Lifestyle revolution: How taste changed class in late 20th-century Britain

Introduction

In 1966, shortly before my fifth birthday, my family and I moved from the small satellite town of Musselburgh, just outside Edinburgh, to somewhere even smaller in Essex. We moved to a village that catered for people who worked elsewhere: primarily in towns and cities within Essex or else in London, a commutable forty-five-minute train journey away. The nearest town, Witham, two miles down the hill, was on the old Roman Road, midway between Chelmsford and Colchester. It was a town that massively expanded in the late 1950s and early 1960s due to the so-called ‘slum clearances’ of the East End of London and became known as an over-spill town. In the 1970s one of Witham’s thriving industries was nuclear fall-out shelters for domestic use.

We moved into the first completed newly built house in one of the cul-de-sacs that were springing up in the village. This wasn’t rural life; it was the ‘good life’. Small modern detached houses: white weatherboard fronts mixed with red brick and picture windows. It looked like it belonged in an American suburb rather than in the English countryside. You imagined paperboys flinging rolled up newspapers from the comfort of their bikes onto front lawns as they sped along the wide concrete road. You can almost see the brochures: a young white family, two children (one of each, as they say) playing in the sunshine, mum waving through the open window, dad getting out of the car as he returns from work.

The reality was different, but not entirely. I was a paper boy and it often rained. We delivered our cargo in the dark and we were never allowed to leave papers on front lawns. We took them to the front door where they were often snatched from the other side of the letter box by what I assumed were rabid dogs. I became a paperboy because I was caught shoplifting toy ‘Matchbox’ cars (which was only the half of it), and this was how my dad and the newsagent felt I could make amends. Over the years the papers that I and my young comrades delivered grew heavier and heavier. Monthly ‘leisure’ magazines landed in people’s hallways with a slap, sometimes with a thud. The worst day for paper deliveries was Sunday. Then your newspaper satchel strained under the weight and size of the Sunday papers. The 1960s was the decade when Sunday papers, particularly the broadsheets, started to expand to the point where it was hard to push them through some of the letter boxes. The Sunday Times was the first to introduce a colour magazine, in February 1962; the Observer and the Telegraph followed in September 1964 (though the Telegraph’s magazine came out on a Friday). These supplements combined social investigations, leisure features, lifestyle guidance, and lots of advertising. In my village the choice of Sunday newspapers were as likely to be the Sunday Express, the Sunday Mail, or the News of the World, as the Sunday Times or Observer, and yet the colour supplements were unavoidable: dog-eared copies graced every doctor’s and dentist’s waiting room; they were there at the hairdressers (but not the barbers!); and they were what you were given to cut up in art classes at school.

Our village was relentlessly white and seemed relentlessly affluent (but then you don’t necessarily see the full spectrum of wealth and poverty as a child, nor the families that aren’t invited round for neighbourly drinks at Christmas). There were lots of children about. For years, we played amongst scaffolding and breeze blocks as the cul-de-sac expanded. Employment never seemed to be a problem. Old industries existed alongside much newer ones. In Chelmsford, one of the big employers was the large Marconi electronics company, but the most obvious sign of industry was the massive gasworks – all gleaming metal, sodium lighting, and the aroma of something sulphurous – that greeted you as you entered the city and was already on the verge of extinction when we arrived. Natural gas would quickly make this ‘town gas’ factory redundant. Our neighbours worked as carpenters and plumbers, as secretaries and managers, and as technicians and dentists. No doubt in our village there were teachers and lawyers as well. I didn’t pay that much attention to the lives of adults. What I did notice, though, were the drinks cabinets and the record players, the Parker Knoll recliners, and the new colour televisions that started appearing at the very end of the 1960s. We played outside, scoffed stolen sweets, and smoked cagey ciggies on the ‘rec’ (the recreation ground). I can still just about catch a whiff of a Players No. 6 if I think back to those times. What I was seeing in my own and my friends’ homes was a form of ‘colour supplement living’. Not in any straightforward sense: what was being promoted in the colour supplements didn’t directly enter these houses. It was more that these supplements supplied the measure and compass for tasteful living. You might not quite measure up, but you could at least find approximations. A colour supplement could run a feature on Capri; your next holiday might be camping in France or a new ‘all inclusive’ hotel in Spain. Colour supplement cooking tips might show you how to make your own pasta; your next spaghetti Bolognaise might be made with dried pasta rather than coming directly from a tin manufactured by Heinz.

It was a good time for decorators, for kitchen installers, for furniture providers. It was a good time for hire-purchase agreements, and for renting televisions. Colours changed; patterns changed. For a while in about 1970 we had ochre yellow velvet curtains with dark brown hessian wallpaper. Turquoise flowered wallpaper made my sister’s bedroom seem like it was an underwater stage set (welcome to aquaworld); my bedroom walls consisted of a migraine’s worth of deep orange and yellow swirls. How long did these decorations last? I can’t remember, but they lasted much longer than they remained up-to date. And where did the outlandish colour schemes come from? It was a decade or two before TV got obsessed with houses and with cooking, though interiors have always had a significant role in TV sitcoms and soap operas. In the 1960s and 1970s the images that had the greatest impact on the village where I lived were circulated primarily in print culture and on the high street. Today tastemaking has other vehicles: Pinterest and daytime TV.

The story I’m going to tell finds its evidence in colour supplements and magazines, in high-street shops and chain restaurants, in novels and sitcoms – the popular culture that featured this post-1950s suburban style. But rather than just charting the associated tastes of a ‘colour supplement’ lifestyle, I have a larger ambition as well. I want to talk about how British society and its class structure was changing, and to do this through what might seem to be the trivia of chairs and flooring, bedding and food. My claim is that much of what is recognisable today as mainstream domestic taste can be traced back to a period from the late 1950s, through the 1960s and 1970s. There is a line to be drawn from the birth of the colour supplements, from Habitat and PizzaExpress, to the pre-eminence of IKEA today, and to our obsession with the home as a place of personal expression and soaring expenses. The story this book tells is how a world of taste that in the mid-1960s would have been associated with bohemianism, trendiness, and middle-class lifestyles, became more and more prevalent, and less noticeable as a distinctive taste. Rather than being trivial and superficial I see a world of carpets and curtains, furniture, food, and fashion as directly linked to a politics and ethics of everyday life. Our tastes, the very stuff we fashion our lives from, is, for many of us, the most concrete expression of our attitudes and beliefs, our politics, and our passions – our feelings for life. These tastes can tell a story about how we think and feel about the family, about class, gender, and ethnicity, and about the environment. It might also offer some ideas about how we might create more sustainable and equitable lives in the future.

A soft revolution

Across the twentieth century, the UK underwent a soft revolution. This revolution was slow and uneven, and its outcomes often seemed vague and insubstantial. But it did have decisive consequences. Unlike the storming of the Winter Palace or the sacking of Rome, this was an incremental revolution, accumulating over the century. Gradually, a culture of deference was being replaced by more informal ways of living: less doffing of caps and tugging of forelocks, more wearing of jeans. Slowly, the sound of a population changed. On the airwaves the grating tones of ‘received pronunciation’ gave way to more regional accents and the dominance of estuary English. Social historians have described this and other phenomena as a form of cultural democratisation, or the rise of a more informal society. Aspects of this revolution can seem like superficial window dressing for a culture that maintains a monied elite in places of power, and a set of finely ranked institutions for perpetuating privilege.¹ That said, recognising that claims of social mobility are often inflated shouldn’t stop us noticing some of the staggering changes that have taken place in the last hundred or so years. Take housing, for example. In the first decades of the twentieth century only 10 per cent of households were owner-occupied. By the end of the 1970s that figure was around 65 per cent, which is roughly where it has stayed ever since.

While the hard facts of house ownership give us a sense of quantifiable change across Britain, this book is more concerned with changes in feelings and moods. Investigating historical moods and feeling might be a ludicrously imprecise endeavour, but it is, I think, a necessary one. Our sense of our own past is animated by feelings: glee, trepidation, anxiety, optimism, expectation, and on and on. Feeling is the colour and ambience of our recollections. Without it the past can seem like a series of flavourless events. It would be odd indeed if such an exponential increase in property ownership didn’t have wide ranging impacts on how the world felt to many people. What, for instance, happens to how social class is experienced when so many more people become part of a class of home owners? Did the experience of being working class alter when you became ‘propertied’, even if that meant being massively in debt to a building society?

Feelings aren’t salvageable through statistics or surveys. Sociological interviews are nearly always oriented towards opinions and attitudes rather than feelings and mood. But if the feelings from the past are often hard to put your finger on, public feelings also surround us: newspapers and magazines trade in accounts of national mood and morale; dramas and stories constantly conjure up atmospheres and ambience; promotional culture in all its forms (from adverts to shopping centres) tell us how we would feel if only we bought this or that. Feelings and moods require either the luxury of description and elaboration or the emotional jolt of a joke, an anecdote, or an image. Our best diarists and memoirists turn this into an art form. Any hard-nosed economic or political historian, though, might claim that to treat memoirs and adverts as sources is to deal in unreliable evidence. So be it. Feelings are not facts in the way that unemployment figures are, but they are part of our rich and complex reality (and if you want to gauge the impact of unemployment then attending to feelings is going to be crucial). Unreliable they may be, but the evidence of feelings is testimony to our collective life. And they require their own story.

I focus on what has been called the golden age of affluence – the years 1955–74.² This period is seen to end with the 1973–74 oil crisis and the recession that it caused. But while the subsequent decades were syncopated with periods of boom and bust, the overall pattern since 1955 has been increased growth.³ During these years, and especially from the 1960s and 1970s, consumerism became a leading factor of social life in Britain. One of my aims is to investigate what we mean by terms like ‘consumer society’ and ‘lifestyle culture’ – to put some flesh on the bones of those well-worn phrases. For me this means delving into the new shops and restaurants that were springing up in cities and towns across Britain. It means looking at magazines and novels, television programmes and films. It means seeing how the new tastes that were being developed were experienced. Any element of taste on its own might seem slight, but when taken together they present a new sensibility, a new world of feeling. As a sensibility it was a shift away from older tastes that were tied to styles of good manners, of knowing-your-place, and social formality. The new tastes that emerged celebrated spontaneity and informality and took their references from Scandinavia and the Mediterranean as much as they did from British culture or from America.

There are three claims that drive this book. The first is that from the mid-1950s, ideas about taste (what was ‘in’, what was ‘good taste’) became more important to larger numbers of people. The second is that during the same period, the way people experienced social class became more and more complex and contradictory. And thirdly, that as a population we became increasingly self-conscious about taste and class, partly through the mainstream popularisation of the social sciences. This book will, I hope, substantiate these claims. But before I start on the detail, I want to briefly explain how I’m using terms like taste and class, how I’m thinking about the relationship between the two, and how I’m imagining the role of the popularisation of the social sciences in all this.

Taste, at its most basic, is an activity concerned with choice and desire. The huge growth in the range of commodities that were becoming available to British consumers from the 1950s onwards, and the enormous amount of energy that was being spent on persuading people to like these new products, shows us the growing importance of taste in everyday life. Choices were increased; desire was amplified. At a general level I’m using taste to refer to this activity, and to the art of persuasion that goes with it (the activity of tastemaking). This persuasion has content. It shows us how this particular aftershave or that perfume will make us modern, attractive, and distinctive. It supplies an endless array of images of how life should and can be lived. We may be knowing consumers, deeply sceptical about the advertising puff that accompanies commodities, but the adverts for perfumes, furnishings, food, holidays, alcohol, wallpaper, and a myriad of other goods, make up a substantial part of how the world looks to us and how we are encouraged to participate in it. To live in a society where taste plays such an important role is to live within a world saturated by competing images of the good life.

Taste, though, exists at different levels and we can only really see its social importance if we look at it on two levels simultaneously. This sounds more complex than it is. Faced with a range of canned soups in a large supermarket, for instance, the modern shopper is faced with a number of choices, not just ‘pea and ham’ versus ‘cream of mushroom’, but whether to opt for the relatively cheap basic range or some of the fancier, more expensive brands. The way that the different ranges of soup are promoted might play on the supposed quality of the ingredients, the flavour of the soup (no supermarket offers ‘game soup’ in its basic range), and the images associated with the brand. The cheaper range might promote itself as good value, while the more expensive brand might want you to associate its flavour with an image of a lush, wild landscape. But what happens when we pull back a bit and look at this scene with more historical depth? Taste can also be seen to exist on another scale, across a population, to the point where we can say that this supermarket provides us with an image of a society that now values both choice and convenience. It is a society that isn’t spending so many hours preparing soups at home and has opted, for the sake of an easier way of living, to regularly pick up soup up in a can. This is a level of generally shared taste that reveals changes in habits and behaviours over time. But it is taste, nevertheless. There are lots of tastes that emerge in Britain across the second half of the century that are pretty much ubiquitous now and reveal changes in value and behaviour: duvets, pasta, jeans, televisions, and so on. Sometimes these tastes began life as ‘trendy’, ‘bohemian’, ‘cranky’ even, before they become part of general taste. These are tastes that now don’t belonging to specific groups, don’t mark you out as distinctive – quite the opposite. Vegetarianism, for instance, used to mark someone out as a bit of a crank, and perhaps even a middle-class crank. Today it is, I hope, a more ubiquitous ethical taste. Today we could point to the smart phone as an example of a general taste across society: we are all, or so it seems, deeply attracted to them, we desire them for their convenience, for their power to help us live ‘the good life’ (though we probably all know that they are doing the opposite as well).

What makes taste so important for us is that it reveals that we are individuals with specific likes and dislikes, while it also connects us to others with similar tastes. And it ties us to a specific time in history. What makes it complicated is that these three layers of taste are often mixed together. But for simplicity’s sake we can say that taste generally falls into three categories: personal, social, and historical. My dislike of cotton wool is personal and idiosyncratic (I really hate it). My taste in houses is undoubtedly social. The hardest taste to recognise as taste is at the historical level: the fact that nearly all of us in the UK are going to be eating some sort of manufactured cereal or bread for breakfast, which wouldn’t have been the case a hundred years ago. In many instances all three of these levels are blended: the music I’m listening to right now, for instance, is a playlist I’ve put together specifically for when I work. It is music I’ve personally chosen. At the same time, I’m sure that someone could come along and probably work out that my choice in music is broadly typical for a man of my age, with my education, working in my sort of job! The historical level is partly revealed in the fact that I’m listening to music on my phone which is paired with a speaker. The historical is collective taste, generational taste. My mum just about got the hang of CDs, but mobile phones were definitely not her thing, and the idea of a Bluetooth connection would have seemed like black magic to her and not something to be encouraged. The relationship between taste and class mostly occurs at the social level, but it is shaped by these much more general historical changes as well.

The growth of consumer culture, coupled with new levels of affluence that allowed more and more people to access a new world of plenty, led many commentators to wonder if the class system in Britain was undergoing a fundamental transformation. The Labour Party, and others on the left, were concerned that the success of consumerism meant that their traditional working-class electoral base had somehow disappeared. The period 1951–64 found the Labour Party in the electoral wilderness as successive Conservative governments held power. The writer and political analyst Stuart Hall remembered the period as one of anxious questioning: ‘Has the coming of the telly, the fridge, the small car, you know all these things, undermined permanently Labour’s chance of winning ever again?’⁴ In other words, had the traditional working class been somehow ‘bought off’ with consumer goods and the welfare state? Did they no longer see themselves as an exploited class, whose interests could be collectively represented by a political party? Something was going on, that was for sure.

Journalists, politicians, and sociologists faced new problems in discussing social class. Perhaps the most obvious was that class identity might not just be about income levels. This is Richard Hoggart writing in 1957: ‘most steel-workers, for instance, are plainly working-class though some earn more than many teachers who are not’.⁵ If class was not ‘just’ about income, then what was it about? The answers came in thick and fast: it was about community, about education, about culture, about accent, about taste. Did you leave school at fourteen or fifteen or did you stay on for qualifications? Do you get paid weekly in a small brown envelope or monthly? What do you call your midday meal? Do you eat your bread with margarine or only ever butter? What do you consider a good night out to be? The answers pointed to all sorts of different aspects of life. To employment, of course, and the money that came with it, but also to forms of leisure, to domestic life, to the upbringing of children, and so on.

At the same time, this golden age of affluence saw the emergence of various new kinds of jobs that seemed neither working-class nor straightforwardly middle-class. If you worked in the chemical industry or in an electronics factory, were you working-class because you worked in a factory, or middle-class because you were some sort of technician or engineer? And if you were a badly paid, low-level, administrator in local government, were you middle-class simply because you didn’t wear overalls, but were expected to wear more formal attire? For many commentators and analysts, the language of working-class and middle-class, inherited directly from the nineteenth century, was no longer any good for describing a new reality. They sought new names for new classes: the technician class, the administrator class, and so on. Others thought that class itself was outmoded and that a new classlessness was becoming a dominant experience in welfare state Britain.

In this book I treat these debates as source material. What seems clear is that the absolutism of class categories no longer quite fitted lots of people’s everyday experience. Certainly, many of the unequivocal markers of class were disappearing. The class system of upper-, middle-, and working-class, which was translated on the railways as ‘first class’, ‘second class’, and ‘third class’, ended in 1956. As the century progressed, the sort of spaces that might be emphatically working-class or exclusively middle-class gave way to the sort of experience that characterises air travel: most of us are stuck in coach. Yet this doesn’t quite get, I think, what was happening to class, and how class was and is related to taste and consumption.

In the late 1930s a group of enthusiastic, amateur social scientists sought to study everyday life in Britain. The movement was called Mass-Observation and one group studied the industrial city of Bolton, calling it Worktown. One of the things that the observers noticed was how, during the week, the male factory workers would all drink in the public bar in the public houses, where beer was a penny cheaper, and where, if the fancy took you, you could swear and sometimes spit (a necessary by-product of working in a dusty mill). It was a male preserve. At the weekends, though, these same men would drink in the posher lounge bar where the beer was dearer and where swearing was frowned on because of the presence of women. For Tom Harrisson, one of the founders of Mass-Observation, this meant that class wasn’t a fixed possession, but something that was actively negotiated and changed across the week:

Broadly, we found the whole of Worktown went up the social scale at the weekend. On a weekday, anybody in Worktown wearing a bowler hat was either B class or a mourner. At the weekend, anybody could and did wear a bowler, and the visible class distinctions of Tuesday became inextricably confused on Saturday afternoon. Weekend Worktown was a place superficially populated by well-to-do middle-classites – on an ordinary weekday, a city of wooden clogs, grimy faces, manual workers.⁶

For all its insistence that class is based on male employment (a tradition that continues today) this does, I think, help us understand what has been happening to social class in the second half of the twentieth century and into the present. Class hasn’t gone away – the gap between the wealthiest elite and what constitutes an average income has widened considerably – but it has become more complicated. What Tom Harrisson saw as the superficial changes in how people experienced class across the week became less and less superficial in the postwar period, as we moved from work, to home, to leisure activities. Class identity and class feeling was no longer the bedrock of experience. The old world of class arranged solely around employment, or even employment and education, was bound to be complicated by the arrival of rock ’n’ roll, milk bars and cafés, subcultures, ‘flat-pack’ furniture, television, jeans, correspondence courses, leisure centres, and the Open University.

I’d argue that class is still one of the best ways of describing everyday experience within the last sixty years. To capture its changing nature, though, class needs to be wrestled away from a nineteenth-century flattening into three, or sometimes just two, monolithic categories. The difficulty is that we have become addicted to thinking of class as either working-class or middle-class, with the occasional nod to an upper class. This universal, old system has an amazing ability to pull everything into its orbit, to the point where things that were (at the time) an escape from these rigidly fixed class categories have since found their way back inside them. Many of the tastes that I’m looking at here, from the second-hand, well-scrubbed pine kitchen table to the Japanese paper lampshade, were an invitation to a loosening of traditional class culture. Many of these tastes purposely looked outside of Britain for inspiration and reference. They offered the promise of a loose bohemianism for many. A bohemianism at home and at leisure that was often at odds with the world of work. For many people today these items are solidly middle-class.

Taste is never reducible to class identity. Carpets and yogurt have their own sensual properties, and within a consumer society they come to us wrapped up in images of a better life. Advertising tempts us not just with new things, but with the promise of new ways of living, new ways of life. In this book, I will show you the sensual landscape offered by these new tastes, their attraction to many young people who were becoming adults through the decades after the mid-1950s. I want to capture something of the promise that this new emphasis on domestic life offered, to describe the pleasures of new foods and furnishings, new ways of socialising and imagining the future. With one eye on the environmental dangers and opportunities that this domestic consumerism also presented, we’ll take a close look at adverts and promotional literature.

There is, of course, a gap between what tastes offer and the reality of what they provide: after all, we are talking about a commercial culture that always promises more than it could possibly deliver. (Do cigarettes, perfumes, chocolates ever make you more attractive in the way that advertising suggests?) During the UK’s ‘golden age of affluence’, the social sciences and particularly sociology, a relatively new discipline in this country, took off. While this might seem to be a peripheral phenomenon, confined to university departments, it was in fact often central to how consumer culture was discussed and experienced in Britain. The 1960s and 1970s were the decades that saw a form of popular sociology filling the pages of newspapers (both broadsheets and redtops) and magazines (specialist magazines like New Society, of course, but also the new colour supplements that were accompanying weekend newspapers), as well as being the basis for many radio and television programmes. Sociology and sociologists were also portrayed in cartoons and in novels as good subjects for satirising modern life. Sociologists produced a popular literature of their own, published by the likes of Penguin founder Allen Lane under the iconic blue-spined titles of the Pelican imprint. These non-fiction books were relatively cheap, and could tell readers about affluent society, popular psychology, history, architecture and any other subject under the sun.

The focus of sociology was often on class and consumerism. The social scientists looked at the possibility that new classes were emerging by studying new patterns of work, new levels of affluence, and changes in urban living. Sometimes they wanted to name these emerging classes (the ‘class of home-owners’ or ‘the administrator class’, for instance), and at other times they were happy to call them the ‘new middle classes’ or the ‘new working classes’. The question of how to get beyond a nineteenth-century understanding of class, of moustache-twiddling factory owners, of a middle class of socially aspirational professionals, and a mass working class of manufacturing employees is not a question that has gone away. In 2011 a large online survey (a survey conducted with 325,000 respondents) found that in twenty-first-century Britain there were eight classes (elite, established middle class, technical middle class, new affluent workers, traditional working class, emerging service workers, and precariat).⁷ This book won’t provide a new answer to these old questions, but it will trace a path though the lived confusions of class, of how a married couple, for instance, might disagree about whether they, as a couple, were middle- or working-class.

While social scientists were telling us that class experience was changing with affluence and consumerism, they were also using traditional ideas of class to define the meaning and measure of taste by reducing consumption to what they termed ‘status striving’. By seeing taste as a vast competition for prestige, what was immediately lost was any sense of the actual content of these tastes and the feelings that might be associated with them.