Abstract
Much of the scholarship on the modern public sphere has, following Habermas, focused on arenas of sociability detached from state authority. However, little attention has been given to the ways in which patterns of sociability intrinsic to political institutions facilitated the rise of civil society and a sense of nationhood. This article unpacks various structural dimensions of collective solidarity from the perspective of sociability and publicity by drawing on a key political institution: the state parliament. By exploring the interrelations between the British parliament and the media from the late eighteenth to mid-nineteenth century, the article discusses how parliament aristocratic culture corresponded to a club model structured along horizontal, interpersonal networks but increasingly incorporated qualities of a centralized public event. Shifts in media practices were accompanied by changes in the ways that political actors interacted among themselves and with their audiences. Drawing on the concept of “public intimacy,” namely, the staging of exclusive ties in front of a third party, the article delineates a structural transition in parliament culture from mechanisms of “clubby” public intimacy, which relied on patrician orality and sacred rituals, to “mediated” public intimacy, which was shaped by the institutionalization of gossip journalism. It is suggested that a similar combination of club exclusivity and public event has come to characterize subsequent civic institutions as well as social media. This dual structure helped shape feelings of solidarity as a continuum between personal and collective ties, casting the mass public as a network of confidants and friends.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, J. C. (2004). Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and strategy. Sociological Theory, 22 (4), 527–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00233.x
Anderson, B. (1991/1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Aspinall, A. (1956). The reporting and publishing of the House of Commons’ debates, 1771–1834. In R. Pares & A.J.P. Taylor (Eds.), Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier (pp. 227–257). Macmillan.
Barker, H. (2014). Newspapers and English society 1695-1855. Routledge.
Benson, R. (2009). Shaping the public sphere: Habermas and beyond. American Sociologist, 40 (3), 175-197. HTTP
Bentham, J. (1999). Political tactics: The collected works of Jeremy Bentham. Edited by M. James, C. Blamires, & C. Pease-Watkin. Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1791).
Black, B. (2012). A room of his own: A literary-cultural study of Victorian clubland. Ohio University Press.
Burke, E. (1990). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. Edited by A. Phillips. Oxford University Press. (Originally published 1757).
Capdeville, V. (2016). ‘Clubbability’: A revolution in London sociability? Lumen: Selected Proceedings from the Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies, 35, 63-80. https://doi.org/10.7202/1035921ar
Clark, P. (2000). British clubs and societies 1580-1800: The origins of an associational world. Oxford University Press.
Cobbett, W. (1819). The parliamentary history of England, from the earliest period to the year 1803. Vol. 34. Hansard.
Crewe, E. (2010). An anthropology of the House of Lords: Socialisation, relationships and rituals. Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2010.498100
Davis, A. (2009). Evaluating communication in the British parliamentary public sphere. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(2), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2008.00344.x
Dickens, C. 1998. Our Mutual Friend. London: Wordsworth Editions. (Originally published 1865).
Durkheim, E. (2008). The elementary forms of religious life. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Originally published 1915).
Eder, D., & Enke, J. L. (1991). The structure of gossip: Opportunities and constraints on collective expression among adolescents. American Sociological Review, 56(4), 494–508. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096270
Elazar, D. J. (1997). Contrasting unitary and federal systems. International Political Science Review, 18(3), 237–251.
Elazar, D. J. (1998). Covenant and constitutionalism: The great frontier and the matrix of federal democracy. Transaction Publishers.
Elbow, P. (1985). The shifting relationships between speech and writing. College Composition and Communication, 36(3), 283-303
Fliegelman, J. (1993). Declaring independence: Jefferson, national language and the culture of performance. Stanford University Press.
Gabay, N. (2007). The political origins of social science: The cultural transformation of the British parliament and the emergence of scientific policymaking, 1803-1857. [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California, San Diego. https://escholarship.org/content/qt9b48n807/qt9b48n807.pdf
Greig, H., & Vickery, A. (2021). The political day in London, c. 1697–1834. Past & Present, 252(1), 101-137.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An Inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press. (Originally published 1962).
Haapala, T. (2016). Political rhetoric in the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, 1830-1870. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoggett, P., & Thompson, S. (2002). Toward a democracy of the emotions. Constellations, 9(l), 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00269
Jakobson, R. (1999). Linguistics and poetics. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 54–62). Routledge.
Jupp, P. (1990). The landed elite and political authority in Britain, ca.1760-1850. Journal of British Studies, 29(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1086/385949
Kaplan, D. (2014). The architecture of collective intimacy: Masonic friendships as a model for collective attachments. American Anthropologist, 116(1), 81-93.
Kaplan, D. (2018). The nation and the promise of friendship: Building solidarity through sociability. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaplan, D. (2021). Public intimacy in social media: The mass audience as a third party. Media, Culture & Society, 43(4), 595-612.
Kaplan, D., & Kupper, Y. (2017). Toward an interaction-centered approach to media events: Mediated public intimacy on the Reality TV show Big Brother. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 758-780.
Ku, A.S. (1998). Boundary politics in the public sphere: Openness, secrecy, and leak. Sociological Theory, 16(2), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00049
Mah, H. (2000). Phantasies of the public sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of historians. Journal of Modern History, 72(1), 153–182.
Melucci, A., & Avritzer, L. (2000). Complexity, cultural pluralism and democracy: Collective action in the public space. Social Science Information, 39(4), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901800039004001
Milne-Smith, A. (2009). Club talk: Gossip, masculinity and oral communities in late nineteenth-century London. Gender & History, 21(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0424.2009.01536.x
Namier, L., & Brooke, J. (1985). The history of parliament: The House of Commons, 1754–1790. Vol. I. Secker & Warburg.
Port, M. H. (Ed.). (1976). The Houses of Parliament. Yale University Press.
Port, M. H. (2002). “The best club in the world”? The House of Commons, c. 1860–1915. Parliamentary History, 21(1), 166–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-0206.2002.tb00391.x
Rai, A. S. (2002). Rule of sympathy: Sentiment, race, and power, 1750-1850. Palgrave.
Reid, C. (2000). Whose parliament? Political oratory and print culture in the later eighteenth century. Language and Literature, 9, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/096394700000900202
Reid, C. (2004). Character construction in the eighteenth-century House of Commons: Evidence from the Cavendish Diary (1768–74). Rhetorica, 22(4), 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.4.375
Ringmar, E. (2020). How do performances fuse societies? American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 8(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-019-00076-9
Schaich, M. (2008). The public sphere. In P. H. Wilson (Ed.), A companion to eighteenth-century Europe (pp. 125–140). Blackwell.
Schroeder, J. (2003). Speaking volumes: Victorian feminism and the appeal of public discussion. Nineteenth-Century Contexts, 25(2), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/0890549032000125255
Seaward, P., & Ihalainen, P. (2016). Key concepts for parliament in Britain (1640–1800). In P. Ihalainen, C. Ilie, & K. Palonen (Eds.), Parliament and parliamentarism: A comparative history of disputes on a European concept (pp. 32–48). Berghahn.
Silver, A. (1990). Friendship in commercial society: Eighteenth-century social theory and modern sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 95(6), 1474–1504. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2780332
Stollberg-Rilinger, B. (2014). Rituals of decision making? Early modern European assemblies of estates as acts of symbolic communication. In Y. Hattori (Ed.), Political order and the forms of communication in medieval and early modern Europe (pp. 63–95). Viella Libreria Editrice.
Thévoz, S. A. (2018). Club government: How the early Victorian world was ruled from London clubs. I.B. Tauris.
Turcotte, D. (2012). Gossip and the group: A self-categorization perspective. [Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University]. CGU Theses & Dissertations. Paper 30. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1029&context=cgu_etd
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Nadav Gabay for insightful discussions that inspired this paper. I thank the editors and anonymous reviewers of Society for their constructive feedback and suggestions on the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kaplan, D. When a Club Turns into a Public Event: The Structural Transformation of the British Parliament and the Making of Collective Solidarity. Soc 60, 881–892 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00897-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00897-y