DOMESTIC IDEOLOGY, KINSHIP AND THE HOUSEHOLD

Few scholars have explored the roots and history of the domesticity ideology like Leonore Davidoff. She has pinpointed the change to the nineteenth century, when the middle classes adopted the view that being in control of a whole house or flat is socially desirable. Simultaneously the middle classes perceived the tendency among the working classes to keep lodgers as leading to moral and hygienic degradation. Davidoff has reminded us, however, that in the eighteenth century it was common even among the wealthy to live in only a couple of rooms, together with kin, servants and apprentices.Footnote ¹ Others have presented evidence that the desire for privacy was not particularly pronounced in urban pre-industrial Europe. On the contrary, it was far from unusual for family members and servants not only to share a room but also a bed; the whole idea of a separate bedroom was often not an issue. The question of physical proximity was not only linked to a less fearful attitude to the body than that of the Victorian era, but also to the fact that no strict boundary between kin and servants was necessarily present. For example, Samuel Pepys engaged his own sister as a servant, as well as some more distant family members. Similarly, studies of families in rural areas of eighteenth-century Europe have revealed that the boundary between kin and servants could be blurred as, for example, co-residing brothers-in-law registered as farmhands in the Baltic area.Footnote ²

In the field of household studies of the 1960s and 1970s classification systems were developed inserting unsurmountable barriers between the married couple, close biological kin and persons whose kinship could not be immediately determined. Members of the latter group were seen as of such little consequence that their existence was ignored within the family models. In this way the ‘solitary household’ was born, a category that could contain any number of individuals, as long as they were not related to the household head.Footnote ³ The obsession with the married couple and the nuclear family as the definition of normality has, however, longer roots in western society. In 1853 the International Statistical Congress defined the ‘normal family’ as: father, mother and four young children.Footnote ⁴ In this case, the aim was to create a standard that enabled comparisons between countries, but considering that the focus was on the working class, it is interesting to note how closely the definition fitted the domestic ideal of the middle classes. Already in 1915, Arthur L. Bowley and Alexander Burnett-Hurst criticised the definition of the typical working-class family as being composed of a man, wife and three or four young children, as their own research in English towns revealed that only a tiny minority of households fitted the criteria of ‘normal families’.Footnote ⁵ On the one hand, surveys were also trimmed to fit the ideal, with the result that budget studies in general focused on working-class families with very young children, no co-resident kin or lodgers. The censuses, on the other hand, reveal different household patterns. For example, in nineteenth-century Britain only one half of the households were actually composed of just mother, father and children, while approximately one in four made space for a lodger, to which has to be added the presence of kin in nearly as many.Footnote ⁶

The growth of the ideal of domesticity actually seems to have coincided with the anomaly of increasing numbers of lodgers. In addition, those who could afford to live in accordance with the domestic ideal of controlling their space usually employed servants and were not unlikely to house kin, for shorter or longer periods.Footnote ⁷

DEFINITIONS: WHO WERE THE LODGERS?

As we have seen above the difference between kin and servants was not always clear in pre-industrial society. It is therefore of some importance to try to find a clear definition of who a ‘lodger’ was.

Any comparative study will have to take account of the possibility of different definitions of words and concepts in different languages. The concept for which ‘lodger’ is used in English is a good example. If we start with the word itself, we find that even in English we are not necessarily dealing with a straightforward case. The 1960 Concise Oxford dictionary of current English gives the following definition of lodging: ‘Provide with sleeping quarters; receive as guest or inmate; establish as resident in house or room(s)’. The dictionary does not mention money.Footnote ⁸

However, the 1990s Oxford English reference dictionary states that a lodger is: ‘A person receiving accommodation in another's house for payment’.Footnote ⁹ So while we today view ‘lodging’ as an economic transaction, this was not necessarily always the case in the past, even during the second half of the twentieth century. When we approach the question for a more distant historical past and continental Europe the definitions seem to be even more complex.

In rural seventeenth-century Austria, the word was ‘Inwohner’ from ‘in’ and ‘wohner’ (wohnen = to live), meaning somebody who lives in. This designation was used for persons who were landless and lived, often, on a farm owned by somebody else. The ‘Inwohner’ could be elderly relatives (not the parents of the heir or head), but also married younger sisters and brothers, who in the prevailing impartible inheritance system were non-inheriting siblings. In the first generation such people were often seen as part of the household or houseful. These labels could also be applied to married servants living in the household of their master. There is no evidence that these persons would have been paying rent to the household head; transfers in the shape of labour input would, on the other hand, probably have been part of the arrangement. While it is necessary to remember that in this environment the legal position of a person was linked to whether he possessed land or not, it was also the case that persons called ‘Inwohner’ could either be related to the farmer or his wife, or incorporated in the household as a consequence of an ongoing or earlier employment relationship. The system was, however, common, and in late seventeenth-century Austria between 25 and 35 per cent of rural households contained single or married ‘Inwohner’.Footnote ¹⁰

In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Denmark landless persons lodging in a farm or a house on the land of the farm were called ‘inderster’ or ‘indsiddere’ (siddere = the one who sits, in = in, meaning in sitter). Some of these had their own household and some shared the table of the farmer. This group could consist of old kinsmen or family members, parish paupers being cared for, day labourers and their families and poor adults earning their keep through textile work like spinning. Caring for the parish poor was part of the obligations of the farmers, a type of replacement poor rate in kind. It is, however, clear that the group was very mixed and included both persons who would not pay for their lodging and those who did, particularly when a separate cottage was in use.Footnote ¹¹ According to the 1801 census of Denmark, 2.5 per cent of men of all ages were ‘insitters’/lodgers, but 14.7 per cent of men over 60 years old were. Likewise, 3.5 per cent of women of all ages were lodgers, but 16.6 per cent of women over 60 years were. These figures are a clear indication that the old landless poor were a prime group within the category.Footnote ¹²

When describing the various social groups in rural eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Sweden, Mats Hellspong and Orvar Löfgren stated that; ‘The lowest social group in pre-industrial rural society, beneath those of crofters and cottagers were the inmates/lodgers’, called ‘inhysesfolk’. These were individuals who, without belonging to the family or the servants, lived and often took their meals with another person, without paying and who assisted with work in the house as a contribution. Some lived in the farmhouse while some could have a separate cottage on the land of a farm.Footnote ¹³ As we can see the key to how the system worked was that these individuals were provided with houseroom but did not pay for it in money. The situation was similar in Finland. The inmates (‘inhysing’ from hysa = house, take care of), also usually translated as lodgers, were persons without a separate residence but living at a farm, often economically dependent on assistance from a farmer or the parish. Before the nineteenth century, these were mostly old landless persons or widows and orphans. In the nineteenth century, however, the group could also contain young landless married couples.Footnote ¹⁴

FROM RURAL TO URBAN

While we find that lodging was more common in rural than in urban pre-industrial central Europe, no less than 15–20 per cent of the population in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European towns did not head their own households or live with parents. Two-thirds of the individuals who resided with, as far as we know, non-related persons were servants, apprentices, journeymen or people living with employers. Thirty per cent were registered as lodgers. However, by the nineteenth century the system had undergone a transformation.Footnote ¹⁵

A general problem in nineteenth-century Europe was the increase in migration into towns and industrial areas. The subsequent pressures on the housing stock created a market for lodging and made it possible for working-class families to earn some extra money. In addition of course this pressure benefited slum landlords and aspiring profiteers in the building trade. The urban populations doubled and tripled and in large cities like London, Paris and Berlin it became necessary to cater for several millions of inhabitants. The expansion was, however, not restricted to large cities alone. In Stockholm the population tripled between 1850 and 1900 and the shortage of housing among the working classes became catastrophic. Already by the 1870s the municipal authorities were aware of the problem. The production of new housing was promoted, increasing building activity for the next 10 years. By the 1890s the situation was dire and barrack-like low-quality, shoddy houses with small flats were erected for the working classes. In the 1890s, 42 per cent of the working classes lived in one room and a kitchen where frequently lodgers were also housed and in 1895 more than 50 per cent of the working-class homes contained lodgers resulting in three to four persons sharing a room.Footnote ¹⁶

While many towns had some kind of building regulations the expansion of the urban centres into neighbouring areas opened a window of opportunity for builders. In late nineteenth-century Helsinki the shortage of working-class housing inspired enterprising builders to erect series of cheap buildings with small flats outside the city boundary. In this way they avoided the municipal housing regulations and could cram in a maximum quantity of tenants and make a ‘reasonable’ profit. Although the rents were originally lower than in the town proper the rent increases over time made the situation unmanageable and the tenants were obliged to augment their income by squeezing in lodgers.Footnote ¹⁷

It would seem that lodging before marriage as well as in old age had become part of the urban life cycle of large towns and cities in nineteenth-century Europe. Finding lodgers in 40 per cent of the households of working-class Vienna was far from unusual. In poor families with unemployed or disabled heads, keeping three or four lodgers could be a way of making ends meet. Only after 1900 can a downward trend be observed in the levels of lodging.Footnote ¹⁸

The decline of farm service and apprenticeships in Britain also caused a decline in persons living with employers and increased the numbers of lodgers. Hereby we can see how the number of non-kin being paid to live in changed to non-kin paying for the privilege of living in. This development went hand in hand with a change in the social groups in which we find non-related household members. In nineteenth-century urban Britain, 15–25 per cent of households catered for lodgers at some point. The phenomenon was more common in working-class districts and there were certain times in the life course of the family when having lodgers would be more likely than at others. Elderly couples and widows in particular were likely to augment their income and fill space released by departed children. The rapid rate of migration over the nineteenth century contributed to the need for lodgings and young men formed a large proportion of the group. Over the century there was an increase in lodging that stabilised and then went into decline from the beginning of the twentieth century.Footnote ¹⁹

Lodging was, however, never a simple economic transaction for everybody. It would seem that not all lodgers were paying rent. In 1860s Manchester one half of the lodgers did not do so; these could be closer and more remote kin or friends. While census takers wanted to make clear distinctions between boarders and lodgers these categories were not always as clear in real life. Some lodgers ate with the family while others had separate meals. Generally there has been a tendency to see the typical lodger as a man rather than a woman. The landlady has also been portrayed as an older woman providing lodgings for young men and women and sometimes taking on a mother-like role with both positive and negative aspects.Footnote ²⁰ It cannot, however, be denied that examples can be found of lodgers of a number of age groups and landlords and ladies of age and marriage status that do not conform to this image.Footnote ²¹

THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS ISSUE

The articles in this special issue raise questions related to the situation of lodgers and their position in society, similar to those mentioned above. Some of the conclusions seem to be at variance with previous work, while others support ideas presented in earlier studies.

Tamás FaragóFootnote ²² provides us with the definition of a lodger in eighteenth-century Hungary as a crofter without a house, also called ‘Inwohner’. These persons were listed as living on the land of a farm but possessing none themselves. One out of five was related to the head of the farm and was also occasionally engaged in work on the property. Even though Faragó agrees with previous scholars about the existence of kinship links he makes a case for the need to draw a line between lodgers and their landlords. In his discussion of the definitions and characteristics of eighteenth-century lodgers he not only scrutinises the rural lodgers but also undertakes comparisons with the urban situation. In the analysis of the demography of lodgers he demonstrates marriage patterns and household organisation which were at variance with those of their landlords. He suggests in line with Hellspong and Löfgren that the lodgers should be seen as a separate semi-independent class in eighteenth-century Hungarian society. He maintains that lodging was not part of the life cycle but a lifelong status. His argument is that the group did not consist of individuals who became lodgers because of poverty or age. On the contrary, he argues that they represented a separate self-propagating social group of landless proletarians with a demographic and socio-economic profile of their own.

The papers by Jeff MeekFootnote ²³ and Beatrice MoringFootnote ²⁴ focus on the situation of lodgers within a late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century urban context. Both papers present evidence for links, sometimes close links, between landlord/lady and lodger.

In Meek's study of Glasgow, he approaches lodging in working-class areas, where despite housing initiatives restricting the number of inhabitants per dwelling it was normal for families to keep a lodger for the purpose of affording the rent. He analyses the socio-economic, familial and geographic characteristics of lodgers and their hosts, particularly landladies. He points to how migration, particularly long-distance migration, can be found in the history of both lodgers and their landlords/ladies in many cases. He also demonstrates connections like shared national or local origin and shared occupation. By delving into the personal history of the individuals in the study he even detects shared kinship as close as that of siblings, between lodgers and their landlords, information that is not recorded in the census. In other words, he is able to verify similarities and connections between the people supposedly representing two separate groups only tied together through a financial arrangement.

Moring also makes a case for the need to view landlord and particularly landlady and lodger as more than a provider of houseroom and a person who paid for it. Like Meek she examines the social origin and position of landlords/ladies and lodgers through occupational information. In addition, she analyses the gender, age and marital status of lodgers aiming to answer the question of who the ‘typical’ lodger was in urban early twentieth-century Finland. She also supplies some qualitative data to illuminate the lives of working-class families and the nature of lodging in working-class life, the need for the extra income that could be combined with friendship and mutual support and develop into the creation of female networks.

The conclusions that can be drawn are not in all respects straightforward. While pre-industrial Hungary seems to provide a blueprint pointing in the direction of a clear division line between lodgers and others, to the extent that we are talking about different and separated social groups, the papers analysing the urban situation point in a different direction. Both Meek and Moring present evidence of links rather than division. Both agree with Michael Anderson and Leonore DavidoffFootnote ²⁵ that keeping lodgers seems to have been a solution to economic challenges, one particularly favoured by women. They also see it as a necessary step for migrants to enter urban society and an activity that involved females as well as males both as lodgers and landlords/landladies.

While lodging does not figure as prominently in present-day society as in the past it has not entirely disappeared. The bed and breakfast can be seen as providing short-term lodging, and the housing of students is in many cases similar or identical to some of the practices of the past. We should also not forget the housemate or room-mate arrangements of young people who for the purpose of work or studies embark upon various types of communal living. Today, like in the past, the reason for doing so is often linked to the level of rents in urban areas. Although the expectations in present-day society generally include the idea of having a room of one's own, sharing a household with persons to whom one is neither related through kinship or marriage has not become obsolete.