This idea comes directly from Elizabeth Outka’s article “Buying Time: Howards End and Commodified Nostalgia” but I think it adds to some of the recent discussion on this blog as well as the Weihl article we have read. In her article, Outka explains that one of the popular trends that emerged out of England’s growing commercialism was the appeal of commodified nostalgia. At the turn of the century, there was a boom in the desirability for country houses that represented Englands’s agricultural past. These houses were aggressively marketed all throughout Forster’s time, so he would have been highly aware, while writing Howards End, about how England’s past was being commodified in the form of country houses. Although the houses represented history, they were inauthentic and merely a simulacrum of the English agricultural country house. According to Outka, the most popular architect at the turn of the century who built houses in this style was Edwin Lutyens. As you can see, his houses look like traditional country houses but were actually built around 1900, and also incorporate various different eras from the English past into one house.
How commodified nostalgia relates to the house Howards End is similar to the arguments in Weihl’s article criticizing Howards End’s authenticity. Howards End is merely an illusion of the purified past; its possession by the Schlegel sister’s at the end of the novel does not represent a triumph of the pastoral over the modern. As Outka states in her article, the appeal of commodified nostalgia is paradoxical: it is rooted in the public’s genuine desire for a purified past, while simultaneously the forces of commercialism heavily drive and sustain this desire. Oniton Grange represents commercialized commodified nostalgia; to Henry Wilcox there is a great novelty in owning a traditional English country home. The house also demonstrates the liquidity of commodities as he is able to sell it off quickly when its novelty wears off. Margaret Schlegel’s desire for Howards End is awakened by her experience at Oniton Grange; she starts to imagine more frequently how satisfying life in the country would be. She begins to desire Howards End, a desire sustained by the attraction of nostalgia. However, the nostalgia represented by Howards End does not belong to the half-German Schlegel’s; their history is not the same as Howards End’s history, they merely possess it as a commodity that represents, to them, the idealized English past. This possession is not a triumph, since the novel ends with the idea of a “creeping London”, a city which will eventually assimilate Howards End and the land around it. The possession of the house only delays the unstoppable march of modernization.
I hope that kind of made sense. I’m interested to hear what others think about the idea of commodified nostalgia and how it relates to the novel!
Citation:
Outka, Elizabeth. “Buying Time: Howards End and Commodified Nostalgia.” NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction 36.3 (2003): 330-50. JSTOR. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
Hi Liam,
I agree that there is definitely a connection between Outka and Weihl. Particularly in terms of the paradoxical relationship between commodifying the English rural life and the survival of that same English rural life.
On p. 460, Weihl states that “national identity is ultimately undermined by that which produces it” (a paradox similar to what Outka proposes). In order for homes like Howards End to survive, the occupants had to participate in the capitalistic systems of international trade. However, participating in these new systems, also meant the death of the old systems.
Weihl seems to be saying that Howards End failed as a representation/monument, but I don’t quite see it the same way. Howards End represents the changing socio-economics of England and the shift from rural/Victorian literature/Nationalism to urban/modernist literature/Capitalism. By embodying the tensions of this shift, Howards End is a Monument:
1. It represents the lived experience of a representative cross-section of people trying to navigate this socio-economic shift
2. It holds “perceived sociopolitical signification” in terms of the multifaceted effects of the shift.
3. It has the capacity to help shape the lives of its occupants as well as society around it by representing the tensions of the shift.
(p.466).
Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems that Forster’s writing style (the plot, the characters, etc) and Howards End itself all point to the tensions resulting from this socio-economic shift. Couldn’t Howards End be a monument of this shift? (i.e. -not just of the traditional past or modernist future?)
You make a strong argument Liam, and it is one in which I agree. Another idea I wish to add to your discussion on the commodification of nostalgia, which I feel is present in Howard’s End, is that of elitism. I believe the commodification of nostalgia is riding on the back of those who wish to buy ‘class’. In past centuries this was not possible, however in the new economy people are now able to purchase symbols which signify social status. In this particular case, owning a Victorian home (as they have now become more rare) would signify being a part of an elite group that can afford such a luxury. Moreover, the emerging mass production of the new economy does not focus on aesthetics but rather practicality. Therefore the shear impracticalness of Victorian homes (as they are both large and difficult to maintain) signifies wealth – and large amounts of it. I feel this is similar to the idea that I brought up in class today, how the exclusivity of Oxford is what makes it so desirable, because if accepted, you will now be part of an elite group of young individuals (or men in the case of the novel).
Cheers,