Planting the Seed for a More Equal Society, a Review of “Gardens for the Working Class: Victorian Practical Pleasure”

[Review of] “Gardens for the Working Class: Victorian Practical Pleasure” S. Martin Gaskell 

          S. Martin Gaskell’s article, “Gardens for the Working Class: Victorian Practical Pleasure” beautifully portrays the relationship between social class identities and many practical implications for working-class employees during the nineteenth century. Gaskell importantly recognizes the opportunities that gardening presented many civilians in London as it became seen as a recreational activity. This understanding opened many doors for working-class employees, as they were able to engage in the landscaping business and foster the idea that “gardens” have the power to improve quality of life and the environment (479). This was, however, not a simple task for nature to shine through in the industrial city life that much of London presented during this time. 

     Gaskell focuses on the working-class throughout the article, but occasionally notes the growing (pun intended) ideals of a middle-class society, and the desire to cultivate gardens in many of their suburban London homes. He argues that planting trees would relieve the monotony of many streets and neighborhoods and that gardens not only improve appearance but also show signs of healthfulness (488). Additionally, I think that the concept of gardens offers implications that they are to be upheld to perfection and that a garden is a symbol of having control over your household, or life. This might be more relative to the middle-class lifestyle or expectations, but Gaskell recognizes that the working-class provides the possibility for the cultivation of gardens to begin with. 

     In his article, Gaskell notes the increased interest in growing gardens in urban areas throughout London, and how they essentially jumpstarted a desire for more public parks overall (490). While there were many benefits to this plan initially, such as the potential to enhance quality of life and improve the environment, the many flaws that urban areas present and the need for improvement overtook the propaganda (491). Gaskell does, however, introduce the influence of Octavia Hill in his article, and explains her vision for urban renewal, based on her first-hand experience in slums in 1865 (491). He brilliantly highlights her work and thoughts on gardens and how she “always hoped that her gardens would actually educate the working classes to the appreciation of better things and to exercise of civic responsibility” (494). Although the need for beautifying urban London through the help of the working-class could allow them to interact with other classes and improve their appearance and quality of life, it is important to consider the broader implications of wealth versus poverty in the nineteenth century. 

     Gaskell notes the moral benefits that gardening and gardens provided many individuals during this time and that the art of gardening as a leisurely activity promotes Victorian self-help (500). I think it is necessary to investigate the contrast between gardens highlighting the beauty of nature, but also creating an even more noticeable divide with the inevitable issue of poverty during the Victorian era. Perhaps gardens were masking the truth behind a very real and unequal society, one that has not been watered or cultivated fully and will shortly wilt, if not already.  

 

Bibliography 

Gaskell, S. Martin. “Gardens for the Working Class: Victorian Practical Pleasure.” Victorian Studies, vol. 23, no. 4, Indiana University Press, 1980, pp. 479–501, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3826832.