ARTE do MAIO de 68 outra vez atual do lado oposto da polĂtica!
|\| ART BLOG HUMOR BLOG PHOTO BLOG CULTURE BLOG |:| FOR THE RENAISSANCE MAN & THE POLYMATH WOMAN |/|
Picture that moment when you finally get to the beach after a long winter, excitedly peel off your clothes, run madly towards the water and crash into the salty waves without a care in the world … this is not that. If you were a beachgoer in Georgian or Victorian times, more specifically, a female beachgoer, your day at the seaside would’ve likely had all the fun sucked out of it by a little invention known as the bathing machine.
At its peak of popularity, the purpose of the bathing machine was all about those crazy rules of bathing etiquette that they upheld in the 18th and 19th century, which kept women and their beach bodies out of sight (while the men frollicked freely on the beach, of course). The wooden carts with two doors on either sides allowed bathers to change out of their clothes and into their bathing suits without having to be seen by the opposite sex walking across the beach in ‘improper clothing’, which in those days, on the gender-segregated beaches of Europe, would have been the modern-day equivalent of the walk of shame. The four-wheeled box would be rolled out to sea, usually by horse or sometimes human power and hauled back in when the beachgoer signalled to the driver by raising a small flag attached to the roof. Some machines were equipped with a canvas tent lowered from the seaside door, capable of being lowered to the water, giving the bather greater privacy.
Once deep enough in the surf, our bather would then exit the cart using the door facing away from prying eyes on the beach and proceed to paddle. For inexperienced swimmers (which would have been most Victorian women in their billowing swimwear), some beach resorts offered the service of a “dipper”, a strong person of the same sex who would escort the bather out to sea in the cart and essentially push them into the water and yank them out when they were done. As long you as you didn’t drown, for the average Victorian, this sobering experience could be considered a successful day at the beach.
She’s got the right idea! This early cartoon shows a female swimmer taking full advantage of the ‘privacy’ provided by a bathing machine.
Bathing machines began popping up around the 1750s when swimwear hadn’t yet been invented and most people still swam naked. But even when early forms of swimwear did start being introduced, society conveniently decided that a ‘proper woman’ should not be seen on the beach in her bathing suit. Totally logical.
At their most popular, bathing machines lined the beaches of Britain and parts of the British Empire, as well as France, Germany, the United States and Mexico.
An example of an early bathing machine, equipped with a canvas tent lowered from the seaside door for extra privacy.
An advertisement suggests an oh-so practical alternative to the bathing-machine.
No expense was spared on this upgraded mechanical bathing machine which belonged to King Alfonso XIII, located in San Sebastian, Spain, photographed in 1908.
When legal segregation of bathing areas in Britain ended in 1901 and it finally became acceptable for both genders to bathe together, it was the beginning of the end for the bathing machine. By the the 1920s, they were almost entirely extinct, only finding use catering to an elderly clientele.
An excerpt from The Traveller’s Miscellany and Magazine of Entertainment, written in 1847 recalls the details of a luxury bathing machine…
The interior is all done in snow-white enamel paint, and one-half of the floor is pierced with many holes, to allow of free drainage form wet flannels. The other half of the little room is covered with a pretty green Japanese rug. In one corner is a big-mouthed green silk bag lined with rubber. Into this the wet bathing-togs are tossed out of the way. There are large bevel-edged mirrors let into either side of the room, and below one juts out a toilet shelf, on which is every appliance. There are pegs for towels and the bathrobe, and fixed in one corner is a little square seat that when turned up reveals a locker where clean towels, soap, perfumery, etc. are stowed. Ruffles of white muslin trimmed with lace and narrow green ribbons decorate every available space.
In an era of Brazilian bikinis and topless beaches, you wouldn’t think to find any trace of the bygone bathing machines, but think twice the next time you go to the seaside and use the services of changing cabin. Some of the bathing machines have indeed survived to this day as beach huts. Those adorably photogenic and colourful little beach houses? They’re direct successors of the Georgian bathing machine! When they were no longer needed for being carted out to sea, many were simply stripped of their wheels and plonked permanently back on the beach– a little-known reminder of eccentric seaside history.
Perhaps worth bringing back today as playful seafaring picnic huts?!
Images via Love is Speed
| 24/05/2025, 11:30 (há 2 dias) | ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
|
Journalist Roan Asselman from Doorbraak magazine posed the following questions to Patrick Deneen. His answers - in Dutch - were published in a recent issue here, and the original English text is made available to PLO subscribers, below: DB: Typically, the individual and the state are perceived as being in opposition to oneanother. In your book, Why Liberalism Failed, you argue that this is not the case. Could you elaborate on this perspective? PJD: According to liberal philosophy, humans are by nature autonomous free individuals. The theory holds that the state comes into being in order to protect their individual rights. If and when the state exceeds that mandate, it becomes an oppressive force limiting the natural rights of individuals, and needs to be trimmed back. Of course, the theory of naturally free human beings is completely false: Postliberal Order is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. humans are deeply interconnected creatures whose lives are made possible by mutual need and obligations, not autonomy. Liberal practice in fact ends up as a project in which humans are to be liberated from those natural obligations, replaced by increasingly impersonal relationships. The state (along with a globalized market) becomes the main force that creates the conditions for liberation from family, community, churches, and ultimately even nations. Thus, a powerful and expansive state is needed to create the individual, contrary to liberal theory (which holds that humans are naturally individuals). The ”successes” of the liberal order advances this paradox: the more it creates individuals, the more individuals come to rely upon the state; and the more powerful the state becomes, the more insecure, weak, and less free individuals become. As we approach the apex of the liberal order, we are both less connected (hence more free) as individuals, and weaker (and hence less free) in our isolation. As liberalism succeeds, liberalism fails. DB: The political landscape, both in the United States and Europe, is often characterized asa battle between “conservatives”; and “progressives.” Interestingly, you use the terms “progressive liberals” and “conservative liberals” to describe much of the politicalestablishment in the United States. This implies a similarity between these two types of‘liberals’. PJD: Until Trump’s electoral victory, this was absolutely the case, and even today remains a powerful organizing principle within the mainstream organizations of American politics. Building off my last answer, liberalism advances historically in two stages. The first stage forefronts the ideal of the rugged natural individual who supports the creation of a limited state in order to secure individual rights; the second stage advances the ideal that the true individual only emerges when liberation is assisted by a powerful state. Both approaches embrace the ideal end of the liberated individual, but differ over the means. The two liberal parties will engage in tempestuous debates over those means (especially the respective priority given to free markets vs. the role of government in realizing the ideal of the liberated individual), but the goal of individual liberation, which they share, will always be mutually advanced. With the rise of populist movements that have rejected this liberationist ethos – emphasizing instead shared national fates and the need for political and economic solidarity – these supposedly “opposite” right and left liberal parties have been revealed to have been a “uniparty” all along – with Never Trumpers becoming Democrats, and a variety of “Grand Coalitions” forming throughout Europe (e.g., Germany) to prevent a genuine challenge to liberalism. DB: Some conservatives dismiss wealth inequality as irrelevant, arguing that the general economic trajectory of Western countries shows increasing GDPs. They contend that since fewer people are poor, the wealth gap between the rich and the poor is less significant. Whatis your perspective on this viewpoint? PJD: This perspective is an operating assumption of classical liberalism, sometimes called falsely called “conservatism” in the U.S., or “neo-liberalism” by the left (which is, in fact, not “neo” at all). Classical liberalism advanced the belief that economic inequality was the result of the natural liberation of individuals, in which natural inequalities would result in economic differentiation. While this was potentially politically destabilizing, classical liberals argued that the overall positive benefits of growing prosperity to society would outweigh negative political discontent and instability. The phrase “a rising tide raises all boats” was invoked both by John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan as a shorthand explanation of how everyone stood to benefit from economic inequality. A major result of this philosophy has been the creation of an oligarchy that increasingly separates itself from those who are deemed economic “losers.” Economic solidarity is discarded and replaced by a zero-sum ethos of winners vs. losers. The “rising tide” was increasingly benefiting only the “winners,” who regarded the losers as having earned their fates. The resulting division in U.S. society has been the source of deep political divisions that ultimately elicited in the elections of Donald Trump. Once again, the “uniparty” sought to maintain the oligarchic arrangements of the individualistic liberal order, but was defeated by a successful political uprising of the working class. DB: The Vice President of the United States has cited you as one of his major influences,and Politico referred to you as “one of the seven intellectual forces behind JD Vance’sworldview.” Do you perceive a shift away from liberal orthodoxy in the new Republican Party? PJD: What is often characterized as “populism” is, in fact, a form of democratic anti-liberalism, or what I have termed “common good conservatism.” It rejects both the economic individualism of classical liberalism and the individualism of progressive liberalism (especially radical emancipatory beliefs connected to the sexual revolution and its hostility to family, community, and nation). Vice-President Vance is the first major political figure in the U.S. who has deeply comprehended the faulty basis and results of both individualisms, an understanding he arrived at first from his challenging experience growing up in Appalachia, and then as someone who began reading and deeply studying the sources and alternatives to the liberal condition that had destroyed the working class of his home region. His position constitutes a rejection of both “faces” of liberalism, right and left, and therefore a new alignment in U.S. politics. DB: Some members of the current administration regard the bureaucracy and civil service asentities to be dismantled. However, you have expressed a different perspective. PJD: The current administration is united in its belief that the “progressive” agenda of the U.S. bureaucracy and beyond – today at the core of elite American institutions (e.g., media and education) - needs to be defeated and dismantled. There is disagreement ultimately on whether that dismantling means simply “getting rid of government,” or erecting a conservative alternative in its place. This division roughly runs between the “tech world” libertarianism represented by Elon Musk, and the MAGA demand for a more nationalist economy and renewal of American civic life articulated by Steve Bannon. While these two positions might be thought to be opposites, the actual unfolding of priorities in the new administration will be one of ongoing negotiation and trial-and-error in which both tactics will be simultaneously pursued. In some cases, there will simply be dismantling of progressive institutions, as in the case of USAID. In other cases, there will be efforts to use the federal government to positively advance a conservative agenda, as I expect we will see in economic policies that advances economic nationalism; support for family formation; and a shift in the aims of education in a more conservative direction. The apparent division is minimized due to its shared opposition to progressivism, and an underlying agreement that there will be specific “lanes” for each. You're currently a free subscriber to Postliberal Order. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. © 2025 The Postliberals |