shackel (1992) - modern discipline

8/3/2019 Shackel (1992) - Modern Discipline

1/13

Modern Discipline: Its Historical Context in the Colonial ChesapeakeAuthor(s): Paul A. ShackelReviewed work(s):Source: Historical Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 3, Meanings and Uses of Material Culture (1992),pp. 73-84

Published by:Society for Historical Archaeology

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25616177 .

Accessed: 22/11/2011 18:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for Historical Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Historical Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sochistarchhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25616177?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25616177?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sochistarch


2/13

PAULA. SHACKELModernDiscipline:ItsHistorical ontext in heColonial Chesapeake

ABSTRACTThis study examines the development ofWestern society'smodern way of life and demonstrates how consumerism andits behavioral correlates actively shaped and created behavior inan industrializing society. This essay reviews some ofthe ideas regarding the symbolic uses of material goods anddescribes the historical context inwhich goods related to amodern discipline appeared in 18th-century Annapolis,Maryland. During times of economic stress or within acompetitive system, or when the existing social order isbeing threatened, goods and theirmeanings will create overtdistinctions between groups and standardize behavior inorder to reinforce and strengthen the social hierarchy.

IntroductionThis studyexamines thedevelopment of a new

discipline and demonstrates how consumerism andits behavioral correlates actively shaped and created behavior in an industrializing society.Whilean ethnographerofmodernWestern societywouldbe struckby theprecise rules of discipline of everyday etiquette, historical anthropologists wouldbe interested in the context of its development.Historical archaeologists can tie togetherparticularuses ofmaterial culturewith thedevelopment of amodern discipline and therebyexplore theroots ofcontemporaryWestern cultural practices. Moderndiscipline is a behavior based on measured time,calculated tomake human action more regular,predictable, and replicable through constant surveillance, monitoring, and reinforcement. Thecontext of itsdevelopment in colonial Annapolis,Maryland, is examined here by exploring throughprobate inventoryanalysis and the changing patternsassociated with thematerial culture of dining(cf.Glassie 1975;Deetz 1977, 1983; Leone 1988).The meaning and uses of goods have received

varying amounts of attention by both cultural anthropologists and archaeologists. Some of theways thatgoods create andmaintain social boundaries, especially between ethnic groups, have beensuccessfully demonstrated (e.g., Barth 1969;Spicer 1971) as well as treated in historical discussions (McGuire 1982; Staski 1987; Little 1988). Inparticular the works of Hodder (1982), Douglasand Isherwood (1979), and Miller (1987) aremostuseful for formulating a general understanding oftheways thatgoods act. Through a synthesis oftheirwork and by analyzing probate inventories itcan be seen that the use of material goods in colonialAnnapolis, Maryland, played a critical rolein structuringhierarchical social relations. Duringperiods of unstable hierarchy theelite had to reassertand stabilize theirposition in society. Duringtimesof social and economic crises?in particularthe 1720s, 1760s, and 1770s?the elite inAnnapolis altered theirconsumption patterns and begantoacquire new and differenttypesof goods to symbolically differentiate themselves from the lowergroups. During times of social stability the elitedid not display theirpower in the same ways andconsumption patterns changed accordingly. Following is an economic and social history of theChesapeake andAnnapolis and a description of themeanings and social contexts of specific goods.These contexts are necessary tounderstand thecreation of a competitively-based society and revealthecircumstances behind the ideological and symbolic uses ofmaterial culture in a local setting.

Historical Context: The City of Annapolis andtheChesapeakeMaryland, a province established as a refuge forCatholics, grew during European expansion andthe search fornew wealth, mainly in the formoftobacco (Wallerstein 1974, 1980;Wolf 1982). The

growth of the tobacco industry ontinued until the1680s and was followed by a 30-year depression(McCusker andMenard 1986:120-123). Recoveryin the 1710s was followed again by over a decadeof depressed prices (Kulikoff 1986:79). Coincidingwith thesedepressions were large-scale migra


3/13

74 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY,VOLUME 26tions out of the Chesapeake area by people insearch of inexpensive lands.In 1695 the small townofArundeltown was renamed Annapolis and became thecapital ofMaryland (Riley 1887:54-58). Until about 1715 Annapolis could be characterized as littlemore thanasmall village, changing littlefrom its 1699 size of40 dwellings, about 250 inhabitants, and a fewcraftsmen (Papenfuse 1975:5-34). Annapolis'economy did not develop around amajor tobaccocenter; rather the townfunctioned as a political andsocial center. Growth did not proliferate until the1710s. With its growth, services were developedfor thecourts, assemblies, provincial bureaucracy,and cultural activities seated there (Walsh 1983a:1). By 1715 government became a year-round process and bureaucrats became permanent residentsof the town. This expansion created a market forlocal goods and services and resulted in the development of an increasingly diversified town economy. By this time,Annapolis had obtained distinctive urban characteristics with its supportingcrafts.

As might be expected, Annapolis' developmentwas affected by regional developments. The tobacco depression of 1722 to themid-1730s wasmore persistent andmore severe than thepreviousone, due tooverproduction, lagging demand, andthehigh costs of shipping (Hemphill 1985:54). Tobacco prices were relatively stable until about1732, then rose dramatically until 1740. The inflation thatmay have begun in the 1720smay havebeen neutralized by thedepression of 1722-1735which temporarilydepressed the rising prices. Inflation after 1733 is explained by the introductionofMaryland paper money (Carr andWalsh 1977:14). In themid-1740s theChesapeake again experienced a short-lived tobacco depression. For theremainder of the colonial era the tobacco industryprospered (Kulikoff 1986:119).During the regional economic fluctuations of1722-1735, thewealth-holding pattern of Annapolitans shifted. The wealthiest group of peopleincreased its share ofwealth from21 percent (heldby 8% of thepopulation) between 1700-1709 to85 percent (held by 20% of the population) in1768-1777. The poorest wealth group had its

holdings diminished from 8 percent (held by 46%of thepopulation) in 1700-1709 to2 percent (heldby 30% of thepopulation) in 1768-1777 (Shackel1987; Leone and Shackel 1987, 1990; Russo 1983:3). The city's wealth restructuringwas noticeableas early as 1699, and by 1725 fourAnnapolitans?Carroll, Garret, Bladen, and Bordley?ownedmore thanhalf of the town land. The landlessweresubjugated to a leasehold system, a tenureby leasethat persisted throughout the colonial period(Baker 1983:5, 9). Most of theoriginal settlersnolongerowned propertyor lived in thecitybut fledAnnapolis and Anne Arundel County, probably towestern Maryland (Russo 1983:2).Between theyears 1720 and 1730Annapolis experienced a rapid increase inpopulation. The city'spopulation rose by about 65 to70 percent, twice asfast as any growth during any other 10-year periodin the colonial era. As people fled thecity towesternMaryland many newcomers entered the townwho did not know the local social details of everyday interaction.The accelerated population growthduring thisdecade was a key to thedevelopment ofthe city and the establishment of a competitivebase there as the new influx would be quite disruptive socially (Papenfuse 1975:14-15; Walsh1983b:6).Most historians believe that the Chesapeake'selite achieved a dominant hegemonic relationshipwith the lower classes, such as poor whites andblack slaves, by the 1740s (Breen and Innes 1980:120; Isaac 1982:137). Although, after 1750 thegentry's hegemony was seriously challenged bymiddling and lower planters and landless commonfolk throughreligious dissension which challengedthe traditional assumptions of established religionsand theway inwhich religious authoritywas usedtoreinforce thecommunity order. Baptists, mainlycomposed of poor whites and slaves, shaped a negative image of the dominant culture.

Dissenting religious groups continually challenged the elite's position. Few gentrymembersconverted (Isaac 1974, 1982; Breen and Innes1980). Instead, the elite responded to this challenge toauthorityby creating a common frontwiththe lower classes todefy theauthorityof thecrownin thename of liberty (Isaac 1982:265-266). Cer


4/13

MODERN DISCIPLINE: ITSHISTORICALCONTEXT 75tain symbolic cultural practices and associated materialculture, such as the tea ceremony,which wasonce exclusively performed by thewealthy, wererejected among all groups. This uniform rejectionsymbolically united colonists of varying classes forthe resistance against Britain (Breen 1986). Whileuniting with lower groups, the elite also had tosimultaneously reassert theirdomination in society.One way ofmaintaining social and economicdistance was tomake the accumulation of wealthmore difficult for the lower-class planters by imposing a poll tax on all imported slaves into theprovince (Kilty 1799:107, 258, 520). These actsprovided a legal vehicle for the established planters,who controlled political decisions, to suppressthewealth of newcomers and less wealthy planters.Without a largeworkforce, wealth could notbe accumulated, and the established hegemonic relationship could not be threatened.Using materialculture to one's advantage, however, involvedmore than legalisticmeasures tomaintain wealth.For instance, Isaac (1982:303-305) notes thatnewrefinementsof behavior such as dining or new ostentatiousarchitecturewere necessary to create andmaintain the new hierarchy, and tomaintain distance from the lower classes.

The era from 1763-1786 is known as Annapolis' 4'GoldenAge," inwhich ''prosperitywas notbased on industrybut on the concentration of politicalpower inAnnapolis, as growing numbers ofsocially and politically oriented wealthy planterswere drawn to the town" (Papenfuse 1975:1617).Merchandising rose dramatically in the 1750sas residentswere spendingmore on new importedgoods (Papenfuse 1975:15). The elite increasedtheirconsumption of finely imported goods todisplay and use in their homes. In the 1770s

merchants had increased their inventories of massproduced ceramics, salt-glazed stoneware, andcreamware, marketing these in the form ofmatched sets, and they began to replace individually crafted pewter and wooden trencher dinnerware (Martin 1989). These matched sets began tobe used toguide and reinforce a disciplined behavior.

After 1763 thewealthy planter/merchantsbuiltenormous Georgian brick houses inAnnapolis as

well as throughouttheChesapeake. By thebeginning of the 1770s, parts of thecitywere consideredby visitors as prosperous and gentile (Eddis inLand 1969:49). Family dynasties that became increasingly prominent in the city of Annapolis included those of Lloyd, Tasker, Dulany, Bordley,Dorsey, and Carroll. Members of these familiesregularly participated in theonly social club in thecity, theTuesday Club. Regular membership wasusually reserved for theupper class, although othermembers of society, such as mariners, were ofteninvited to tell tales of their travel around theworld.Although the Tuesday Club convened in the1740s-1750s, other societies were established inthe following decades. For instance, theHomonyClub was created in the 1770s by the gentry inAnnapolis to "carry on the traditionof humor andgentlemanly antics theyhad so much enjoyed intheiryounger years" (Breslaw 1988:xxvii).

Annapolis prospered for several years after theRevolution. In 1783-1784, because itwas amajorsocial and political centerof thenew nation aswellas of theChesapeake, the city became the temporary capital of theUnited States for six months.During this timemost of the commerce focusedupon luxury crafts and international trade whichdepended upon thepatronage of the affluent (Papenfuse 1975:136).

By the late 1780s, Annapolis lost its gentry,partially for economic and partially for social reasons as nearby Baltimore developed into a majorurban center. It appears thatAnnapolis' economywith itsspecialized focus on luxurycraftsandmerchandising collapsed once therewere fewgentry towhom to cater. By the 1790s, Baltimore with itsdiversified economy, replaced Annapolis as theregional center of gracious living.Annapolis' position as a political and social center steadily declined to thatof a quiet market town and a waystation for travelers (Papenfuse 1975).The historical background above provides a contextfor interpreting hemeaning and uses of goodsand a basis toexplain variability ofmaterial goodsduring the 1720s and 1760s. Phenomena such asdepression, inflation,wealth restructuring, immigrantpopulation increase in the 1720s, and an unstable and threatenedhierarchy in the 1760s pro


5/13

76 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY,VOLUME 26duced a competitive societywhich created distinctsocial groups inAnnapolis throughovertmaterialexpressions and a new order of behavior associatedwith a new material culture.

Meaning of Goods, Etiquette, and the RulesofDisciplineOne of the foci for social action inAnnapoliswas theetiquette associated with dining. The newmodern discipline, which induced rules formeals,is a reflection of thebroad behavioral changes in

societywhich increasingly relied on a new discipline to enforce social control.Modern disciplinewas neither a sudden creation of the IndustrialRevolution nor did it come into being only with19th-century factory discipline. Discipline is aproduct of a number of processes which begansometime in the latemedieval period. The rootsofa modern discipline can be traced at least to themedieval monastic communities which providedan established rhythmfordaily activities, imposedparticular activities, and regulated and reinforcedthe cycles of repetition. "For centuries, the religious orders had been masters of discipline: theywere the specialists of time, thegreat techniciansof rhythmand regular activities" (Foucault 1979:149). Discipline's function is to train throughrepeated performance. Behavior repeated severaltimes eventually becomes mechanical, yet fluidand natural, and allows foran increased efficiencyof behavior (Foucault 1979:150ff). Foucault(1979) argues that thedevelopment of institutionalstructures such as schools, insane asylums, andfactories are based on new surveillance technologythat allowed superiors easily tomonitor behaviorof subordinates and allow for the reinforcementand regulation of standardized behaviors. To thislist one could also add that the development ofsurveillance methods also formalized non-institutional groups such as classes and families. Thesegroups created standardized behavior among theirmembers enabling detection of intruderswho werenot familiarwith the group's rules.Modern society's concern fordiscipline and social controlwasenforced by new exacting definitions of space and

time.With thedevelopment and wide acceptanceof time discipline (Thompson 1967) came an increased discipline of everyday life which wasmade to appear part of the natural order (Leone1988). This use of ideology naturalized the inequalities found in society by denying that theywere social products (Althusser 1971).The meaning and context of goods and their interactive quality helps scholars understand howgoods are used in the development of a moderndiscipline (Hodder 1982). "Goods provide a communicative medium of symbolic significance . . .and provide amedium for social domination as anexpression of power and ideology" (Shanks andTilley 1987:131). It is the control of materialgoods and theirmeaning which provides a meansof control over others and will also produce asymmetrical allocations, creating power relations between groups (Hodder 1985:5). Competition to acquire these goods will produce boundaries toexclude outsiders. And those within a group willattempt to synchronize theirconsumption patternswith peers. In a developing complex or urban society, consumption goods are diversified and theupperwealth groups have a finely tunedperceptionof themeaning of these goods in different socialcircumstances (Douglas and Isherwood 1979:118,144, 180).In areas of greatest tension and competition,brought on by economic stress, groups sometimesemphasize distinct material differences betweengroups?"The competitive relationship may bebased on the overt distinctions" (Hodder 1982:187, also see Hodder 1979). There is also activeuse ofmaterial culture to express tensionswithingroups. Hodder (1982:187) explains that materialculture ofmany forms is used to justifybetweengroup negative reciprocityand to support the socialand economic dependencies within groups."Moreover, some categories of artifactsmay beused as media implicitly to relay information thatis intelligible to only certain actors. Such a casemay be found in dining etiquette in 18th-centurycolonial Chesapeake. One way of exploring thesocial context and theuses andmeanings of goodsis to study behavioral guide books, or what arecommonly known as etiquette books, and note


6/13

MODERN DISCIPLINE: ITSHISTORICAL CONTEXT 77how specific itemsplayed an active role in shapingand creating society.

Etiquette is a system of rules which disciplinebehavior (cf.Kasson 1990).With thecongregationof large groups of people, such as urban systems,structure nd hierarchy are established throughtheimplementationof rules thatguide the interactionsof people within as well as between the groups.From the latemedieval traditioninWestern societythese rules reinforced a new order of behaviorwhich established regularity, predictability, andreplicability of behavior.Medieval customs for eating differed considerably from those of 20th-centuryWestern civilization. The contrast between Medieval and Renaissance behavior is most familiar to historicalarchaeologists through thework ofDeetz (1977).The medieval table setting usually consisted ofknives, plates, and goblets. People usually helpedthemselves froma communal dish and solids weretakenby the hand. Liquids were oftendrunk fromladles or spoons and sometimes a communal glasswas used. There were no special implements fordifferentfoods, rather the same knife or spoon wasused for all foods at themeal. Soups and sauceswere often drunk fromplates and dishes lifted tothemouth. Itwas not uncommon to have two ormore diners eating from the same plate or trencher(Elias 1978:67).Rules included directions towash thehands, nottodip food in the salt cellar, and not toclean teethwith a knife. Spitting over the tablewas prohibited, and returningpieces of food thatwere in themouth back into the communal dish was likewisetaboo. Rules also emphasized the restraint fromgluttony (Rhode 1966[ca. 1550]: 134;Russell 1966[1450]:54-59). As these ideas became internalized, or perceived as "natural," different andmore complex rules relating to behavior and objects were introduced. This new regimentation ofbehavior, and specifically themyriad rules associated with dining, was instituted with learnedbehavior.After theWar of theRoses in 16th-century ngland, membership in the old nobility dwindledand the new aristocracy of themercantile classgrew in numbers and strength.Henry VIIFs en

dorsement of education made itacceptable amongthe aristocracy, thus creating a favorable environment forRenaissance ideas and thedevelopment ofthisnewmerchant class. With theestablishment ofthisnew socially competitive class, thequestionsof uniform good behavior became increasinglyacute.

There is one basic trendof behavior which canbe observed in these courtesy and civility books:thechanging elite attitudes away fromamedieval,communal way of dining. By the end of thefirsthalf of the 18thcentury,profound alterationsweremade of the rules related to civility thatwerechanged beyond recognition in relation to whattheyhad been in the 17th century. Intricate, precise, and replicable behavior penetrated wherevertheEnlightenmentwas felt (Aresty 1970:129; Elias1978). Through time, thewritten rules for behavior became more precise and increased theregularity, predictability, and replicability of behavior.

Daniel Miller (1987) explains that the symbolicuses ofmaterial goods inan increasingly consumersociety were used by interestgroups to reinforcetheir threatenedposition in social hierarchy. In asociety where the hierarchy is well established,unquestioned, or where the distance betweenclasses is too great tobridge, new patterns of consumerism are extremelydifficult, ifnot impossibleto establish. As the ancien regime lost power inEnlightenment England, therewas a radical transformation in the amount and typeof goods used insociety. Goods which may have had littleor nosymbolicmeaning during the timesof theunquestionedhierarchywere now more active in creatingmeaning and reinforcing social asymmetry, sincethe old order was increasingly being questionedand threatened.With the increased production ofgoods, emulation of the higher groups by thoselower in the order became increasingly popular.Demand forgoods increasedwith theambiguity ofa social hierarchy (D. Miller 1987:136). Since thehierarchywas being threatenedby emulation, therewas a desire toreestablish differences.New goods,new behaviors, and new social actions were necessary for the elite to keep their social distancefrom the lower groups. This distancing was


7/13

78 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY,VOLUME 26achieved by controlling the access to knowledgeabout thegoods.Behavioral guides in Renaissance Europe wereinfluential innaturalizing amodern discipline. Theinfluence of thisnew behavior suddenly appearedinAnnapolis society in the 1710s and 1720s whenthe society's wealth was being restructured.Evidence of theappearance and presence of thesenewbehavioral guides is found in the libraries of someof the wealthiest estates inventoried (Inventories1720, 1727, 1764) as well as in advertisements inthe colonial newspaper, theMaryland Gazette(1748, 1769a, 1769b).This naturalization of behavior can especially beseen in 18th-century literatureas JosephAddison(1907[1711]:135-136) stated that this moderndiscipline was far closer to thefirststateof nature.And Voltaire wrote in 1733 thatpoliteness was alaw of nature (Voltaire in Elias 1978:103).These ideas about the naturalization of amoderndiscipline can also be detected in 18th-century nnapolis. A letter in theMaryland Gazette (1746)explained to the audience that "a trueTaste isintirely [sic] founded on Nature; ... By the firstTaste, he understands how to lay his Garden,Model his House, fancy his Esquipage [sic], appoint his table, and improve a leisureHour."An examination of behavioral guide books provides a basis foranalyzing theuses and meaningsof dining related items inAnnapolis, Maryland.Analysis of probate inventoriesprovides data pertaining tohow amodern discipline became embedded inAnnapolitan society. This analysis focuseson the type of material goods thatwere used tocreate and reinforce thisnew modern discipline.

Probate DataProbate data have been used in various disci

plines ofmaterial culture studies. A complete review of references related to probate inventorystudies of various disciplines is available elsewhere (Benes 1989; Pendery, this volume). Thedata for thisanalysis are derived from 255 Annapolis probate inventories.The material goods listedinclude those itemswhich explicitly segment and

create a disciplined behavior such as sets of objects(i.e., sets of dishes, sets of forks, sets of knives,sets of cups and saucers, etc.), and formal diningitems (i.e., salad dishes, tureens,dish covers, fruitdishes, custard cups, castors, butter boats, andwine glasses). This analysis concentrates on theintroduction of sets of plates and formal and segmenting dining items.A primary assumption is that sets of items andformal dining items imply a new individualizedbehavior, thus demonstrating the rejection of themedieval communal tradition and the acceptanceof a new modern discipline. For example, sets ofdishes imply thatone person was eating fromonedish and thatsegmenting and standardizing behavior around the tablewas observed. Also, forks area new instrument ntroducedwith a new etiquette.No longerwas the hand or knife used toplace foodin themouth. Instead, a forkwas used. A set offorks implies thatone forkwas used by one person, and utensils and food were not communallyshared. Sets of cups and saucers signify the segmentation and standardization of the dinner by therejection of communal drinking vessels. The introduction of formal and segmenting dining itemsfurther separates the dining process. All of theseitems aide in segmenting the dinner process andthe standardization of behavior around the table.To distinguish sets, this researcher used GeorgeMiller's (1974:208) criterionof six ormore of oneobject. "Lots" and "parcels" of itemswere notcounted as sets because itwas very unlikely thatatrue estimate of the quantities these terms represented could be determined. Therefore this analysis provides a conservative estimate for the presence of sets of items.

The date ranges for thisanalysis are divided intothe time periods 1688-1709, 1710-1732, 17331754, and 1755-1777. The inventorieswere divided into four wealth groups. Wealth Group Iconsists of thepoorest of those inventoried. Thisgroup includes all people with total estate valuesranging between ?0-?49 at the time of death.Group II is composed of thosewith estate valuesranging between ?50-?225; Group III consists ofthose with total estate values ranging between?225-?490. The final category, Group IV, con


8/13

MODERN DISCIPLINE: ITSHISTORICAL CONTEXT 79TABLE1PRESENCE F FORMAL NDSEGMENTINGININGITEMS N NNAPOLIS, ARYLANDYearsWealth - . D .1688-1709 1710-1732 1733-1754755-1777inPounds _ _ _ _

? N P % N P % N P % N P %000-49 9 0 00 24 0 00 33 1 03 33 0 0050-225 3 0 00 27 0 00 18 2 11 30 2 07226-490 4 0 00 12 1 08 11 2 18 9 0 00491+ 1 0 00 9 3 33 15 1 07 17 7 41These items include salad dishes, tureens, dish covers, fruitdishes, custard cups, castors, butter boat, wine glasses.N = Total Number of CasesP = Total Presence of Items% = Percentage of Cases

tained all estates valued equal to or greater than?491. These wealth and time divisions are thoseused by Chesapeake historians Carr and Walsh(1977, 1980, 1986) in their analyses of probateinventories and were adjusted forcurrency fluctuation over time.

Probate inventorydata were collected to test theexpectation of correlations between the social andeconomic fluctuationswhich may have threatenedthe existing social order with new overt expressions of disciplining and segmentingmaterial culture and behavior. When social competition increased, spurred on by dramatic populationgrowth,wealth redistribution, and depression, orwhen theexisting social orderwas challenged andthreatened by lower groups, material goods andtheir ssociated behavior should have changed andbecome standardized and therefore increasinglyprecise, regular, predictable, and replicable amongmembers of specific wealth groups. Differencesbecame explicit social stratifiers mong people andgroups. This disciplined behavior should havechanged and in turnreinforcedamodern disciplinecreating a stratifiedsociety. Probate inventorydatawere examined to compare theownership of particular goods and thereby the implied rates oftransmissionof thenew disciplining and segmentingbehavior and todetermine if the socioeconomictensions found in theChesapeake shaped thisneworder of behavior and created a new consumerism

among theelite,much in theway itdid inEnlightenment England over a century earlier (Foucault1979; D. Miller 1987). This phenomenon shouldappear most dramatically around the 1720s andagain just prior to theAmerican Revolution, whensocial and economic pressures were greatest andtherefore displays of power and dominationthrougha modern discipline would be prominent.

Examples of disciplining itemswere found inAnnapolitan society by the second timeperiod of1710-1732. Between 1710-1732 about one-thirdof thewealthiest inAnnapolis owned formal andsegmentarydining items (Table 1).Only 8 percentof thenextwealthiest group had these items.Thetwo lowestwealth groups owned none. The overallpresence of these items decreased over the nextperiod (1733-1754), and the lower wealth groupsowned more of these goods. In theera prior to theAmerican Revolution (1755-1777), the elite reestablished themajority of ownership of thesegoods.Forty-one percent (7 of 17 cases) of themembersof thewealthiest group owned formal and segmenting dining itemscompared toonly two out of72 cases, or less than 2 percent in the remainingthreewealth groups.

Only two of the earliest residents ofAnnapolisowned sets of plates (Table 2). By the second timeperiod (1710-1732) all thewealth groups ownedthese items,with thewealthiest owning thegreatest proportion. The wealthy continued to own a


9/13

80 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 26TABLE 2PRESENCE F SETS OF PLATES IN NNAPOLIS, ARYLAND

YearsWealth - ;? p?Hc688-1709 1710-1732 1733-1754755-1777inPounds _ _ _ _? N P % N P % N P % N P %000-49 9 1 11 24 3 13 33 2 06 33 1 0350-225 3 0 00 27 3 11 18 2 11 30 5 17226-490 4 1 25 12 2 17 11 1 09 9 2 22491+ 1 0 00 9 2 22 15 3 20 17 7 41N = Total Number of CasesP = Total Presence of Items% = Percentage of Cases

greaterproportion of sets of plates throughthe 18thcentury. Immediately before theRevolution theownership of sets of plates doubled among theelite. However, little noticeable change occurredamong the lowest groups at the same time.In general, all of these goods were found in thegreatest proportions among thewealthiest estatesof thecity from 1710-1732, and from 1755-1777.During times of crisis, the wealthiest consumedmore of these disciplining and segmenting items.This difference in the types of goods owned byvarious wealth groups likelyfacilitated the creationand reinforcementof class differences and amodern discipline. This new order of behavior distanced the upper wealth group fromother groupsas themembers of the upper group were creatingtheirown identity.This modern discipline, especially in theformof complex manners, was foreignand to some extent nonexistent in very earlyAnnapolis. But during times of socioeconomic fluctuations in the 1720s (i.e., tobacco depression,wealth restructuring, and increased population),the elite increasingly subscribed to a new behaviorwhich became both part of thenatural order of thenew distinct upper class and a social strategyofpower and domination. Not onlywas thisnew material culture predominantly in the hands of theelite, but also the texts (i.e., behavioral guidebooks) which stated the rules for theuse of theseitemswere exclusively in the librariesof theelite.A general leveling off or decrease occurred in

theownership of these segmenting and discipliningitemsduring the 1740s and 1750s, an observationthatbecomes more telling if it is remembered thatostentation is often used when power is unstable(Braudel 1981). Since the hierarchical order wasmade more secure during the 1720s theremay havebeen littlereason to continue theexpense involvedwith explicit segmentation of groups using diningitems. Instead, from the 1720s, the elite began todisplay theirwealth inmore visible means such asconstructingbrick structures,a process which became increasingly formal and modern in thecity's"Golden Age" (Little and Shackel 1989).In the decades just prior to and including theAmerican Revolution, there is another sharp increase of the ownership of these disciplining dining items. Itwas during this era that the socialorder in societywas increasingly under attack bydissenting religious groups, such as theBaptists(Isaac 1982). The landowners created a bond withthe lower classes and inspired theAmerican Revolution but did notwish todissolve social distinctions. The elite used a new ostentation, both tocreate and maintain a new hierarchy and to distance themselves from the lower classes. The eliteconvinced therestof thepopulation thattheyknewthenatural order?including architectural symmetry,geometry, and manners?therefore theyhadthe natural rightof power and domination. Theselandowners, who ostentatiously displayed theirknowledge of thematerial order througharchitec


10/13

MODERN DISCIPLINE: ITSHISTORICAL CONTEXT 81ture (Isaac 1982), landscape (Leone 1984, 1987;Leone and Shackel 1990), and formal behavior(Shackel 1987), became the new ruling class in

America.

DiscussionProbate inventories from 18th-century nnapolis,Maryland, provide data which demonstrate thelegitimization of the social order through goodsand their prescribed uses. New social relationswere based on a modern discipline (Foucault1979), a behavior which manifests itself in theformof a new code ofmanners and material culture. The means to reinforce this behavior were

mainly possessed by the elite, thus legitimizingincreasingly distinct group boundaries. Particulardining-related goods were analyzed todemonstratethe specific social and material settingof the creation of a new dining etiquette and to explain thehistorical roots of amodern discipline which governsmodern industrial society.During timesof economic stress (Hodder 1979,1982), or within a competitive system (Douglasand Isherwood 1979), or when the existing socialorder is being threatened (D. Miller 1987), goodsand theirmeanings will tend to be used to createovert distinctions between groups and standardizebehavior in order to reinforce or reestablish thesocial hierarchy. In the colonial Chesapeake, ingeneral, and inAnnapolis, Maryland, specifically,several socioeconomic fluctuations coincided withthedevelopment of a modern discipline. What isinteresting bout thiscase is thatthisnew order ofbehavior was prominent inEnglish society by the17thcentury and was almost non-existent incolonial Annapolis, one of only a few urban centers intheChesapeake, up until the 1710s. Modern discipline did not gradually appear, but was insteadsuddenly introduced intoChesapeake society. Theelite manipulated a new order of behavior alongwith a new set ofmaterial goods to reinforcedistinctgroup boundaries and a stratifiedsociety. Theacceptance and success of amodern discipline relies on the active use of goods to create and reinforce thisbehavior (Shackel 1987). One way the

wealthy could reaffirmtheirplace in thehierarchywas to continue the dismemberment of medievalcommunity social values and touse a new form ofsocial discipline andmaterial culture to create social differences between themselves and the lowerclasses. One formof a modern discipline is demonstratedby theuse of a new etiquette andmaterialculture used in theprocess of social dining.Both thisnew behavior and thematerial expression of itwere made possible only througha naturalizing ideology, which legitimized the elite'scontrol over society. This new discipline allowedfor thedevelopment of distinct stratification.During theperiod from the 1710s to the 1730s thereexisted a major tobacco depression and hints ofinflation in theChesapeake brought about by general worldwide and regional phenomena as well asa local dramatic population increase and wealthredistribution.Consumption patterns also changedand wealthy residents of Annapolis used a newarchitecture and new material goods todistinguishthemselves from thepoor. During this time therewas a dramatic shift in theacquisition of segmentingand discipliningmaterial culture related todining among the elite. When the poor once againthreatened the elite's position in the 1760s, the

wealthy acquired new typesofmaterial goods andparticipated in a new behavior to segment themselves firmlyfrom the lower groups and confirmtheirdominance in society. All of these phenomena combined to aid in thedevelopment of amodern discipline in 18th-centuryAnnapolis. Thesenew characteristics are theframework for therootsofmodern society.REFERENCESAddison, Joseph1907 The Spectator. Reprint of 1711 edition. J.M. Dent,London.Althusser, Lois1971 Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. InLeninand Philosophy, translated by Ben Brewster, pp.127-186. Monthly Review Press, New York.Aresty, Esther B.1970 The Best Behavior: The Course of Good Manners

from Antiquity to the Present?As Seen throughCourtesy and Etiquette Books. Simon and Schuster,New York.


11/13

82 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY,VOLUME 26Baker, Nancy1983 Annapolis, Maryland, 1695-1730. InAnnapolis andAnne Arundel County, Maryland: A Study ofDevel

opment in a Tobacco Economy, 1649-1776, editedby Lorena S. Walsh. N. E. H. grant number RS20199-81-1955. Ms. on file, Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland.

Barth, Frederick1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Little, Brown, Boston.Benes, Peter (editor)1989 Early American Probate Inventories: The DublinSeminar for New England Folklife, Annual Proceed

ings 1987. Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.Braudel, Fern and1981 Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Centuries.

Vol. 3, Perspectives of theWorld, translated by SianReynolds. Harper and Row, New York.Breen, Timothy H.1986 The Meaning of Things: Consumer Culture of Eigh

teenth-CenturyAmerica and theComing Revolution.Paper presented at the Conference of Accumulationand Display, The Winterthur Museum and the University of Delaware, Winterthur, Delaware.

Breen, Timothy H., and Stephen Innes1980 "Myne Owne Ground": Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Breslaw, Elaine G. (editor)1988 Records of the Tuesday Club of Annapolis: 17451756. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.Carr, Lois Green, and Lorena S. Walsh1977 Inventories and the Analysis of Wealth and Con

sumption Patterns in St. Mary's County, Maryland,1658-1777. Newberry Papers inFamily and Community History No. 77-46. Newberry Library, Chicago.1980 Inventories and the Analysis of Wealth and Consumption Patterns in St. Mary's County, Maryland,1658-1777. Historical Methods 13(2):81-104.1986 Lifestyles and Standards of Living in the British Colonial Chesapeake. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the International Economic History Association, Bern, Switzerland.

Deetz, James1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology ofEarly American Life. Anchor Press/Doubleday, NewYork.

1983 Scientific Humanism and Humanistic Sciences: APlea for Paradigmatic Pluralism in Historical Archaeology. Geoscience and Man 23:27-34.

Douglas, Mary, and Baron Isherwood1979 The World ofGoods. Basic Books, New York.Eli as, Norbert1978 The History ofManners. Vol. 1,The Civilizing Process, translated by Edmund Jephcott. PantheonBooks, New York.Foucault, Michel1979 Discipline and Punish. Vintage Books, New York.Glassie, Henry1975 Folk Housing inMiddle Virginia: A Structural Anal

ysis ofHistoric Artifacts. University of Tennessee,Knoxville.Hemphill, John M. II1985 Virginia and theEnglish Commercial System, 16891733. Garland, New York.Hodder, Ian1979 Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture

Patterning. American Antiquity 44(3):446-454.1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies ofMaterial Culture. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. InAdvances inArchaeological Methods and Theory, Vol. 8, edited byMichael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-26. Academic Press, Orlando.

Inventories1720 Inventories 4:197-207. On file, Maryland Hall ofRecords, Annapolis.1727 Inventories 12:71-91. On file, Maryland Hall ofRecords, Annapolis.1764 Inventories 84:53. On file, Maryland Hall ofRecords, Annapolis.

Isaac, Rhys1974 Evangelical Revolt: The Nature of theBaptist Challenge to the Traditional Order inVirginia, 1765 to1775. William and Mary Quarterly 31:345-348.1982 The Transformation ofVirginia 1740-1790. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Kasson, John1990 Rudeness and Civility: Manners inNineteenth-CenturyUrban America. Hilland Wang, New York.

Kilty, William1799 The Laws ofMaryland, Vol. 1. Frederick Green, Annapolis, Maryland.

Kulikoff, Allan1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of SouthernCulture in theChesapeake, 1680-1800. Universityof North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Land, Aubrey C. (editor)1969 Letters from America by William Eddis. Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.


12/13

MODERN DISCIPLINE: ITSHISTORICALCONTEXT 83Leone, Mark P.1984 Interpreting Ideology inHistorical Archaeology: Us

ing the Rules of Perspective in theWilliam PacaGarden inAnnapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Powerand Prehistory, edited by Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley, pp. 25-36. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.1987 Rule by Ostentation: The Relationship betweenSpace and Sight in Eighteenth Century LandscapeArchitecture in theChesapeake Region ofMaryland.InMethod and Theory for Activity Area Research,edited by Susan Kent, pp. 603-644. Columbia University Press, New York.1988 The Georgian Order of Merchant Capitalism inAnnapolis, Maryland. In The Recovery ofMeaning:Historical Archaeology of theEastern United States,edited byMark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr.,pp. 235-262. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Leone, Mark P., and Paul A. Shackel1987 Forks, Clocks and Power. InMirror and Metaphor:Material and Social Construction of Reality, editedby Daniel Ingersoll and Gordon Bronitsky, pp. 4561. American Press, Latham, Maryland.1990 The Georgian Order in Annapolis, Maryland. InNew Perspectives onMaryland Historical Archaeology, edited by Richard J.Dent and Barbara J.Little.

Maryland Archaeology 26 (l&2):69-84. Archaeological Society ofMaryland, Annapolis, Maryland.

Little, Barbara J.1988 Echoes and Forecasts: Group Tensions in HistoricalArchaeology. International Journal of Group Tensions 18 (4):243-257.Little Barbara J., and Paul A. Shackel1989 Scales of Historical Anthropology: An Archaeologyof Colonial Anglo-America. Antiquity 63(240):495509.Martin, Ann Smart1989 "Fashionable Sugar Dishes, Most FashionableWare": Consumer Demand for Eighteenth-CenturyTea and Tablewares. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Society for Historical ArchaeologyConference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland.

Maryland Gazette [Annapolis]1746 Maryland Gazette, 26 August: 1.On file, State LawLibrary, Court of Appeals Building, Annapolis,Maryland.1748 Maryland Gazette, 4 June:2. On file, State Law Library, Court ofAppeals Building, Annapolis, Maryland.

1769a Maryland Gazette, 1 September: 1. On file, StateLaw Library, Court ofAppeals Building, Annapolis,Maryland.

1769b Maryland Gazette, 28 September: 1. On file, StateLaw Library, Court ofAppeals Building, Annapolis,Maryland.

McCusker, John J., and Russell R. Menard1986 The Economy ofBritish America: 1607-1789. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

McGuire, Randall H.1982 The Study of Ethnicity inHistorical Archaeology.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:159?178.Miller, Daniel1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Basil

Blackwell, Oxford.Miller, George1974 A Tenant Farmer's Tableware: Nineteenth-CenturyCeramics from Tabb's Purchase. Maryland Historical Magazine 69(2): 197-210.Papenfuse, Edward C.1975 In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchant in theEra of theAmerican Revolution, 1763-1805. Johns

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Rhode, Hugh1966 Book of Nurture and School of Good Manners. Re

print of ca. 1550 edition. In The Babee's Book: Medieval Manners for the Young, Done intoModernEnglish from Dr. Fur nivalis Texts, edited by EdithRichert, pp. 1-55. Cooper Square, New York.

RlLEY, ELIHU1887 The Ancient City: A History ofAnnapolis, inMaryland 1649-1887. Record Printing Office, Annapolis.

Russell, John1966 The Boke ofNurture, Folowying Englondis Gise, byMe John Russell, Sum time Servande with DukeVmfrey of Glowcetur. Reprint of the 1450 edition.In The Babes Book: Medieval Manners for theYoungDone into Modern English from Dr. Fur nivalisTexts, edited by Edith Richert, pp 56-95. CooperSquare, New York.

Russo, Jean1983 Economy of Anne Arundel County. In Annapolisand Anne Arundel County, Maryland: A Study ofUrban Development in a Tobacco Economy, 16491776, edited by Lorena S. Walsh. N. E. H. GrantNumber RS-20199-81-1955. Ms. on file, Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland.

Shackel, Paul A.1987 A Historical Archaeology of Personal Discipline.Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo.University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.


13/13

84 HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY,VOLUME 26Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice.

Cambridge University Press, New York.Spicer, Edward1971 Persistent Cultural Systems. Science 174(4011):795-800.Staski, Edward (editor)1987 Living in Cities: Current Research inUrban Archae

ology. Special Publication Series No. 5. Society forHistorical Archaeology, California Pennsylvania.Thompson, E. P.1967 Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.Past and Present 38:56-97.Wallerstein, Immanuel1974 The Modern World-System. Vol. 1,Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World

Economy in theSixteenth Century. Academic Press,New York.1980 The Modern World-System. Vol. 2, Mercantilismand the Consolidation of the European World

Economy, 1600-1750. Academic Press, New York.

Walsh, Lorena S.1983a Annapolis as a Center of Production. In Annapolisand Anne Arundel County, Maryland; A Study ofUrban Development in a Tobacco Economy, 16491776, edited by Lorena S. Walsh. N. E. H. GrantNumber RS-20199-81-1955. Ms. on file, Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland.1983b Anne Arundel County Population. InAnnapolis andAnne Arundel County, Maryland; A Study of UrbanDevelopment in a Tobacco Economy, 1649-1776,edited by Lorena S. Walsh. N. E. H. Grant NumberRS-20199-81-1955. Ms. on file, Maryland StateArchives, Annapolis, Maryland.

Wolf, Eric1982 Europe and a People without History. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, California.Paul A. ShackelDivision of ArchaeologyHarpers Ferry National Historical ParkP.O. Box 65Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425

shackel (1992) - modern discipline

Documents