Return to: Home | Culture | Books

Tribes of clutter

Michael Collins

Published 20 November 2008

A new study of contemporary Londoners' possessions and the values they attach to them reveals a shift of allegiance away from wider society and towards the individual household

Flying ducks and flock wallpaper: possessions mortared with memory

Tribes of clutter

The Comfort of Things

Daniel Miller

Polity Press, 300pp, £20

This book sums up how far social anthropology has progressed since Henry Mayhew wrote about the skull shapes of costermongers in the 19th century. Daniel Miller's approach is more in keeping with that of the wild and weird Tom Harrisson and the pioneers of Mass Observation in the 1930s. Having studied cannibalistic tribes in the New Hebrides, Harrisson despatched researchers to Bolton and north London to spy on the British working class at play. They reported on, among other things, the fixation with astrology, the football Pools, and "the cult of the aspidistra". These brief expeditions were undertaken as a tentative consumerism began to lighten the lives of the masses. At the time, George Orwell, having returned from his sojourn in Wigan, suggested that fish and chips, tinned salmon, radio and strong tea might have averted revolution.

Ultimately, if hope lay with the proles it lay with them as consumers. This, at least, was the contention of Dr Gallup, whose market research techniques attempted to understand the British as consumers, just as Mass Observation attempted to understand them as citizens. In The Comfort of Things, Miller investigates the citizens of contemporary London by way of their consumerism - or at least their material possessions, in an era of unprecedented mass consumption.

Initially Miller - currently a professor of anthropology at University College London - took the conventional approach to his craft, using expeditions to India, Trinidad and the Solomon Islands to investigate contemporary humanity "through the material form". In this new book he challenges the assumption that an attachment to things makes us more materialistic and superficial, consequently ruining the true potential of relationships. It is an assumption that environmental fundamentalists and certain psychologists line up behind when blaming the "affluence" of the masses for every earthbound evil. It is these and those of a similar mindset that you hope Miller might be addressing when arguing that such clichés and assumptions are seldom put to the test. "Possessions often remain profound," he says, "and usually the closer our relationships are with objects, the closer our relationships are with people."

But this is only part of the wider question he addresses in The Comfort of Things. It's a question that goes to the root of social science: what rituals and customs do human beings create to bring each other together? He argues that contemporary Londoners do not live their lives according to the cosmology of a religion or a belief in society. In fact, he echoes Margaret Thatcher in suggesting that there may no longer be such a thing as society, simply individuals in relationships with other people and objects. The latter is the impetus for this book, and a year and a half of research spent interviewing the inhabitants of a street in south-east London.

The "Stuart Street" of The Comfort of Things is an arbitrary choice, but its very ordinariness makes it interchangeable with other neighbourhoods in the capital. Diversity rather than homogeneity is what interests Miller, and this is what distinguishes the endeavour from the Britain that Mass Observation investigated. Only 23 per cent of the inhabitants of Stuart Street are London-born, and many of the 30 individuals allocated a "portrait" in this book hold allegiances to foreign localities. The modern London is fragmented, and the loss of identity has become its defining characteristic. In Miller's findings collectivism and community do not have an effective role to play in Stuart Street or elsewhere in the metropolis. "If ever we lived in a post-society, whose primary focus is on diversity rather than shared or systematically ordered culture, the London street is that post-society."

As such, for Miller, the study of material culture is the clue to understanding modern values. However, it is the characters less defined by the objects that surround them which prove to be the biggest finds in this book. There is Malcolm, a man whose email address is more of a "home" than his accommodation on Stuart Street, where his desire to embrace a digital existence has him jettisoning ornaments and accoutrements for a virtual life on the laptop. And the opening chapter of the book, "Empty", is the story of George, a 76-year-old who is more the stuff of fiction - the missing link between Melville's Bartleby and Miss Haversham. "It was after meeting George that we found ourselves in tears," writes Miller. "Because in every other instance there was a sense that at least that person had once lived. This was a man more or less waiting for his time on earth to be over, but who had never seen his life actually begin."

George is someone whose existence has been entirely dependent on the say-so of others, ranging from his parents to the state. Even the business of obtaining objects and decorating his flat requires decisions that are too big for him to deal with. His environment is beyond that self-conscious minimalism, that ethical thrift or that anti-consumerism which becomes its own lifestyle choice. His is a home where nothing survives as a clue to the history, or even the existence of its sole inhabitant: no mementoes, ornaments, photographs.

George is therefore the character who rattles part of Miller's thesis: "People sediment possessions, lay them down as foundations, material walls mortared with memory, strong supports that come into their own when times are difficult and the people who laid them down face experiences of loss."

Each portrait in The Comfort of Things is a chapter that reads like a short story. Miller has a tenderness and an affection for these characters, and his descriptions sometimes soar like passages in a novel, although there are moments when the author's projections tend to hint more at his own limitations than those of his subject. One such is the suggestion that George's lack of identity and passion for royalty make him ideal fodder for fascism.

Between the alienated and dysfunctional figures unearthed by Miller's research are those who find a joy and a passion in the things that help them nest and settle in a fragmented city. There is the cockney Londoner of old here, too, the breed whose bones lie beneath the city's paving stones; those forgotten by the new model "Londoner" who has rebranded the capital by way of a beloved multiculturalism that is as mythical as the "Middle England" he or she loathes. Working-class Marjorie accumulates things that, according to Miller, "never lose their rapport with the present". She is constantly changing the gallery of framed photographs that shroud her living room and watching old videos in an abode stacked with images of her family, as well as those of celebrities from the Beatles to television newsreaders.

Marjorie, perhaps more than any of the other characters in The Comfort of Things, best epitomises the theory that Miller is left with when his work in Stuart Street is done: in modern London, households and individuals alike have themselves to create the values that once defined us as a society. This is the departure that, here in the 21st century, has made social anthropology embark on a rethink. In losing the opportunity to study something known as society, it has been forced to focus solely on the individual and the home.

To the contemporary anthropologist such as Daniel Miller, "This street is New Guinea and every household in this book is a tribe."

Michael Collins is the author of "The Likes of Us: a Biography of the White Working Class", published by Granta Books (£7.99)

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

Joyce Boles
24 November 2008 at 18:09

Michael Collins and Daniel Miller both bleed a patronizing sentimentality all over their subjects. British upper class values distort their perceptions of the working class people they study. Not a great book, and not a great review.

Peregrine
24 November 2008 at 18:39

I'm surprised to see no mention of Christopher Lasch's The Culture of Narcissism.

Paul Perry
24 November 2008 at 23:48

I don't detect "patronising sentimentality" here - but if it is present, I'm sure it isn't due to the writers' "British upper class values".

The values of Collins and Miller appear to be those of most intellectuals and researchers; it is classist for Joyce Boles to assume these are "British upper class values".

DanDancer
25 November 2008 at 13:50

When, exactly, did Henry Mayhew "write about the skull shapes of costermongers in the 19th century"? Mayhew was not an anthropologist but a journalist whose main technique was the detailed interview with a typical member of the group he was writing about. There is certainly nothing of the sort in "London Labour and the London Poor", his best-known work. Or is Mr. Collins just peddling some half-memory he is too lazy or slovenly to check? In which case why should we take anything he says seriously?

Paul Lettan
25 November 2008 at 16:08

In the past 15 years, I have wondered much about the question of clutter. I grew up in a typical midland's working class home in the 1950s where clutter was endemic, unless of course one aspired to lower middle class status.

Later in life, I found personal satisfaction in a Bauhaus/Zen minimalism. What did not fit in a trunk had no place. Apart from books, my personal possessions would happily fit in a suitcase.

No doubt this says a lot about me psychologically, tant pis!

Then I met my wife, some years younger than me, from a decidedly middle, middle class, home. It would have happily graced any Homes and Gardens. My wife loves clutter and, after three young children, I have learned to live with clutter and now find my previous ascetism somewhat inhuman.

Yet I still miss the clear lines and colours of an uncluttered life. That said I wouldn't change a thing in my current life. Clutter and children go together.

All this to say that I think this book touches on something important but misses it somehow. Or is that the review? Surely, I seem to remember, French structuralist sociologists discussed this in the 1980s?

Paul Lettan
25 November 2008 at 17:02

Viz: above, if memory serves it was Pierre Bourdieu and a glorious romp through consumerism, la bourgeoisie and the fetish of possessions (never described as clutter). If so, Miller takes on one of the Gods.

gnuneo
26 November 2008 at 06:59

"there is no society" - yet he then states that each Home has the capability to shape itself according to the wishes of the individuals. Is Society then only defined by the restrictions it places? Is not this post-modernist Freedom an aspect of our enveloping culture?

what is always most lacking in these 'anthropological works' - and it is a HUGE lacking - is the space where the person the anthropologist, the supposed 'Objective Intellectual' is discussing, are allowed to give *their* opinions of the anthropologist back!

this is of course 'not of interest', after all to accept that the experience of observing *in itself* distorts the information received, would break the entire basis for Objective Science. And of course might even break down the myth of Intellectual superiority! Gosh!

no, we are only to peer through the lenses of the Intellectual at the Other, and see only through the explanations of the Scientist.

yet to only see one 'side' of this anthropological dialogue is to lose its completeness, like reading an analysis of 'The Office' from only the manager's, personal (but OH so Objective!) perspective on what was happening during the episodes.

and this is laughably called "Science" by those most mendacious of self-flatterers, the so-called Objectivists.

louche2008
26 November 2008 at 10:19

@DanDancer: "When, exactly, did Henry Mayhew "write about the skull shapes of costermongers in the 19th century"?"

Steady on there chap. Henry Mayhew did write about such things: London Labour and The London Poor: Volume 1, 1851. Chapter 1 - The Street Folk: Of Wandering Tribes In General.

"pedlars, showmen, harvest-men, and all that large class who live by either selling, showing, or doing something through the country... we must all allow that in each of the classes above-mentioned, there is [p. 3] a greater development of the animal than of the intellectual or moral nature of man, and that they are all more or less distinguished for their high cheek-bones and protruding jaws".

If I might quote Alexander Pope: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

I hope you feel suitably condescended to. D- go to the back of the class.

judith
27 November 2008 at 18:43

re:" blaming the 'affluence' of the masses for every

earthbound evil." Ever have a good look at the

mountains of stuff in an English stately home?

PS It's Miss Havisham, not Havesham

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Michael Collins

Michael Collins has worked as a television producer and journalist. His book The Likes Of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class was published by Granta July 2004 and won the George Orwell Book Prize.

Also by Michael Collins

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker