The critic Raymond Williams reminds us in Marxism and Literature that societies are always in a state of flux. At any one time, there will be dominant, residual, and emergent cultural elements existing simultaneously and in tension with one another. We tend to celebrate those historical figures who were part of emergent strains that later became dominant: the people credited with being ahead of their time and later vindicated, sometimes only (and most romantically) in death.
But we usually pay less attention to the people who found themselves part of residual elements that may once have been dominant, but eventually faded away. We venerate the people whose ideologies won out, perhaps imagining ourselves to be among their number. We think a lot less about the people who lost.
The infamous campaigner Mary Whitehouse is one of history’s losers. Born in 1910, she never let go of her Edwardian sensibilities, even as the society she knew collapsed around her ears. She spent 37 years organising letter-writing campaigns in an effort to halt the arrival of what she called the ‘permissive society’, horrified as she was by the displays of sex and violence that suddenly appeared on British television screens from the 1960s onwards. A contemporary of Whitehouse’s described her in The Financial Times as a “little Canute, exhorting the waves of moral turpitude to retreat”. She didn’t campaign for change, she campaigned for stasis. And she failed utterly, in a grand display of public humiliation.
Some of Whitehouse’s concerns look rather silly now. She and her fellow campaigners expended a huge amount of energy on the kind of sauciness that nowadays seems quaint. The double entendres in songs like Chuck Berry’s My Ding-A-Ling and sitcoms like It Ain’t Half Hot Mum all provoked letters, as did a suggestively placed microphone during Mick Jagger’s appearance on Top of the Pops.
One of Whitehouse’s first forays into public life was an anonymous 1953 piece for The Sunday Times that advised mothers on how best to inhibit homosexuality in their sons. This open homophobia was combined with a crusade against blasphemy that often called upon archaic legislation. In 1977, she pursued a private prosecution against Gay News for printing a poem that described a Roman centurion fantasising about having sex with the body of the crucified Christ. The editor was convicted of blasphemous libel and the QC who represented him later wrote that Whitehouse’s “fear of homosexuals was visceral” — he may well have been right.
Her reputation as a bigoted fuddy-duddy means that if Whitehouse is remembered now, it is usually as a punchline. And indeed in her own lifetime she was the subject of constant ridicule. One of her books was ritually burned on a BBC sitcom, her name was used in jest as the title of the hit comedy show The Mary Whitehouse Experience, and a porn star mockingly changed her name to ‘Mary Whitehouse’ by deed poll (this second Mary Whitehouse later committed suicide).
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThat horse has already bolted. We do have a new fashionable prurience in the form of Wokeism, though.
Interesting observation. When people are devoted to responding to a thing with disgust, does that tell us about whether that thing is in fact disgusting, or rather that those people get a strange turn-on from feeling disgusted. Not to mention their public parade of being disgusted … not to mention their insistence that failure on the part of others to be disgusted is a mark of the others’ irredeemable moral vileness … not to mention their insistence that the laws must be changed, museums emptied, and so on, to enforce this delicious perpetual-disgustedness-as-holiness.
But disgust was not the only response. Many of her supporters were not disgusted, they simply thought that much of the stuff she was objecting to was poor quality television.
David Barry, I very much take your point.
Apologies for lack of clarity on my part.
I was broadening out a point in the article about Mrs Whitehouse’s ‘visceral fear of homosexuality’ (and similar mentions of disgust-related emotions, such as things being ‘shocking’, and being ‘outraged’ or ‘horrified’).
My broadening out was a general observation that people committed to a particular worldview or cause sometimes appear paradoxically to get a ‘buzz’ out of what offends or disgusts them. (For example, the trope – whether fair or not – that campaigners for decency are themselves sex-obsessed.) In other words, it may tell you something about them, as much as the issue being protested about.
This I broadened out to an observation that, once so committed, people can see failure on the part of others to join in with their reaction of disgust to be a mark of those others’ moral deficiency. ‘Silence is violence’, for example.
I am not taking any position on Mrs Whitehouse as an individual, or on the merits or otherwise of any of her campaigns, by the way.
I could touch on the theory of disgust as the origin of ethical views, but I have said a lot already.
I disagree. Homosexual acts are objectively disgusting. I have a doctor friend who’s shown me photos of patient injuries caused by homosexual acts. It’s vomit-inducing. My disgust is real, not performative.
Disgust is an emotion which can only be experienced subjectively.
You should see some of the things that heterosexuals get up to.
What on earth was the doctor doing with such pictures? And once you’ve answered that, why was he showing you? And lastly why were you interested?
is that really the point here?
Well is simple then don’t do it! each to their own bed! but dont makes rules about sex with consenting adults! there is nothing liberal in religion or a government involved in moderating a person’s private life.
Wow
Sarah Packman, would you be willing to elaborate a little, please? I mean this sincerely, as I am interested in learning from people’s views; that’s why I visit forums such as this. Thank you.
This quote from Eric Fromm seems apposite.
I am not sure whether Mary Whitehouse was filled with envy or hate but certainly it is to be seen aplenty in the recent protests and riots.
“There is perhaps no phenomenon which
contains so much destructive feelings as “moral indignation,” which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue. The “indignant” person has for once the satisfaction of despising and treating a creature as “inferior,” coupled with the feeling of his own superiority and rightness” Eric Fromm
Thank you, Richard. More than apposite.
Do you think it might be possible that Mary Whitehouse campaigned, not from any dark psychological motivation, but because she believed that society was going in the wrong direction and that it would lead to huge societal problems in the future such as child abuse and family breakdown? I’m struck by the fact that so often those who campaign about moral issues are targeted with psychological and/or moral slurs themselves. Perhaps we do that because we think it exonerates us from considering what they are saying.
I think you have hit the nail on the head, Michael.
Michael Whitlock, thank you for your question.
[I don’t know whether when writing you would have seen my response to David Barry (above), in which I stated that I was not taking any position on Mrs Whitehouse or her points.]
I think it quite possible, maybe even probable (but I am in no position to know either way) that her motives were noble and her campaign visionary. Or it may have been a mix of good and less good points, well or less well presented.
I have a vague memory, from many years ago, of her saying on television something along the lines that her objection was obviously not to sex, but to unwholesome or debased treatment of it in the media. That seemed to me to be a sound point to make.
In 1914 when Eliza Doolittle exited the stage in Shaw’s “Pygmalion” saying “Not Bloody Likely” There was shock, working class language was not often portrayed in drama and fiction like it actually was; a greater concern was that the play was poking genteel fun at the class system.
In my view I think that was where Whitehouse stood. Like those who flocked to H M Tennant type productions on the London Stage in the 50s and 60s, the stage should not shock or disturb. Her principle target was “The Wednesday Play” which were usually set in working class homes and featured massive class disjunction and sexual discord. Anyone under the age of 50 will probably not realise that such programmes could be made for television. Dennis Potter’s finest moments. My own feeling is that it was class as much as anything else that got Mrs Whitehouse incessantly to force herself to watch things she didn’t enjoy then set pen to paper, for a while she signed her letters “Mrs E B Whitehouse” Mary came later.
If you are looking to someone at the time identifying porn as damaging to and hateful of, women the Germaine Greer was the person holding the flag. “The Female Eunuch” which I read when I was about 17, is one of the books that I recall making a massive impact on me. . The other person who identified porn in that way was Lord Longford. As Bernard Levin once said “People ask the wrong question about Longford when they ask ‘is he mad’. Of course he is mad, but is he right”
Yes your right. For me the one thing that was apparent about Mrs Whitehouse was her decency. Agree or not with her she would never stoop to sneering and belittling people as is the common mode of counter argument now.
A lady to the last.
Michael Whittock, thank you for your question.
[A couple of preliminary points: (1) I posted substantially the following two days ago, but it has been ‘pending’ for some reason. (2) I don’t know whether when writing you would have seen my response to David Barry, in which I stated that I was not taking any position on Mrs Whitehouse or her views.]
I think it quite possible, maybe even probable (but I am in no position to know either way) that Mrs Whitehouse’s motives were noble and her campaign visionary.
Or it may have been a mix of good and less good points, well or less well presented.
But I do have a vague memory, from many years ago, of her saying on television something along the lines that her objection was obviously not to sex, but rather to unwholesome or debased treatment of it in the media. That seemed to me to be a sound campaigning standpoint.
unfortunately she looked like everyones maiden aunt. If she looked younger and sexier we may have listened to her. yep! sex sells.
S,’truth..Anyone would think the world was going to end up with transvestites recruited and paid to tell stories to 5year olds..as part of the curriculum…and boys be allowed to go into girls changing rooms..by law.
Or the BBC stage a crossdresser reality show and bill it as entertainment.
Phew we missed a bullet there..!
‘Wokeism’ seems very weak compared to the prurience and anti-prurience of the good old days, though. The Itch and its enemies don’t seem to attract the masses any more.
Oh I am very worried about Wokeism, Its neo marxist bent is in the institutions, education system and law making – the churchy puritans were kept largely to knitting groups by comparison.
It interests me that you say the only people to challenge Saville were old women. In a former workplace I had a very arrogant, sometimes bullying manager, I disliked him, but like our betracksuited former national treasure he was generally popular. I recall an incident where I was loaned to another department, he appeared shortly afterward, with a “helpful” comment about the state of my lab coat. In the room was my elderly colleague, a very sweet old lady, I was shocked and amused at the torrent of foul mouthed abuse that she directed at my boss, in a response to an intervention that was fairly benign by his standards. He just had to stand there and take it.
John Lydon of the Sex Pistols tried to make his concerns about Jimmy Savile public in 1978.
And Terry Christian knew all along what Saville was up to and did nothing
He is a treasure. Lydon. I speak as an ex punk now of an age to be deeply moved and inspired by Lydon’s compassion and commitment to his wife of 40 years as she copes with dementia.
The comparison with Canute is odd. He was not exhorting the waves to retreat. He knew that he did not have the power to do that and that is what he was demonstrating.
True.
Beat me to it…and the point was to demonstrate something he knew about the limits of power, to his circle of courtiers. Losing *hard* in history, seems often to be the precursor to *winning big*.
Yeah but it is common cliche to assume the defiance obstinate metaphor.
Actually NO she was not wrong to ally with Mrs Thatcher because the free market only becomes a slavemarket if the guardians of culture are slack and malignant Marxists. It was not until Mrs Thatcher had long been driven from office that intimacy was fully marketised and with the vociferous support of loud sections of the left, which was going through a spuriously pro-market phase at the time. It is this marketisation of bodily intimacy which allowed for the various extremes and lunacies currently facing our children and causing much more unhappiness than they solve
………..er, Mrs Thatcher’s reign was the golden era of Page 3. Its star, Sam Fox, was one of the three most photographed women in the UK at that time. The Sun, a great supporter of Maggie didn’t appear to cater for university educated people.
Nonsense. Page three had been fully established in its then form for years before Mrs Thatcher came to prominence. Blame Roy Jenkins and the imposition of total laxity upon society thanks to his excessively lenient reforms to policing and law.
Mrs Thatcher was a great enthusiast of capitalism, and capitalism is about making money and grabbing market share. What you have today is absolutely the outcome of capitalism. Capitalism does not provide for ‘guardians of culture’ and if they get in the way it sweeps them aside.
Unlike socialism…….Oh, wait.
Bilge. Capitalism works within the moral norms of whichever society is intelligent enough to host it. It’ socialism which destroys guardians of culture and replaces them with goons like Zhdanov.
So the greed, huge inequality & corrupt capitalism is working so well?? Covid19 has shown this up for it’s real horror & now finding Tories almost enacting socialism & basic income.
Socialist thieves always call property rights “greed”. And what’s wrong with inequality? Nothing. Enough is enough and it’s the proper base line for further progression – in an economy not clotted with socialist back scratching and corruption. The worst social conditions in capitalism are better than the median conditions in any socialist dump that has ever been – and that’s without mentioning the gulags and concentration camps.
Of course there’s absolutely no prurience or pornography in China Cuba or Venezeula..or ever was in USSR.
In private life Woy was noted for his appreciation of lightly clothed ladies! In public life he was but one of a long line of second rate Home Secretaries (briefly interrupted, perhaps, by Douglas Hurd and Willie Whitelaw) which extends to the present day.
Presumably you think that Henry Brooke was a fine Home Secretary
It went back to the very early 1970s… but Page Three is still a bit of a step away from the sort of material that these days regularly turns up as evidence in the passing procession of prosecutions through the courts these days.
Not to mention the multicultural agenda Jenkins had up his sleeve..and kept it there while it was rolled out like a carpet across a once great country..
“If Whitehouse had been alive in 2016, she would surely have voted Leave.”
Oh really? We’re quite sure about that are we? Or are the writer predjudices showing?
I’m pretty sure she’s right
It was irrelevant to the case being made.
Could this article be rewritten, first giving the background to MW’s campaigns, vis that divorces were rare, crime was low, and the country very law abiding. This was the great achievement of the Victorian moralists, recorded in Gertrude Himmelfarb’s The De-Moralization of Society: from Victorian Virtues to Modern Values. LMary Whitehouse lost. But did the UK gain? Discuss.
I feel a 1970s joke coming on …..
“I read it from cover to cover and it was every bit as disgusting as I thought it would be”. Mrs Mary Whitehouse.
🙂
The National Viewers and Listeners Association gave Savile an award for his TV Work. Those ‘obstinate ladies’ didn’t really stand up to him, did they?
‘In 1977, she pursued a private prosecution against Gay News for printing a poem that described a Roman centurion fantasising about having sex with the body of the crucified Christ’.
Rather than private prosecutions blah blah wouldn’t it have been simpler for a supporter to have beheaded the editor of Gay News? Then the BBC would have told us that he’d asked for it. Wouldn’t it?
She was substantially right, but her style alienated potential allies. She was a gift to Alinskyite detractors.
“Pick your battles” is generally good advice.
There is of course no such thing as the right or wrong side of history
Wokeism is different its largely based on ignorance
MW was directionally correct -and ridiculing her is a form of EVIL – her intent was to protect the next generation from abuse or developing a weak moral value system based on “new norms”
Whilst most adults born in the 60s would probably say a little bit of sex and violence is realistic and adds to the film, its also likely many would say we have allowed it to go far too far ;the sex and violence is gratuitous, is shown at too young and age and is uncontrolled through the new social mediums. Undoubtedly there will be backlash in fact pushback started with a line drawn in 2018 defeating proposal to teach and normalise certain sex acts to 12 year olds – references still get through in “12” rated films though.
Is it fair to say that over the last 60/70 years Film and TV producers seem to use less of the art of dialogue and character development and scenic atmospheric shooting, ?- after all its harder than a sex and violence shot…
I cannot believe the disjointed article that looks upon Mary Whitehouse as a bigoted fuddy duddy. Louise she was to be a breath of fresh air for the young and old and maybe we did not agree with all she stood for. But Louise we all as a family and as young adults began to watch TV without cringing with embarrassment or disgust at the crudness the BBC and many other channels claimed to be entertainment. Sadly with the death, and the likes of Mary Whitehouse disapearing, the cruditiy, bad language and sexual media output returning from 9pm makes millions of very nice people who have an understanding of parameters once again cringe at the diversity of bad taste back in our very own living rooms. Louise maybe one day you will understand the difference between open mindedness and being led by the balls by astute business money makers.
You give no real indication of what she got right. The only cultural reference is to her objection to Dennis Potter, widely acknowledged now as one of our finest playwrights.
Widely acknowledged at North London dinner parties?
She was anti pedo. I mean you would give her that, right?
It is a foolish and sometimes dangerous mistake to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Mary Whitehouse was a sexually frustrated prude, She would wade through pornography every night, after Mr Whitehouse had gone to bed.
Like Queen Victoria she found it hard to imagine that lesbianism was a real thing, but her hatred of homosexuals knew no bounds, and that is the only thing that compelled her to attack pedophilia, only ‘male pedophilia’.
And because of her piety she failed to see the involvement of Priests, Bishops, and Vicars.
What a lovely guy that Sir Hugh Greene must have been …
Actually NO she was not wrong to ally with Mrs Thatcher because the free market only becomes a whorehouse if the guardians of culture are slack and malignant Marxists. It was not until Mrs Thatcher had long been driven from office that sexuality was fully marketised and with the vociferous support of loud sections of the left, which was going through a spuriously pro-market phase at the time. It is this marketisation of sex which allowed for the various extremes and lunacies currently facing our children and causing much more unhappiness than they solve.
Having clicked on the link about Lord of the Rings, I see the article is mostly about how the feminists of Wokehadi twitter are aghast that LotR will have sexually explicit scenes. Whitehouse’s legacy would appear to be quite alive and well.
Nice article. The only thing I’d take issue with is the author’s definition of what Mary Whitehouse got right and what she got wrong. According to the author what she got wrong was, for example, her stance against homosexuality, which by chance we now agree is fine. And according to the author what Whitehouse got right was, for example, her stance against paedophilia, which also by chance we all now agree is morally wrong. So does the author perhaps believe that our society has, after many centuries, finally got things morally straight in our heads? It certainly sounds like it.
I think there’s a good chance that Mrs Thatcher was actually a supporter of Mary Whitehouse’s crusade, bearing her mind her (Thatcher’s) disgust at seeing a painting at an art exhibition in her constituency because it looked like it was “full of sperm”.
Also, both were high church Anglicans and of roughly the same generation (though Mrs Whitehouse was the elder of the two).
Perhaps ironically, another person who later became a high church Anglican was Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News at the time Mrs Whitehouse launched her prosecution against it.
Mrs Thatcher was raised as a methodist and, so far as I know, was not a church-goer. She was most impressed by the Chief Rabbi
She always referred to herself as an Anglican. I agree she and Jonathan Sacks got on well.
I’ve just found this very good interview about Mrs Thatcher, which states that we’re both right; she was brought up as a Methodist and became an Anglican in later life.
https://www.theosthinktank….
It does to be fair cast some doubt on what I said about her support for Mary Whitehouse; it seems that she was very reluctant to bring sexual morality into politics, though it still looks as though privately she had much sympathy for what Mrs Whitehouse was trying to do.
And Mrs Whitehouse was low-church/evangelical, not high church
There wasn’t a porn star who changed her name to Mary Whitehouse. I think Mary Kenny, in the Spectator article referred to, was mixing up Mary Millington (who did, sadly, commit suicide) and Whitehouse, a soft porn magazine Millington often modelled for.
There was, and I think still is, a magazine called Whitehouse, but there also WAS a porn performer or stripper who called herself Mary Whitehouse, not the same person as the tragic Mary Millington.
Oh great. So what she priimarily “got right” was, according to this author, freaking out over the efforts of the Paedophile Information Exchange – a group that sought only to facilitate an ever greater understanding and broader thought. – by forever conflating, quite mindlessly, the notion of paedophilia with abuse. ABUSE. How relentlessly daft is that? How, finally, could it differ from automatically conflating homosexuality with violent a**l rape, etc etc etc? This author then blithely proceeds to take Savile as her prime ‘example’, a man whose supposed misdeeds were never ever proven, and only ever wildly ALLEGED.
If this is the calibre of Unherd offerings i seriously think we have gotten nowhere AT ALL. Neither, apparently, do we even want to…
ddd
First time I heard about her was from the Pink Floyd song, Pigs (“Hey you, Whitehouse….haha, charade you are-ah….”). A lot think this refers to the White House (1600 Pennsylvania Ave.), but no….
This reminds me of Osama bin Laden’s manifesto, issued either just before or after 9/11. I remember thinking at the time how much he got right about the decline and decadence of the west. Little that has happened since has caused me to think he was wrong then to say what he did, however unlovely the actions inspired by it.
My summary of this pointless article “Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day”
I’m old enough to remember Whitehouse, right from the start of her campaign. Like most such people who go on about “sex and violence”, she mentioned the latter only as a defence against accusations of prudery; she was, of course, utterly obsessed with sex and could see “filth” anywhere. Ronnie Barker did a spoof of such a person, saying he heard someone clearly say in a recent programme: “Look here”. When asked what was offensive about that he said: “Well, its obvious what he meant – look here through this keyhole and this woman taking her clothes off – her firm young naked body ….” (frantic slurping). Even programme titles were revealing: United; Quick, Before They Catch Us; THE BATH FESTIVAL!! Yes, her National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association did give Jimmy Savile (please note how to spell his name!) an award for “wholesome television”, and he was a member of the ridiculous Longford committee “investigating” pornography. As Bernard Levin said, while she denied advocating censorship it was evident that her proposals really couldn’t mean anything else. Oh, and Sir Hugh Greene’s portrait of her showed her with five breasts, not six, and was entitled SANCTITY. (Pause while you see the pun.) A porn magazine, which I think still exists, was cheekily entitled Whitehouse, and some years ago there was a television series called Ban This Filth spoofing a woman obviously based on Whitehouse in all her sanctimonious idiocy. Things vastly more extreme than in her day are now freely available, and we don’t appear to have sunk into decadence and degredation, so one wonders what she had to worry about.
Couldn’t stand the woman. The PC brigade are even worse.
It’s curious that the article makes no mention of Lord Longford, who with Whitehouse waged a constant campaign against the “filth” of pornography.
After his death, it was revealed that Longford and Whitehouse between them had the largest private collection of pornography in Europe. One can imagine them, sitting side by side, not quite touching (oh the delicious frisson of that near touching!) pouring over page after page of erotica, pausing over a particularly titillating image, sharing that moment of excitement as each new disgusting depiction of genitalia was revealed.
This is classic Freudian denial. Whitehouse was obsessed with sex, perhaps because of her own repressed background. By rejecting consciously the very thing she craved, she was able to strike a balance between her sexual obsession and her repression, her denial offering a cover for her prurient interest.
Many modern feminists seem to display the same psychological defense mechanism, rejecting pornography as somehow “oppressive”, yet endlessly demanding liberation from patriarchal sexual repression. I suspect that an investigation would reveal that the feminists most opposed to the “objectification” of women are precisely those who aren’t getting any male attention.
Alpha plus for that, well done indeed.
This seems like a rather uncharitable interpretation. I would imagine the people who chase internet pedophiles have large amounts of kiddie porn. Is this also Freudian denial, or are they legitimately trying to catch pedophiles?