INTERIORS AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES

HUMAN HIERARCHY IN INTERIORS

IT MATTERS WHERE YOU SHOP

The Rules we live by  Humans crave structure. Even at our most chaotic, we seek to establish patterns and rules. We have an innate tendency to organise into social structures. From early tribal societies to modern nation-states, systems of hierarchy help define roles, behaviours, and expectations. It enables humans to live together under common, generally accepted forms. 

These systems appear in various forms across cultures and times and are by no means exclusive to Victorian Britain. They were, however, very visible at that time. They influenced both interiors and clothing fashions, affecting both material culture and public/private boundaries, together with male/female divides. 

In the Victorian era, class structures helped determine individual identity versus conformity in the whole, societal function and status. Interiors were central to expressing that identity and standing.  

The factors influencing these scaffolds of society can be broadly categorised as follows: 

• Status: Wealth, social standing and perceived power influenced everything from the overarching architecture to the finest details in decoration. The wealthy displayed their status through lavish interiors, the finest and rarest of materials, and the latest coveted items, while the lower classes worked with what they had: it could be a beautiful handkerchief, home-made antimacassars, a tray with decorations or something as simple as a well-crafted cup. 

• Economy: Economic shifts (industrial revolution, boom periods, recessions) affected what materials were available, just as they do today. This determined what designs were therefore considered desirable; the rarer the material or pigment, the more coveted. It influenced what buildings could be built and what colours or fabrics were used. 

• Taste: Taste was a class signifier.  The upper classes could afford to indulge in ‘good taste,’ which was often a symbol of refinement and knowledge, while the working class had simpler, more functional designs. Ornamented items required labour, materials and time, whilst plain items signalled a more forced economic state. 

• Fashion: Design and decor followed the whims of fashion, from wallpaper patterns to furniture design. What was ‘in’ could vary widely across classes, but each class sought to align with the prevailing aesthetic of the time. It was no different to the trends we see today. With the arrival of mass-produced goods, the availability of fashionable items exploded, and the trends, both in fashion and interiors, sped up. It formed the ground for the throw away culture we live in today.  

• Practicality: For the working and lower middle classes, interiors were, by necessity, often more about function than display. Multi-use rooms, utilitarian furniture, and economical materials were the focus. 

• Weather: Geography and climate shaped design. Cold, heat, wind and rain guided architectural and interior styles. The wealthy could afford to build with insulation in mind (e.g., heavy curtains, ornate fireplaces, enclosed beds, and thicker rugs), while the working class might need to survive harsher conditions with less protection. 

• Religion: the importance of religion and its controlling levers on society was great during Victorian times. Piety and virtue were valued traits and woven into the doctrines taught and the public behaviour expected.  

• Gender: the difference in treatment and expectation between the genders was stark. Men worked, earned money and were expected to provide for their families. In return, they enjoyed far more freedom and privilege. Marriage was a woman’s career. She was not expected to step outside the social confines of this institution, and her prospects were narrower. Marriage, children and home were the pillars of her existence.  

• Technology: the impact of the Industrial Revolution, the advent of machine-made goods with its prevalence of easily obtained furniture and decorative objects cannot be overstated. The arrival of gaslights, more efficient stoves and heating appliances extended working hours. The age of steam ensured information and people travelled further and faster, spreading both news and fashions. The ability for the growing middle classes to live outside the cities gave rise to larger properties, which in turn created a greater need for interior items, such as furniture and ornaments. It changed the landscape of interiors forever.  

The Impact of Victorian Structures on Interiors 

The Victorians operated on a strict class system, inherited from previous generations, developed over time, finessed and moulded to become a tangible and widely accepted way of life. At the top sat the aristocracy, followed by the burgeoning middle class, with the working classes at the bottom of the pyramid.  

Interiors followed the tracks of class and money. Interiors meant to impress and imprint awe were nothing new, but spread through the classes during the Victorian era thanks to technology. The lower classes looked upward, aspiring to emulate in small ways, the materials and habits of the upper classes. With machine-made goods, the pursuit of perceived social status achieved by displaying echoes of wealth became easier.  Wallpapers with extravagant patterns, such as floral damasks or Gothic revival designs, velvet fabrics or gilded spoke of opulence and success. Such items could be churned out by the thousands and ordered with ease from a catalogue as easily as sending a letter. It was the Victorian equivalent of Amazon.  

Brummagem wares was a popular term for cheap imitation goods: porcelain figurines, cheaply made metalware, and upholstered furniture, all mass-produced to mimic the wealth and luxury of higher-class interiors. These items were often produced in Birmingham, a city known for its industrial capabilities, hence the name. It eventually became a derogatory term, often used to slight goods that did not have a high production standard.  

Even the Chesterfield sofa, once a hallmark of aristocratic interiors, and today a stalwart of British design, was replicated and found its way into the homes of the middle and lower classes, albeit in more affordable materials.  

The availability of such lower-cost items bought the less wealthy access to the visual language of the more fortunate. This access was symbolic but the shift significant. No longer could one discern a person’s status simply by the items they possessed; now, the methods of production became just as important as the goods themselves. 

While access to these materials democratised the visual markers of wealth, class distinctions remained ingrained in society. It was one thing to have the appearance of wealth, another entirely to be accepted into the upper echelons of society. What still mattered was not what you owned, but who your parents were.

 A House Divided 

The house remained divided, both in public and private spheres, master/servant as well as male and female areas, particularly among the upper classes. The lower down on the social rung you sat, the less space you would have, and the luxury of the genders separating after dinner, or even having a dedicated dining room might not have been possible. Some families in the poorest areas would live, sleep, eat in one room only.  

Today, we may have a room where we receive guests, most likely the living room, but we are often equally happy for visitors to enter our kitchen. That would have been unheard of during Victorian times. The kitchen, the scullery and any rooms connected with the practical running of the house would have been at the back or downstairs, and out of bounds. The front entrance was reserved for people of note, the back for deliveries and people of lower class and wealth. The back, and its adjoining staircases would have been simpler and less adorned. Equally, the division between male rooms, such as the library and the smoking-room spoke of masculinity, knowledge and social connections. The colours were deeper, the woods darker and the fabrics heavier. The female areas signalled decorative pursuits with a gentler, lighter interior displaying daintier furniture and softer materials.  

Money versus lineage 

As wealth began to play a more central role in defining class, the boundaries between the old guard of aristocracy and the new world of wealth became increasingly blurred. This was especially evident at the turn of the 20th century, when the influx of American heiresses, Dollar Princesses, highlighted a shift in how class travel could be achieved. Their arrival in Britain, bringing substantial dowries but little in the way of ancestral lineage, marked the beginning of a new era where money could increasingly buy a class ticket. The American society, based on merchant wealth and in practice, shorter lineage, differed from the British, but the increasing financial hardships of the aristocracy made a compelling argument for the matches.  

While their marriages to aristocratic families were initially met with some resistance, pragmatism soon ensured that both parties saw the benefit, blending inherited titles with newly gained wealth. These marriages not only reshaped social standings but also had a lasting impact on interiors, as these women infused their American sensibilities with British traditions. 

However we look at Victorian society, we live in its wake. Our housing stock contains a large proportion of Victorian houses. Understanding their construction, materials and their original internal functions can help ensure we respect both their original way of life, as well as the way we live today. We cannot escape the impact of technology, reform or regress, nor societal constraints of times past on our houses and interiors. The idea of the house and interiors as an expression of wealth, status and individuality remains.