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=TTDA&userGroupName=ulh&tabID=T003&docPage=article&searchType=BasicSearchForm&docId=CS135089455&type=multipage&contentSet=LTO&version=1.0. First Accessed 26/02/2018

[5] Jaimie Baron, The Archive Effect: Found Footage and the Audiovisual Experience of History (London, 2013), 83-85.

[6] ‘Wedding’, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln, https://vimeo.com/248125714.

[7] Ian MacKillop and Neil Sinyard, British Cinema in the 1950’s: An Art in Peacetime (Manchester, 2003), 210.

[8] Su Holmes, British Television and Film Culture in the 1950s (Bristol, 2005), 35.

[9] Les Roberts, Film, Mobility and Urban Space: A Cinematic Geography of Liverpool (Liverpool, 2012), 104.

Ship (1934). By Cameron Shropshire

Watch the film on Vimeo (log-in required)

The use of archive film has always presented a great outlet of information into the past, providing first hand footage of not just events but also an insight into the cultural standards held during the production. Sian Barber argues that the study of film itself is a discipline but it can be a vital historical source for the time of production.[1] Applying this idea, the purpose of analysing the ‘Ship’ source can be to provide an interesting insight into how cruises were presented and how it can represent an emerging working class affluent leisure culture in Britain.

The source itself is a thirteen-minute film that is centred around a cruise ship, leaving the harbour and activities that are held on the ship. Whilst there are no specific details given around the source regarding production date and location, this can be worked out with the information provided within the source. Within the first scene it shows the ship leaving the harbour with a mass crowd to wave off. What can be taken away from this first short scene is that this film is based leaving what looks to be Albert Dock in Liverpool. This is a predominantly working class northern city which could suggest the film could be aimed at this same social class.[2] Additionally, the gathering of people can also suggest that this is an early voyage or major event, something which can provide reasoning to the purpose of this film being produced. The following scene is then set in a gym inside the ship, with many families stood around these machines in excitement which could suggest a novelty and luxury to the gym equipment. Importantly this can provide a time frame for this film as the machines themselves were popular in the nineteen thirties, and considered luxury items at the time. The ‘Bucking Bronco’ is one example featured in the video that was considered a revolutionary fat burning machine that worked with vibrations to ‘wiggle away excess pounds’.[3] The thirties can be considered an important time for this to be produced as this was a period where focus on leisure time and holidays were becoming popular culture.[4] An average reduction in working hours and paid holidays on the increase during this timeframe, 1.5 million Britons were entitled to paid holidays in 1931 but by 1939 this had risen to 11 million.[5] Therefore this could suggest this films purpose would be to advertise and attract this new affluent group of Britons. Robert James argues that popular culture regarding holidays provides an escape from normal reality and this escapism is a theme that could be explored further.[6]

What is also important is to acknowledge is how the entertainment on the ship is very much aimed to appeal to working class guests and the culture they held. The events they show on film such as boxing is a game considered popular within the lower classes and the reasoning for them to include this as entertainment on ship suggests this is aimed at working class Britain. Evidence of the popularity of boxing within the working class can be seen with home videos with boxing played in the same popularity of football. Men would spar with their companions in open scenarios for fun, such as in home movies on the MACE archive. Made in 1934 one home movie shows a football game then switches to two men boxing in a field as common entertainment of the time.[7] This appeal to entertain the working class could be considered to work as many of the clothes worn within the video are seen by Angela Partington as typical of working class culture.[8] The thick tweed jackets and hats were commonplace for the cheap cost and durability and these were common place in interwar Britain.[9] However as an alternative Peter Lowe suggests that using working class identity could produce an issue of generalising as unemployment was rose as high as 40% during the thirties.[10] So to assume all working class people could afford this and was part of wider culture can be questioned.

The film ends with a picturesque scene of the view of the ocean. This was purposefully done with the intention to further advertise the ship. This end scene summarises what purpose this film was intentionally produced for, advertisement of an experience. However, what it provides is an insight into working class culture. Using Sian Barber’s methodology, a historian can use this film as a window into the interwar period to provide an insight into working class culture with leisure. Although as Lowe stated it is important to acknowledge the wider issue of unemployment during this timeframe. In conclusion this information has been inferenced from the film, but what it does suggest is that this video can bring forth more questions into how this working class would experience this narrative of social change during the interwar period.

 

[1] Sian Barber, Using Film as a Source (Manchester, 2015), 10.

[2] John Belchem, Liverpool 800: culture, character & history (Liverpool, 2006), 54.

[3] Deborah Arthurs, “Wooden treadmills and a terrifying fat wobbler: The 1920s exercise machines better suited to a torture chamber than the gym”, Daily Mail, 28 June 2013, accessed 27 February 2018, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2350131/Wooden-treadmills-torture-chamber-fat-wobblers-1920s-exercise-equipment-revealed-glory.html.

[4] Robert James, Popular culture and working-class taste in Britain, 1930-39: a round of cheap diversions? (Manchester, 2014), 23.

[5] James, Popular culture and working-class taste in Britain, 35.

[6] James, Popular culture and working-class taste in Britain, 45.

[7] Ratcliffe: Boxing and Various, 1934, Media Archive for Central England, University of Lincoln. http://www.macearchive.org/films/ratcliffe-boxing-and-various

[8] Angela Partington, ‘Social class. Popular fashion and working-class affluence’, in Michael Barnard (ed.), Fashion Theory: A Reader (London, 2007), 354.

[9] Partington, ‘Social class’, 356.

[10] Peter Lowe, English journeys: national and cultural identity in 1930s and 1940s England (Amherst, 2012), 56.

Wedding of Hazel Guy to Brian Williams (1950). By Sarah Bothamley

Watch the film on Vimeo (log-in required)

This clip is taken from Guy’s family home movie collection and was recorded on 2 September 1950. Whilst there is no commentary, which prevents a clear narrative and access to personal thoughts, the film depicts the wedding celebrations of Hazel Guy and Brian Williams held at Donington parish church at Albrighton in Shropshire. The footage shows how the family and friends interact with the celebrations, demonstrating that weddings are perceived to be a public celebration of marriage. Throughout the film, the lavish clothes worn by the wedding party in conjunction with the partial colour footage implies that these families are middle-class. Evidently, the film conveys that despite social and cultural changes within the postwar era, weddings continued to be the most obvious of the few remaining traditions around which individuals organised themselves in Western society.[1] Ultimately, the film reveals how middle-class weddings were conducted in the 1950s, enabling us to see how this was projected through the use of amateur filmmaking.

Within the post-war period, marriages were being redefined as a relationship where spouses agreed their roles based on personal preference rather than old-fashioned societal expectations. Companionate marriages are described as a set of ideas ranging from an emphasis on companionship between partners who had different roles which would promote teamwork to shared roles.[2] Evidently, this shift in marriages from early twentieth century to the 1950s confirmed that many relationships were based on communication between spouses.[3] For many, communication resulted in the sharing of lives and responsibilities such as socialising and leisure, childbearing and household tasks. Hence this indicates a breakdown of clearly established roles. The Royal Commission supported this notion commenting in 1949 that there was a greater importance on the wife as a companion to her husband in juxtaposition with the more traditional role as the child bearer.[4] Therefore the expectation of newly married women such as Williams was changing, with marriages being redefined to incorporate modern ideals. Reworkings of marriages were not just limited to women, particularly the conventional notion of male patriarchal authority and the ‘paterfamilias’ model was perceived to be old-fashioned among the younger generation.[5] Although husbands like Williams were expected to uphold the ideals of being the breadwinner, authority within the family was intended to be shared. The departure from the traditional roles highlights how marriages sought to provide greater equality eroding some of the traditional gender taboos. Indeed, how the previous generations of the Guy and William’s families experienced marriage would be different for Hazel and Brian. Therefore, whilst the clip focuses on the wedding celebrations, it also represents the new societal expectation for the younger generation to have a companionate marriage.

Through concentrating on the dismantling of gender roles, the footage locates the importance of wedding in 1950s Britain. Historian Joan Scott pointed out that marriage is a ‘social institution that appears fixed and timeless’.[6] Hence the clip is representative of how a marriage is based on a relationship between two people and a means of social organisation which pursued to epitomise ‘normal’ gender roles and identities.[7] Throughout the 1950s marriage increased in popularity meaning that fewer single women were available to work.[8] Conversely, this popularity can be explained by women abandoning their careers to focus on marriage. This is supported by Ann Temple in the Daily Mail who noted that ‘all girls want to marry and nearly all will’.[9] Certainly, the expectation amongst young women was that any marriage was better than the prospect of remaining single. The footage supports the trend that most weddings took place in churches and concentrated on a standard marriage format. For many brides, they intended to create their own unique special day alongside the expected wedding traditions.[10] This is reflected in the footage with the traditional aspects of the wedding with the cutting of the cake and the reception being combined with new conventions such as Guy choosing to wear a white wedding dress. The tradition of white weddings did not become popular amongst the middle-class until the 1950s but was still limited to the first-time ‘virginal’ bride.[11] However, the concept that white weddings were exclusive to the middle-class is discredited by Iris Dutch, speaking on BBC radio’s Any Questions?, who maintained that ‘you can have a white dress for a relatively small sum’.[12] Clearly, the suggestion that young women from all classes could afford to wear a white dress indicates the working-class aspiration for social mobility in the 1950s. Regardless of this white weddings remained associated primarily with the middle-class.

The film portrays how the middle-class celebrated weddings in the postwar era. Moreover, it encapsulates how the traditional connection between the wedding ceremony and marriage thrived to create relationships of shared responsibilities and equality. Ultimately, the film signified an era of the undoing of Victorian ideals which was characterised by the affluence and optimism of the 1950s. Throughout the MACE archive, weddings were a popular event to record in this era. However, this particular footage was more professionally captured compared to working-class weddings. Although home movies are often dismissed as being narrow-minded and of little relevance as primary sources, this footage provides a valuable insight into how middle-class weddings were celebrated in the post-war era.[13]

 

[1] Julia Carter and Simon Duncan, ‘Wedding Paradoxes: Individualised and Conformity and the “Perfect Day”’, Sociological Review 65 (2017), 3-20 (4).

[2] Margaret Williamson, ‘Gender, Leisure and Marriage in a Working-Class Community, 1939-60’, Labour History Review 74 (August 2009), 185-198 (187).

[3] Kate Fisher, Birth Control, Sex and Marriage in Britain 1918-1960 (Oxford, 2006), 231.

[4] Penny Summerfield, ‘Women in Britain since 1945: Companionate Marriage and the Double Burden’, in James Obelkevich and Peter Catterall (eds.), Understanding Post-War British Society (London, 1994), 58-72 (59).

[5] Jon Lawrence, ‘Class, “Affluence”, and the Study of Everyday Life in Britain, 1930-64, Cultural and Social History 10 (2015), 273-299 (285).

[6] Timothy Jones, ‘Love, Honour and Obey? Romance, Subordination and Martial Subjectivity in Interwar Britain’, in Alana Harris (ed.), Love and Romance in Britain, 1918-70 (London, 2015), 124-143 (125).

[7] Jones, ‘Love, Honour and Obey’, 125.

[8] Hilary Land and Hilary Rose, ‘Peter Townsend, a man ahead of his time: rereading The family life of old people and the last refuge’, in Alan Walker (ed.), Fighting Poverty, Inequality and Injustice: A Manifesto Inspired by Peter Townsend (London, 2011), 59-79 (68).

[9] Ann Temple, ‘Marriage’, Daily Mail, 28 February 1952, p. 6.

[10] Carter, ‘Wedding Paradoxes’, 4.

[11] Carter, ‘Wedding Paradoxes’, 5.

[12] ‘A white wedding and a honeymoon or a house deposit’, Any Questions (BBC radio, 2 Dec. 1955).  http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/marriage/10519.shtml

[13] Heather Norris Nicholson, ‘At home and abroad with cine enthusiasts: Regional amateur filmmaking and visualizing the Mediterranean, 1928–1962’, GeoJournal 49 (2004), 323-333 (323).

Caravan and Boating Holiday, Devon (1957). By Jake Acton

Watch the film on Vimeo (log-in required)

This film consists of footage taken by a family during their caravan and boating holiday to Dartmouth, Devon in 1957. The footage presents an image of an affluent family, reflecting a wider affluence experience in Britain during the 1950s. Much of the footage consists of the family’s children and dogs playing in the ocean. The boys play with rubber rings and lilos, are taught to swim, steer the family boat, and laugh and point at the camera. This demonstrates the primary amateur uses for film technology in the period being within the family space, and the use of home movies to construct and enforce a shared internal image of the family. The content of the footage, placed in context, reflects the experience of post-war affluence and the changing technology available.

Citron states that family home movies can represent ‘the delight of possession’.[1] This could be possession by a mother ‘of the clothes she made and the children who wore them’, by a father ‘of his wife and daughters’, or even by ‘the entire family of the camera’.[2] This notion of using home movies to capture and ‘possess’ the family can be seen in this film and in the advertising of film technology from the period. Of Kodak’s Daily Mail advertisements in 1957, two thirds contained images of, or made explicit reference to, women and children.[3] One advert states that ‘whether it’s your girlfriend or your … daughter, whether it’s a family group or the family pet, they’ll come out best on Kodak film.’[4] This supports Citron’s personal experience with home movies, demonstrating that during the 1950s the family was an important space for the use of home and amateur film-making, and home movies could be used to construct a family hierarchy and image. Odin states that during the period in which this film was shot, within the family ‘the father has a particular position; it is he who directs the formation of familial memory … who takes the photographs; and, obviously, it is he who shoots the films.’[5] We do not know who it was that filmed this particular home movie. However, we can glean from what the camera is pointed at and what it lingers on, the intention of the filmmaker. In this case, the primary actors in the film are the children, the pets, and the women. These actors are aware of the camera, and seem to act and engage with it at the encouragement of the filmmaker, for example when the sons pose at the wheel of the family boat. This supports both Citron and Odin’s statements that home movies were used to create a shared internal image and memory of the family, and is supported by the nature of the advertisements for camera equipment during the period.

The film also presents an image of post-war affluence, the true nature of which historians still contend with today. Lawrence states that in the period ‘[w]ork was more plentiful, more secure and better remunerated than before the war’ and due to full employment and rising wages, social class was becoming increasingly ‘subjective, its meanings flexible, inconsistent and elusive.’[6] In 1961 Zweig stated that ‘change is very deep and far-reaching. Working-class life finds itself on the move towards new middle-class values and middle-class existence.’[7]

Because of this oft cited phenomena of a more fluid class identity during this period, as well as the largely subjective nature of class, it is impossible to assign a class to the actors in this home movie. This is in part due to the fact that self-identification is an important aspect of class identity. However we can still see visible signs of their affluence – an affluence which they are keen to display. The camera lingers on some of their possessions – their two caravans, boat, family car, jeep, camping equipment, toys, and pets. All the actors are impeccably dressed, with one woman sporting a pearl necklace in an almost cartoonish display of wealth. There are also less obvious displays of affluence, for example their ability to take a seaside holiday, as well as their ability to film it. Feeney states that even during the affluent 1950s ‘[n]ot everyone could afford to go away on holiday’ and ‘[m]any working-class families strived to save enough money to have a modest seaside holiday.’[8] Meanwhile a colour camera to shoot photographs, let alone film, could cost as much as £12 at the time, whilst the extras and film required to actually use it would increase the cost even further.[9] Thus this home movie provides a valuable example of an experience of post-war affluence. However this experience is of course limited. It is limited by a lack of knowledge of the social class of the actors, and of their regional and professional background, among other things. This limits the film’s usefulness to social historians for the study of class and class hierarchies during the period, but it is still a useful example of what a lived experience of post-war affluence could be like.

In conclusion, this film demonstrate two key things. First it is an example of how home movies were used as tools within the family in the period, and continue to be used today. This can be seen in the focus of the footage on the family unit, in particular on the children and the women of the family, to create a shared image of the family and family hierarchy. Secondly it is evidence of a wider affluence experienced in post-war Britain. This can be seen in the focus of the footage on possessions, and in the fact that the family were capable of taking a holiday and filming it in the first place. This film is useful for historians as evidence of both the use of home movies with the family, and post-war affluence. Its usefulness as the latter is lessened due to our limited ability to place the family within a region, a social class, or a professional background.

 

[1] Michelle Citron, Home Movies and Other Necessary Fictions (Minneapolis, 1999), 4.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Daily Mail Historical Archive 1896-2004, http://find.galegroup.com/dmha/dispBasicSearch.do?prodId=DMHA&userGroupName=ulh.

[4] ‘Kodak’, Daily Mail, 14 Dec. 1957, 6. Daily Mail Historical Archive.

[5] Roger Odin, ‘The Home Move and Space of Communication’ in Laura Rascaroli, Gwenda Young and Barry Monahan (eds.) Amateur Filmmaking: The Home Movie, The Archive, The Web (New York, 2014), 15-26 (16).

[6] Jon Lawrence, ‘Class, “Affluence” and the Study of Everyday Life in Britain, c. 1930–64’, Cultural & Social History 10(2) (2013), 273-299 (282-283).

[7] Ferdynand Zweig, The Worker in an Affluent Society: Family, Life and Industry (London, 1961), ix

[8] Paul Feeney, A 1950s Childhood: From Tin Baths to Bread and Dripping (Gloucestershire, 2009), 178-179.

[9] ‘Kodak Film’, Daily Mail, 31 May 1957, 11. Daily Mail Historical Archive.

Soroptimist International Convention, Harrogate (1948). By Orla McGrenaghan

Watch the film on Vimeo (log-in required)

The Soroptimist International Convention, Harrogate (1948), shows the events of the meeting of the international factions of the organisation. In the first conference since the end of World War II, 1,492 Soroptimists descended upon Harrogate from all over the country and overseas.[1] Birmingham businesswoman Florence Juckes recorded the images that are used within the nineteen-minute video. It could be suggested that the edited video was intended to be used as a promotional source, for the organisation to advertise and encourage women to join their local Soroptimist group. One of the title screens states that the video is ‘A gathering of the International Representative Body by invitation of the British Federation Board of Governors 1947-8.’ This could be used to support the suggestion that the video was intended as a promotional tool for the organisation. The introduction of the members and their positions, both from British and international groups also contributes to the possibility that the recorded events of the convention were used to increase the popularity of the organisation. However, the popularity of women’s organisations has often been brought into question, as there was a saturation of these groups within Britain since the suffrage movement. Therefore, the profile of the Soroptimists was not at the level that was expected. Consequently, an informative video focusing upon the women involved and how the organisation operated would help to increase the accessibility and reputation of the organisation.

The Soroptimists were founded in 1921 in Oakland, California, with the aim to bring about change to the lives of women and girls worldwide through education, empowerment and by enabling opportunities.[2] During the same time, different international branches of the organisation were forming, following similar principles to improve the lives of women and girls. However, it has been argued that the Soroptimist movement in Britain originally rose as a reaction against the Rotary Clubs and against the subordinate position implemented by the Inner Wheel, the female division of the Rotary Club.[3] The Inner Wheel was followed by other upper class organisations like the Conservative Women’s Association, raising funds for political and charitable activities while operating social and educational clubs for middle-class housewives.[4] Subsequently, the Inner Wheel was often viewed as a predominantly upper-class institution with many of the members being the housewives of the Rotarian Club members. Like many of the women’s clubs and organisations, they followed the Victorian notions that women should be involved with charitable work whilst simultaneously staying within the domestic sphere. However, the Soroptimists aimed to be more inclusive with its membership, allowing for women from different professions to become members. Despite this, there were restrictions to their membership that could be linked to the ways in which the Rotarians admitted members.[5] However, the Nottingham President of the Soroptimists insisted that they were not ‘a luncheon club only’ and that they were called upon ‘definitely to do something in the way of service’, suggesting that there was a desire for the organisation to provide a change within society.[6]

From the video, many of the women involved within the organisation appear to be middle to upper class. However after World War II the traditional gender boundaries began to be questioned and debated; this therefore allowed organisations such as the Soroptimists to prove that there was a need for women’s organisations to achieve a fully liberated female society, with the same equal opportunities for women within work and education. This alongside the growing affluence of society after the war could also explain the appearance of many of the women looked so upper class. The increase in full employment and improved welfare state allowed for women to experience a new freedom outside of the domestic sphere.[7] This increase in disposable income enabled decreasing power inequalities between men and women, adults and youth and the fracturing of traditional class boundaries to be more visible within society.[8] Therefore, it could be suggested that the women featured transcended class boundaries, and were from a variety of social backgrounds. The members of the Soroptimists were by no means the members of the urban elite for example, the Halifax Soroptimists included women in humble professions such as hairdressers, florists and fishmongers.[9]

This desire to change the position of women within society provided a platform for the Soroptimists to spread their message and increase participation. This supports the suggestion that the video itself was used to be promotional, with a heavy focus upon female interactions and the strength and possibility a group like the Soroptimists could provide to the growing independence of women. Philanthropy has long provided a means of empowerment for middle class women, and most organisations, whatever their primary purpose, had some involvement within charitable activities, if only through an annual distribution of surplus funds to good causes.[10] Christine Jope-Slade’s article ‘Ladies! Be Nonchalant!’ in the British Soroptimist journal urged readers to critique older models of female obligation: ‘To give because you want to give, to render service because it is a pleasure to you personally.[11] The video draws upon the growing need for support of women within the newly forming society of the post war period. It also shows the importance of the role women played in both the war and the period of rebuilding.

 

[1] Janet Haywood, History of Soroptimist International (London, 1995).

[2]‘History’, Soroptimist International, https://www.soroptimistinternational.org/about-us/history/ (accessed, 20/02/2018).

[3] David Doughan and Peter Gordon, Women, Clubs and Associations in Britain (London, 2006), 132.

[4] James Hinton, Women, Social Leadership, and the Second World War: Continuities of Class (Oxford, 2002), 41.

[5] Hinton, Women, Social Leadership, and the Second World War, 43.

[6] Soroptimist Club of Nottingham, Minutes, 07/02/1939, Nottingham RO, DDSO/2/21.

[7] Jon Lawrence, ‘Class, “Affluence” and the Study of Everyday Life in Britain, c. 1930–64’, Cultural and Social History, 10 (2013), 273.

[8] Tim Newburn, Permission and Regulation, Law and Morality in Post-War Britain (London, 1992), 177.

[9] Edith Cockfroft, Silver Jubilee Poems (Halifax, 1948) in Calderdale RO, SOE/4/24.

[10] Hinton, Women, Social Leadership, and the Second World War, 39-40.

[11] Christine Jope-Slade, ‘Ladies! Be Nonchalant!’, British Soroptimist (Feb. 1934), 262.