Letter to the Editor

The Editors:

As the author of Domestic Culture in Early Modern England (Rochester, 2015), I do not pretend that my study is without limitations and welcome constructive comment, even where critical. However, some elements of the review by Jane Whittle in The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XLVII (2017), 415–416, I found puzzling.

Firstly, Whittle describes the theoretical discussion in the introduction as a “dizzying tour.” Although the evidential core of the study concerns the daily activities and social relationships of the non-elite early modern household, it seemed worthwhile at the outset to discuss the nature of domestic life and its optimum interpretation, given that it consists of overlapping and interrelated elements of structure and space, material culture and activities, social relationships, affections, and values. Arguably, to comprehend one element fully requires an understanding of its relationship to the whole, and vice versa. The theoretical discussion tended toward structuralist perspectives, viewing the “domestic culture” as interconnected and reciprocating systems—particularly with regard to Bourdieu’s concepts of practice and habitus, linking space and action with the social dynamic. This seemed to me a pertinent discussion, hopefully leading to a more complete understanding of the operation of the household, but to the reviewer it appeared to be “dizzying”—perhaps disorientating or simply irrelevant?

Secondly, the review refers to my book as being largely a local study. As was made explicit in the introduction, I would argue that there is a clear distinction between a local and a micro study (which I aimed it to be)—the former of a place and the latter in a place, restricted in scale to explore complex associations and trends in depth within one context. Arguably, the probate inventory, a prime source of evidence for the non-elite household can be employed, through correct design and use of the relational database, to reveal not only the material culture but also, through the identification of associations and trends, the manner in which domestic activities can indicate the social dynamic and attendant values (this process requires invariables—such as locality—in order to justify identification of variations relating to social status, occupation, etc). It is true that these observations could have been compared with those from other studies and contexts. However, with limitations of book length, such a comparative approach would have tended toward a more thematic and generalized study, distanced from one context. Other respected works that inspired this study also focus on the body of evidence from one locality.¹ Although the title of the volume was intended to represent the subject matter, it might, in hindsight, have been usefully complemented by a subtitle indicating the evidential focus.

Thirdly, the review states that the processes and activities of domestic life are not analyzed in depth and make no reference to comparable studies or literature about consumption and gender. The study, which was intended to present a survey of these activities found in a particular set of households, actually does so in considerable detail, much informed from secondary sources. As one example, the possible status significance of the shift from central to side hearth with its improved cooking technology is discussed. Other comparable studies employ divergent contexts—diverse ones, as in Lorna Weather ill, Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain, 1660–1760 (New York,1987), or frequently elite ones, as in Whittle and Elizabeth Griffith, Consumption and Gender in the Early Seventeenth Century Household (New York, 2012). Moreover, surely it is not a fair representation to imply that the total discussion of female identity—which addresses many different aspects of women’s roles and agency throughout the study—simply consists of one or two contemporary opinions.

Lastly, I was surprised that a review in a journal that focuses on interdisciplinary approaches to historiography made only passing reference to the attempt in my study to employ an ethno-graphic methodology to non-elite early modern domestic life. Given that it was the application of this approach—focused in evidence and scale—that largely led to the limitations in the study argued by the reviewer, it would have been interesting to know, and I think...