10.13125/2039-6597/2131
The goal of this article is to analyze from a narrative point of view British television drama Downton Abbey (six seasons from 2010 to 2015), to show how a coherent ideological system is expressed by a television series. Previous literature has identified a “conservative” ideology in Downton Abbey and this article aims to describe the main features of this ideology and the narrative elements that propose them. A structural semiotic approach (mainly based on the theory and models of Algirdas Julien Greimas) has been used to analyze “deep” and abstract levels of narration, such as narrative functions and subjects’ programs. Textual analysis shows how a highly stratified society, led by aristocracy, is described and proposed as a good model. Moreover, aristocracy is proposed as a sacred space that assures this order and that cannot be altered. In fact, the final part of the article analyzes a recurring narrative schema in Downton Abbey: when social change (otherwise tolerated) violates the sacred border of aristocracy, the sacrifice of a character is requested.
application/pdf
2039-6597
2131
11
en
Piero Polidoro
Between
Serial Sacrifices: a Semiotic Analysis of Downton Abbey ideology
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between
6
Televisual Seriality: Analysis
2016-07-26
2016-03-30
2016-06-23
2016-07-26
1
Piero Polidoro
2016/07/26
10.13125/2039-6597/2131
Università LUMSA di Roma
2039-6597
11
en
Serial Sacrifices: a Semiotic Analysis of Downton Abbey ideology
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between/article/download/2131/2052
6
  Serial Sacrifices: a Semiotic Analysis
       of Downton Abbey Ideology
                               Piero Polidoro


                              1. Article goals
     This article aims to show how an ideological interpretation of
society can be expressed in a television series. The British drama
Downton Abbey will be analyzed from this point of view, using a
semiotic method pointing at deep and abstract levels of narration and
the concept of “sacrifice” as it has been treated in anthropology.
According to Umberto Eco (1985), seriality is mainly based on the
repetition of the same narrative schemas. This article will focus on one
of these schemas: the sacrifice of a character in exchange for a
modification of the social order. It will be analyzed to show how
Downton Abbey proposes a coherent and constant ideological message.
Before doing this, it is necessary to discuss the concept of “ideology”
and to review previous literature on the ideological aspects of Downton
Abbey.



              2. Ideology, possible worlds, seriality
     The concept of “ideology” is widely used in social sciences and
humanities. In semiotics it has been discussed and developed by
Roland Barthes (1957; 1964) and Umberto Eco (1968; 1975). According
to Barthes, ideology is the system of connotations that characterizes a
given society in a given historical period. Barthes focuses his attention
on the dominant ideology, the ideology of the leading class, that is, at



Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



the time when he was writing (from the 1950s to the 1970s), the
‘bourgeoisie’. Dominant ideology helps to keep the ‘status quo’,
because it continuously presents meanings and narrations whose
function is to propose as “natural” what is “historical”: what Barthes
means is that the social and cultural (“historical”) construction of
society is hidden by its dominant ideology that aims to persuade
people that the present social order is “natural”, i.e. it could not be
arranged in a different way. But how can ideology achieve this goal?
Barthes uses the term “myth” to indicate narrations that, under a first,
explicit level of meaning, express a second, deeper level of
connotations reinforcing the current ideology: myth presents as natural
what is cultural and reconfirms the ‘status quo’ (Barthes 1957)1.
According to Barthes, semioticians and social scientists ought to
denounce the ideological function of these narrations, unveiling their
mechanisms.
      During the 1960s and 1970s, both Barthes and Eco were very
active in analyzing ideological messages in mass media, focusing
mainly on advertising or newspapers and magazines. But ideology
leaves its traces in any text produced within a given culture; so it can
be found also in fictional texts, such as novels or, more recently,
television series.
      In this case what is at stake is not a representation of the “real”
world (of the world in which we live), but a “possible world” (Jaakko
Hintikka 1967; 1969). Eco has widely used this concept in his narrative
theory (1979; 1990) and it can be useful to understand how ideological
schemas propagate through fictional texts. Eco maintains that a
fictional text proposes to its readers (or viewers) a “possible world”, i.e.
a state of affairs described by some propositions about individual
properties or actions and sometimes provided with a set of rules (the
possible world described by a science fiction novel is equipped with


       For a semiotic point of view on ideology and media, see also Eric Lan-
       1

dowski (1989), who describes a “reflexive society” (société réfléchie), i.e. a soci-
ety that produces, through media, a self-representation, looks at itself in this
mirror and in this way consolidates its values and stereotypes.


2
                                              Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



rules that are partially different from those valid in the actual world).
Possible worlds can be similar (almost identical) to the world we live in
or they can be different, or very different, in many respects. Sometimes
a possible world can be apparently different or far in time and space
from the actual world, but it is indeed a metaphor for it: in Jonathan
Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels Lilliput represents George I’s England; J.K.
Rowling’s Harry Potter saga is set in a magical parallel world in the
1990s, but it is also a metaphor for the heroic resistance of the United
Kingdom against Nazism.
     Fictional texts can thus propose ideological messages that are
even more hidden than usual. They can be disguised in a possible
world that is considered quite distant from ours, but is actually a
metaphor for it. For this reason, costume or historical dramas have
often been studied from an ideological point of view, i.e. as a
representation of a point of view on the contemporary world and a set
of proposed values.
     This article is based on a postulate (which can, of course, be
further investigated and discussed): that television series (and seriality
in general) are even more effective than other kinds of fiction in
transmitting ideological meaning, because they expose the audience to
their messages periodically and for a long span of time (six years in the
case of Downton Abbey)2.
     Finally, a very important clarification: in this article the term
“ideology” does not have the negative connotation suggested by
Barthes, where it was considered as a way of controlling public opinion
by the dominant class. Here a “neutral” definition will be used: an
ideology is a coherent system of values and connotations that
characterizes a culture, a group or that can be temporarily borrowed in
specific circumstances to shape our attitudes. Many ideologies can
coexist or conflict in the same society and can be at the basis of public
debate. Moreover, ideology is not necessarily a message consciously
produced by the author (‘intentio auctoris’ is not pertinent from a


     2
         For a discussion of this “familiarity effect”, see Blanchet – Vaage 2012.


                                                                                     3
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



semiotic point of view): it is only one of the possible interpretations
legitimated by the text.



                         3. Downton Abbey:
             short introduction and previous literature
      Downton Abbey is a British television series created by Julian
Fellowes; six seasons have been produced and aired in the United
Kingdom from 2010 to 20153. The series has won many awards
(including three Golden Globes) and has been universally considered a
critical and commercial success. It is set in England from 1912 to 1925
and tells the story of Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham, and of his
family: his wife Cora and their three daughters Mary, Edith and Sybil.
They live in a splendid mansion (called Downton Abbey) in the
Yorkshire countryside and they are rich landowners. But Downton
Abbey tells also the parallel and sometimes intertwining stories of the
Crawleys’ domestic servants4.
      The first two seasons of Downton Abbey have already been
analyzed from a narrative point of view in two articles by Rosalía
Baena and Christa Byker (2014) and Katherine Byrne (2014). Both of
them consider Downton Abbey as an example of “nostalgia drama”, a

       Except for the first season (7 episodes), each season is made of 8 epi-
       3

sodes plus a “Christmas special”; in this article episodes are numbered from
1 to 9 and the season is indicated by a number following the letter “s” (for
example “ep1.s1” indicates the first episode of the first season). Quotations
from dialogues are taken from the available official scripts (seasons 1-3; Fel-
lowes 2013a; 2013b; 2015) or transcribed from the screen (seasons 4-6).

       Parallel stories of masters and servants are not new in fiction. From
       4

1971 to 1975 ITV broadcasted the television drama Upstairs, Downstairs,
revived by the BBC in 2010. This theme is also common in literature; it has
been applied, for instance, in Ivy Compton-Burnett’s novels or, more
recently, in Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day (1989), adapted to a
movie in 1993.


4
                                        Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



very successful genre in British television, and they focus on the series’
ideological aspects.
      In his lexical analysis of the French word ‘nostalgie’, Algirdas
Julien Greimas considers nostalgia as a passion caused by the
(sometimes obsessive) regret for something that is desired again or that
has never been known (Greimas 1986). Cultural heritage perfectly
satisfies this definition and its ideologized version can be “desired
again” by the public. As Baena and Byker write: «nostalgia is really less
about the past than it is about the present» (2014: 261).
      The favorite period for nostalgia drama is the Edwardian and
post-Edwardian era (King Edward VII reigned from 1901 to 1910, but
the Edwardian era is often extended until the end of World War I).
This is considered a sort of golden age of Englishness and traditional
England thanks to «its refined elegance, its unbounded self-confidence,
its apparently secure global centrality, its middle-class prosperity with
all the attendant visual sumptuousness» (Freedman 1990-1991: 101;
also quoted in Baena – Byker 2014: 260). In Downton Abbey, and in other
nostalgia dramas, this period has been largely «sanitised» (Byrne 2014:
311) in order to offer an idealized picture of the past and an ideological
interpretation of it. What the “traditional” England of Downton Abbey
offers is, first of all, «a feeling of community that works to downplay or
deflect potentially divisive social differences» and that contrasts with
the weakening of unity and sense of ethnicity observed in
contemporary England (Baena – Byker 2014: 261). Cohesion and
stability are proposed as valuable alternatives to the crisis and
uncertainty of the beginning of the 21st century, even if (or perhaps
because) they are the other side of a world characterized by a strong
social stratification: «Paternalism here does away with any need for a
welfare state, and this does seem like a clear attempt to reassure and
comfort an audience dealing with public spending cuts on a scale
unequalled since the 1980s» (Byrne 2014: 320).
      A possible ideological interpretation of Downton Abbey is
summarized by Byrne:




                                                                               5
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



          [...] the Abbey itself deliberately functions as a microcosm for
       the state, and it is difficult to ignore the implication that twenty-
       first century Britain would be more successful if it were organised
       in the same hierarchal and patriarchal way, even if that is not
       “necessarily right” to the modern mind. (Byrne 2014: 315)

      Both articles explicitly call this ideological message
“conservative”; they also underline that heritage or nostalgia dramas
first appeared during Margaret Thatcher’s administration (1979-1990).
Thus Downton Abbey would be the most recent example of an
ideologized genre, and its representation «of a world in which people
work together for the good and the whole, is idyllic and reassuring»
(ibid.: 320). More generally, as Byrne writes:

          Throughout both series, there is no tragedy which cannot be
       overcome with togetherness, loyalty and love. As a metaphor for
       contemporary Britain beset with economic and social difficulties,
       Downton acts as an idealised vehicle of reassurance for its
       audience. [...]
          Ultimately this kind of comforting cohesion and inclusion goes
       a long way towards explaining why Downton, despite its
       complexities, can be viewed as deliberately returning to the
       heyday of 1980s heritage film [...]. Its critics have received it as an
       ideological tool of the Right, a conservative nation in microcosm,
       which put forward traditional values of loyalty and order. (Ibid.:
       324-325)

     Nevertheless, the Edwardian golden age ended: after all, its loss is
what legitimates the term “nostalgia”. Both articles consider Downton
Abbey as the (nostalgic) tale of this fading, accelerated by World War I.
Byrne sees in Thomas Barrow’s advancement during the War (he was
a footman and he becomes the supervisor of the military hospital
established in Downton) the symbol of social change (ibid.: 323). Baena
and Byker are even more explicit:




6
                                           Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



        The sinking of the Titanic, set at the beginning of the story,
     symbolizes the disappearance of an old way of life. The episodes
     in the series depict the reconfiguration of the English aristocracy,
     its relationships with bourgeois values and what it meant for the
     people whose lives were structured by it. With the old way of life
     dying, a new one rises up: modernity enters Downton Abbey (in
     the form of electricity and telephones), the house serves as a
     hospital during the War, and the Crawley daughters find their
     choices widening. (Baena – Byker 2014: 262)

     The nostalgic effect is thus the consequence of the end of an era
led by the aristocracy, which is rapidly substituted by the dominance
of the middle and upper middle class. This interpretation of the
ideological message of Downton Abbey is based, in both articles, on an
analysis of narrative themes and characters (in semiotic terms: themes
and thematic roles). In the following sections, I will try to confirm these
analyses with a semiotic method, extending them to deeper levels of
narration, such as narrative schemas and functions. This will help me
to show that the ideology is not only present on the “surface” of the
text, but also in the highly symbolic narrative mechanisms and
structures. On the basis of the analysis of narrative deep structures and
of some anthropological concepts (the sacred, sacrifice) I will also
propose, in the light of all the six seasons of the series, a slightly
different interpretation, according to which the passage from the
golden age of the aristocracy to the leading role of the upper middle
class is not so obvious and straightforward.



          4. Social stratification in Downton Abbey
     Social stratification is one of the most relevant aspects of the
representation of English society in Downton Abbey. Borders between
classes are clearly defined and the social hierarchy is widely
acknowledged, even by characters that consider it unfair (as Thomas
Barrow) or even fight against it (as Tom Branson). Three main classes



                                                                                  7
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



are depicted in this series: the aristocracy, middle class and working
class. The underclass (or ‘lumpenproletariat’) is rarely seen, and when
it appears it is usually in the background of a particular scene. Even
more rarely, there are underclass characters, but they lack a class
consciousness and they are always fallen from a higher condition, such
as Ethel Parks, a maid who has had a natural child from an injured
Army officer and later has become a prostitute (seasons 2 and 3), or
Prince Kuragin, a Russian aristocrat escaped from the Soviet
Revolution turned into a homeless man (season 5).
      Social classes are further stratified. The apex of aristocracy is of
course the Royal family; a duke is of a higher rank than a marquis, and
a marquis is more important than an earl. This internal hierarchy is
quite evident in ep1.s1 when Charles Carson, the butler, says «[…] it’s
certainly a great day for Downton, to welcome a duke under our roof»;
even more revealing is the Earl of Grantham’s delight when he realizes
that his daughter Edith’s beau has become marquis («Edith would
outrank us all!», ep8.s6) and his admiration when he first enters his
future son-in-law’s castle (ep9.s6).
      It is possible to observe an internal stratification also within the
middle class5. Even if she is certainly the most progressive character
(after Tom Branson, the socialist chauffer), Isobel Crawley strongly
corrects her son Matthew when he relegates them to middle class:

          MATTHEW: Mother, Lord Grantham has made the unwelcome
       discovery that his heir is a middle class lawyer and the son of a
       middle class doctor.
          ISOBEL: Upper middle class. (ep2.s1)

     Even the working class, here mostly represented by Downton
servants, has a precise internal stratification. Male servants, for


      The expression “middle class” can be used to indicate both – more
       5

generally – the class between the aristocracy and the working class, and the
intermediate stratum between the “upper middle class” and the “lower
middle class”.


8
                                         Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



example, follow this hierarchy: butler (the head of staff), vice-butler,
valet, first footman, footmen. When Joseph Molesley, Matthew
Crawley’s butler and valet, loses his job, he tries to be re-hired at
Downton, but he is cross when he is offered a position as footman,
which he considers an unfair demotion, which he finally accepts only
because he has fallen on hard times (ep6.s4). It is not just a matter of
wages, but a strongly symbolic and existentially relevant difference, as
is clear from a dialogue between Molesley and Downton butler,
Carson:

        CARSON: And here are some clean gloves that should fit you.
        MOLESLEY: Gloves, Mr Carson?
        CARSON: I’m sorry, Mr Molesley, you’re not the butler here.
     That is my job. You are a footman and a footman wears gloves.
     (ep3.s4)

     Gloves are not only a mark that helps to distinguish among
different ranks of staff. They are also a symbolic barrier between the
servant and the master. Only a few servants can directly access, and in
some circumstances even touch, their masters. The butler has to
constantly interact with his master; the valet has to touch him, in order
to help him dress; because of their duty, they cross a proxemic
boundary that is forbidden to their colleagues. Molesley, who has been
Matthew’s valet, feels that gloves are a new barrier pushing him back
from the sacred space of his masters’ intimacy.
     This subtle symbolic and proxemic system is evident in many
other cases. Daisy Mason is the scullery maid (so the lowest ranked
servant): she is a kitchen maid and also in charge of lighting the fires in
the fireplaces (ep1.s1). She has to do this early in the morning and to
stay confined to the kitchen for the rest of the day. While occasional
contacts between masters and room maids are tolerated, Daisy has to
be almost invisible and she is constantly afraid of being surprised by
the Crawleys while still in their rooms. Even when her rank improves
and she becomes kitchen assistant, her presence “upstairs” is not




                                                                                9
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



convenient and she needs to be introduced or accompanied by higher
ranked female servants (ep4.s6).
      The servants’ small microcosm is, therefore, internally stratified as
the other classes are. Sometimes it seems to be a scaled-down image of
the entire society. This is quite evident when Carson, the butler, and
Mrs. Hughes, the housekeeper (the highest ranked female servant),
finally marry (ep3.s6): they are now the servants’ “royal couple”, as the
Earl of Grantham and his wife Cora are for the little world of Downton
and as the King and the Queen are for the British aristocracy and the
whole country.



                         5. Relations between classes
      Downton Abbey describes a society organized into classes and the
internal stratification of these classes. But what about the relations
between classes?
      Lord Grantham and his family (the aristocracy) have daily contact
with their servants. Sometimes they also have to deal with the estate
tenants. Servants and farmers are almost the only people from the
working class to be present in the series, while factory workers are for
the most part absent, even when the plot is set in London or other
cities. Downton Abbey gives therefore a partial (or perhaps distorted 6)
representation of the English working class at the beginning of the 20th
century: it is the image of a traditional and rural society and not of an
industrial one.
      Relations between the Crawleys and their servants can be strong,
but always asymmetrical. Carson, the butler, is very loyal to the
aristocratic family and is even more conservative than the Earl about

       Partial and distorted representations of a society are the essence of an
       6

ideological point of view. As we have already seen, a «sanitised» (Byrne
2014: 311) vision of Edwardian society is a prerequisite to its being consid-
ered the golden age of aristocracy and of “traditional” England (but whose
tradition?).



10
                                        Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



traditions and social order. Moreover, he is sometimes a father figure
to Lord Grantham’s eldest daughter, Lady Mary; but it is Lady Mary
who decides when this confidence is allowed (ep1.s4). While some
servants (such as Mrs. Hughes and Thomas Barrow) are more
pragmatic and disenchanted about their bonds with their masters,
prefiguring a more modern and democratic contractual relationship,
others are deeply involved with them, showing emotions or attitudes
ranging from devotion (Carson), to loyalty (Mr. Bates – Lord
Grantham’s valet – and his wife Anna – Lady Mary’s maid) and hatred
(Mrs. O’Brien – Lady Grantham’s maid). Emotional bonds are possible
in the opposite direction too (for example Lord Grantham’s affection
for his former comrade in arms Mr. Bates or Lady Mary’s protective
concern about her maid’s health), but these are usually weaker. This
asymmetry is quite evident when someone from the staff leaves
Downton: the servant is usually moved (even the cynical Barrow
admits with Mrs. Hughes that «this is the first place I’ve found where
I’ve laid down some roots», ep7.s6), while Lord Grantham settles the
matter with a handshake and some good wishes. In the final episode
(ep9.s6), Carson’s substitution with Thomas, a real earthquake for the
series audience, is decided very quickly, and the former butler and his
wife Mrs. Hughes leave the scene from a service door while a big party
goes on.
      This asymmetrical relation is also symbolized by the spatial
organization of Downton Abbey, as it was before in the classic TV
drama Upstairs, downstairs (Baena and Byker 2014; Byrne 2014), whose
title explicitly refers to the distinction between masters (upstairs) and
servants (downstairs). The Downton basement houses the kitchen, the
butler’s and housekeeper’s offices and the dining room where the
servants spend their day when not busy with their duties; at night,
they sleep in their (single or double) rooms in the loft. The servants
thus occupy the bottom and the top of the mansion’s vertical space,
while the Crawleys live, eat and sleep in the middle; a spatial
organization that suggests from one side the centrality of the
aristocratic family, from the other side how the servants loyally protect
it.


                                                                              11
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



       Also the upper middle class sometimes has servants, but they are
limited to what is strictly essential. When Matthew Crawley and his
mother Isobel arrive at Downton village (ep2.s1) they expect to be
assisted by a maid and a cook, as it was in Manchester, and Matthew
has a hard time accepting a butler and valet, Mr Molesley. Moreover,
relationships between the upper middle class and servants are more
impersonal and professional.
       The aristocracy has a more friendly relation with the working
class (servants and farmers) than with the upper middle class. This
could be considered a paradox, the upper middle class being closer to
the aristocracy in the social stratification. But it is exactly this proximity
that creates suspicion and hostility between these two classes, and it is
not by chance that the conflict with the aristocracy is much weaker for
the middle class than for the upper middle class; the middle class is
still sufficiently distant from the aristocracy and so can admire it (this
is shown for example in the scene when Downton Abbey is open to the
public, ep6.s6), and the aristocracy can still view the lower classes with
indulgence (for example former maid Gwen’s social advancement is
approved and celebrated because she has not risen too much, ep4.s6).
       On the contrary, apical figures in the upper middle class are little
accepted. This does not only concern Matthew (who, being the
unexpected heir, is seen – at least at the beginning – as an usurper), but
many other characters. In season 2, Mary first dates and then becomes
engaged with Sir Richard Carlisle, an unscrupulous tabloid publisher
and a proud self-made man, who is considered with annoyance and
even some degree of disgust by Lord Grantham (and by Carson too);
when Carlisle, who is going to marry Mary, announces his intention to
buy Haxby Park, a great mansion near Downton, Robert does conceal
his uneasiness in thinking of a former aristocratic country estate owned
by a social climber (ep6.s2). Another publisher, Michael Gregson, even
if a much more positive and honest character than Sir Carlisle, sadly
finds that the Crawleys oppose his romance with Edith, Lord
Grantham’s second daughter (ep9.s3 and season 4). Another example
could be Charles Blake, a progressive official of the liberal government
who is in charge of a survey on the economic health of country estates.


12
                                        Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



He is considered as an enemy because he sides with social and
agricultural reform, while he simply cannot accept the aristocracy’s
claim of being entitled to its prosperity. Mary and Blake will later
improve their relationship, but Blake will be seriously considered as a
possible husband only when Mary discovers that he is, actually, the
heir of a wealthy baronet (ep9.s4).



6. Narrative structures: subjects and narrative programs
     In sections 4 and 5 I have described Downton Abbey’s
representation and connotation of a stratified society. To fully
understand if the series really expresses a conservative ideology and
what this would mean, I propose to go further and to analyze more
abstract and deep levels of narration. In the following pages I will
recur to, above all, the structural method of “generative” semiotics,
elaborated by Greimas and his school during the 1970s and the 1980s 7.
     According to Greimas every Subject has a narrative program
(‘programme narratif’ or PN), i.e. an action he or she aims to
accomplish; PN can be expressed in the following way:

                          PN = S1 → (S2 ∩ Ov)

     where S1 is the Subject that will eventually do the action and who
the PN belongs to, S2 is the Subject that will be affected by the action,
and Ov (‘object de valeur’) is an (even abstract) element that has a
positive or negative value for the Subjects involved. Subjects can be
conjunct with (symbol ∩) or disjointed from (symbol U) the Object.
Expression 1 means that a Subject (S1) does or will do something to
make another Subject (S2) conjunct with Ov (a father that builds a kite
for his son). S1 and S2 are narrative functions, abstract elements of
narrative structures. This means that they can also coexist in the same

     Greimas’ theory and method are exposed in different works, such as
     7

Greimas (1970; 1983) and Greimas – Courtés (1979; 1986).


                                                                              13
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



character (or Actor, in Greimas’ terminology), as when I do something
to get something I desire.
     Every Subject has a PN, but I will focus on Robert’s one, because
Robert is the head of the Crawleys (who represent the entire
aristocracy). One could think that Robert’s aim is to enjoy a life of
pleasures and privileges (and certainly – at least partially and
unconsciously – it is), but he is very clear about what his duty is:

           MARY: The only one who never sticks out for me in all is you.
       Why is that?
           ROBERT: You are my darling daughter and I love you, hard as
       it is for an Englishman to say the words.
           MARY: Well, then...
           ROBERT: If I had made my own fortune and bought Downton
       for myself, it should be yours without questions, but I did not. My
       fortune is the work of others, who labored to build a great
       dynasty. Do I have the right to destroy their work? Or impoverish
       that dynasty? I am a custodian, my dear, not an owner [my italics]. I
       must strive to be worthy of the task I have been set. If I could take
       Mama’s money out of the estate, Downton would have to be sold
       to pay for it. Is that what you want? To see Matthew a landless
       peer with a title, but no means to pay for it?
           MARY: So I’m just to find a husband and get out of the way?
           ROBERT: You could stay here if you married Matthew. (ep4.s1)

      Robert is a custodian, his task is to preserve his dynasty fortune,
which is in turn functional to the dynasty’s prominence; of course, he is
part of this dynasty and he takes advantage of this wealth, but his PN
is clearly stated and can be resumed, again, by expression 1. This time
S1 is Robert, S2 his dynasty (Robert is both S1 and part of S2, that is a
“collective” Actor), Ov the estate and the family patrimony. The fact
that the aim of the PN is to preserve (and not to transform) a given
situation (Robert’s family already owns the estate) means that this is a
difficult action, i.e. that the Crawleys’ prosperity is constantly
threatened by something. And, in fact, this goal becomes even more
difficult (almost desperate) after World War I.


14
                                         Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)




    7. Downton and England as well-ordered societies
      When a PN is set for a Subject, it means that the Subject has
received it from another narrative element, what Greimas calls the
Addresser (‘destinateur’). Who is Robert’s Addresser? It’s his dynasty,
of course, that is at the same time Addresser and recipient of Robert’s
actions. But it is also something wider and more general than the
dynasty.
      It is, first of all, the complex entangled unity between the dynasty
and its possessions. As Robert clearly says in the passage quoted
before, a «landless peer» is inconceivable. And when he is in economic
difficulties and considers moving to a smaller house, he proposes to
rename it Downton Place, as if a continuity in the name of the mansion
were as important as a continuity in the family name (ep3.s3).
      The estate, and Downton Abbey above all, is the concrete, tangible
representation of the dynasty and, therefore, of the Addresser. This is
quite clear in iconic images of the series, widely used – for instance –
on DVD covers. The image is always structured with a group of
characters organized along a sort of asymmetric W without the last leg;
Fig. 1 is from the first season and Fig. 2 from the fourth, while Fig. 3
represents them in diagram form.




                     Fig. 1 – Downton Abbey, season 1


                                                                               15
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices




                             Fig. 2 – Downton Abbey, season 4




                  Fig. 3 – A diagram of the structure of Figs. 1 and 2

     On the left (segment a and first part of segment b) there are the
servants, on the right the masters (b and c). The two forward vertexes
are occupied by the apical figures of the two groups: the butler Carson
(vertex A) and the Earl of Grantham (vertex C); but the former is
usually a step behind the line of the latter (except in the season 5


16
                                           Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



official image). Behind them, the other characters, organized in
hierarchical order (Cora, Robert’s wife, is always next to him, as Mrs.
Hughes – the housekeeper – is next to the butler; Robert’s daughters
are always in birth order) or, secondary, according to other criteria (for
instance, their relevance in the season). Iconography, therefore,
confirms the strict social stratification represented in the story.
      But what I want to focus on here is the constant presence of
Downton Abbey in the background. It is not only a matter of scenic
effect or of a symbolic landmark. It is also the visual position of the
Addresser: in public offices the portrait of the Head of State
(representing the nation) is hung on the wall behind the officer’s desk;
and in the same Head of State’s portrait, a national flag (the ultimate
symbol of the nation) is usually seen in the background.
      Downton Abbey can be therefore considered as the plastic
representation of the Addresser; but the Addresser seems now to be
something more than the existence and the prosperity of the Crawley
dynasty. This glimpse of English countryside is not only the symbol of
a family history, but also of England itself 8, or better of a specific idea
of England as a country identified with its aristocracy. This England is
first of all an ideal and idealized system, based on a clear and regulated
social stratification (as we have already seen), a well-ordered society
(Rawls 2001; 2005) where everyone has their role and their place and in
turn receives their proportional share of prosperity and peace. When
Matthew wants to dismiss his valet, Mr Molesley, because he believes
his role is a formality and unnecessary, he receives a lesson from
Robert that he will very quickly learn:

       ROBERT: Is that quite fair? To deprive a man of his livelihood,
     when he’s done nothing wrong?
       MATTHEW: Well, I wouldn’t quite put it-


     8 «The English estate, “a man’s castle”, is a powerful, omnipresent men-
tal construct and a symbol of English national heritage. Indeed, Downton’s
very existence and future are important catalyzers for the conflicts and rela-
tionships in the plot» (Baena – Byker 2014: 263).


                                                                                 17
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



          ROBERT: Your mother derives satisfaction from her work at the
       hospital, I think? Some sense of self worth?
          MATTHEW: Certainly.
          ROBERT: Would you really deny the same to poor old
       Molesley? And when you are master here? Is the butler to be
       dismissed? Or the footmen? How many maids or kitchen staff will
       be allowed to stay? Or must everyone be driven out? We all have
       different parts to play, Matthew. And we must all be allowed to
       play them. (ep2.s1)

     So, there is a social order that assures everyone their share of
happiness and prosperity. There is a common interest to preserve this
social order, even if it does not give the same opportunities to
everyone. The moral and economic engine of this society is aristocracy,
through its values and its consumption activity. To be the custodian of
Downton Abbey means not only to preserve the property for the
dynasty, but also to assure an entire community of its wealth. This is,
of course, the point of view of the aristocracy, the way it looks at and
interprets the world or, at least, it is the point of view that the series
depicts and proposes to its audience. The aristocracy, the class
producing this vision, considers it to be impartial, “natural” (in
Barthes’ terms), even if it clearly coincides with its interests; from this
perspective, which is perfectly embodied by Violet (Robert’s mother), it
is England itself and its spirit that is the real Addresser.



      8. Social change as the violation of a sacred order
     A well-ordered society does not exclude some controlled change.
In Downton Abbey social mobility is tolerated and sometimes seen as
positive and functional (as when former maid Gwen becomes the wife
of a respected and active upper middle class man, ep4.s6). But there is
a limit that cannot be crossed, and this is the territory of the leading
class: the aristocracy.




18
                                           Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



       The first to violate this order is Tom Branson, the chauffer, who
marries Lord Grantham’s third daughter, Sybil, despite her family’s
opposition. The price they have to pay is to go away and live, by their
own means, in Dublin, where Tom comes from (ep8.s2). They will
return to Downton some months later for Mary and Matthew’s
wedding (ep1.s3), and, a second time, when they have to leave Ireland
after Tom has been involved in a revolt (ep4.s3). But Sybil will die soon
after the birth of their daughter (ep5.s3)9.
       Another intrusion is Mary and Matthew’s marriage. It is true that
Matthew is the direct heir of Robert, but he clearly and proudly
belongs to the upper middle class. He saves Downton in three different
ways: after Robert has lost the family fortune in bad investments,
Matthew prevents bankruptcy thanks to a large sum of money
inherited from his former fiancée’s father, a rich upper middle class
solicitor (ep3.s3); he guarantees Downton’s financial survival in the
post-WWI economy by establishing a more modern and efficient
management of the estate; and, above all, together with Mary he gives
a new heir to the Crawleys. And on the same day that his son is born
(as it was for Sybil) he is killed in a car accident (ep9.s3).
       When he dies, Matthew’s character is stuck at a crossroads. He
still has many features of the young upper middle class solicitor, but he
has also learned to appreciate some aspects of aristocratic life and
values. At the very beginning of the series he declares he does not hunt
and this symbolically opposes him to Mary and her family:

         MARY: Do you hunt?
         MATTHEW: No. I don’t hunt.


     9
       The ternary structure represented by the Crawley sisters (Mary, Edith
and Sybil) is broken by the death of the youngest one, Sybil (ep5.s3). But it
will soon be restored. From the end of season 3 (ep9.s3) until the end of sea-
son 5 (ep9.s5), Lord Grantham’s young niece, Rose MacClare, lives at Down-
ton, while her parents are in India. Rose is a frivolous person, while Sybil
was trustworthy and socially active, but they are similar in their liveliness
and in their intolerance for aristocratic rules.


                                                                                 19
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



          VIOLET: I dare say there is not much opportunity in
       Manchester.
          MATTHEW: Are you a hunting family?
          MARY: Families like ours are always hunting families.
          ROBERT: Not always. Billy Skelton won’t have them on his
       land.
          MARY: But all the Skeltons are mad.
          MATTHEW: Do you hunt?
          MARY: Occasionally. I suppose you are more interested in
       books than in country sports.
          MATTHEW: I probably am. You’ll tell me that’s rather
       unhealthy.
          MARY: Not unhealthy. Just unusual. Among our kind of
       people. (ep2.s1)

     But just before coming back to Downton to see his new born son,
we find Matthew in Scotland, learning how to hunt deer (ep9.s3).
     Matthew’s transformation is evident in the way he considers the
romance between Edith and her publisher, Michael Gregson. On the
one hand, he supports Edith’s project of writing a newspaper column
dealing with the condition of the modern woman; on the other hand,
he – unexpectedly – discourages Gregson from pursuing a relationship
with her because he is a married man, even if his wife lives in an
asylum and there is no hope she will recover.

          GREGSON: So the laws of the society would be preserved, no
       matter what? Edith gave me the impression you were a freer soul
       than that.
          MATTHEW: I find that hard to believe. I agree, your position is
       tragic, and I’m very sorry. But you can’t imagine I would let Edith
       slide into a life of scandal without lifting a finger to stop her.
       (ep9.s3)10




        The parallel between Matthew and Gregson and their common mid-
       10

dle class origin is underlined in what is said at the end of this conversation,


20
                                          Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



       Nevertheless, Matthew remains a champion of modernity. A
symbol of this arriving modernity is the car. Cars are accepted in the
Downton world, but under certain conditions. If they are used for
practical reasons, as a tool to do something, they concern the working
class and so are not appropriate for the aristocracy, unless driven by a
chauffeur, like Tom. Only Edith, to show she is emancipated and as
good as her sister Sybil (who is serving as a nurse in a military
hospital), learns to drive, but there is the stigma of an impossible and
inconvenient love affair with Mr. Drake, a local farmer (ep2.s2). Cars
can be driven by gentlemen only for hobby (Anthony Strallan in season
1) or for sport (Henry Talbot in seasons 5 and 6). But Matthew, the
middle class solicitor, drives for practical reasons: he uses the car as a
means of transport, as a servant would do. Coming back from
honeymoon he buys a car, causing Robert’s concern («What in God’s
name is this? [...] Well, at least it’s English», ep2.s3), and in their very
last conversation Matthew and Mary jokes about what will later
become a typical middle class stereotype on wives and cars (MARY:
«I’ll remind you of that next time I scratch the car»; MATTHEW: «Do. I
give you full permission», ep9.s3). But he pays for this modernity and
independence: as I have anticipated, he dies driving the car, on the
way back from the hospital; if he had had a chauffeur, as Robert would
have, he would probably have arrived home safe.
       Sybil and Matthew are not the only characters to pay with their
lives an upturning of the social order. Mr. Gregson’s story reminds us
of Matthew’s one. He does not marry Edith, but they have a child

where their personal luck is compared and Matthew does a prophetic con-
sideration:
        GREGSON: It’s odd the way we’re punished for things, when
     we’re not to blame.
        MATTHEW: But we also get rewards we don’t deserve. It’s
     called luck. And I’m afraid you’ve had a rotten luck.
        GREGSON: More than you, I suspect.
        MATTHEW: Perhaps, touch wood, but you never know what’s
     coming.



                                                                                21
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



(Marigold), born after his disappearance in Germany (ep6.s4; in ep4.s5
it is revealed that Gregson has been killed in Munich by Nazi
Brownshirts during the Beer Hall Putsch), and he leaves Edith the
ownership of his magazine. Henry Talbot too is not truly an aristocrat:
he belongs to the junior branch of a family headed by an Earl but he is
very far from the title («About forty strong men would have to drop
dead»; ep4.s6). But his behavior is much more aristocratic than
Matthew’s: it seems his only occupation is car racing and he is used to
a London upper class lifestyle. Nevertheless, the turning point of his
romance with Mary is the racing accident in which his best friend,
Charles Roger, dies (ep7.s6).
      The closed circle of aristocracy, which is at the heart of the entire
social order, can be considered a sacred space; I am using the term
“sacred” in its broader meaning: something that is set apart from the
“profane” and is not normally accessible or at people’s disposal. Even
those who are allowed to be part of it must undergo rites of passage
(Van Gennep 1909), such as Rose's presentation at court (ep9.s4). But
all others should not enter this space. Every time this happens, despite
tradition and convenience, the sacred social order is broken and it
reacts demanding a sacrifice:

          Social order is one with cosmic order. The rules of respect (teck)
       keep men and things that should be separated well apart […]
       Everyone is in his own place when everything goes well, but
       when an offence has been committed, deliberately or accidentally,
       this symbolic order is threatened at a precise point. The sacrificial
       debt must be paid in order to put the system back in place (De
       Heusch 1985: 13-14).

     Anthropology considers sacrifice as a ritualized offering to the
gods, but its function and phenomenology may vary. Here it is not to
be considered literally: there is no ritual nor explicit offering, but the
very essence of what De Heusch describes – something or someone is
sacrificed to repair a violation of the sacred order – is clearly present.




22
                                        Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)



      Repeating many times this narrative schema, Downton Abbey
proposes British aristocracy as this sacred social and cosmic order.
Even if it is not possible to deny or stop its decline, aristocracy is
presented in its sacred superiority, and this is the very essence of the
series’ conservativeness.
      Exceptions confirm this hypothesis. Cora comes from the
American upper middle class, but when Downton Abbey begins she has
been married to Robert for more than twenty years. “Bertie” Pelham
would be another case of violation of this order, but, before marrying
Edith, he unexpectedly becomes marquis (ep8.s6). In season 5,
Matthew’s mother, Isobel, becomes engaged to Richard Gray, Baron of
Merton and godfather to Mary Crawley; but the strong opposition of
Richard’s disdainful son persuades Isobel to renounce their marriage.
In ep9.s6, she revises her decision and announces she will marry Lord
Merton, but only after learning that he is dying of pernicious anemia.
In the very last scene of the series, they will discover that Lord Merton
is not dying and he has only a weak form of anemia; but in the
meanwhile he has left his mansion to live with Isobel in her home: they
live together, but as an upper middle class family.



                           9. Conclusions
     The hypothesis at the basis of this article was that a television
series can express and propose an ideology, i.e. a coherent system of
value and a point of view on society. Here the term “ideology” has not
been used with a negative connotation: ideologies can freely coexist
and compete in the same society.
     This article is focused on the ideological message in Downton
Abbey. I have tried to show how a semiotic approach, integrated with
anthropological concepts and applied to abstract levels of narration
(narrative functions, programs) and to other aspects (such as
iconography) can support and deepen the analysis of themes and
characters. The “conservative” ideology of Downton Abbey resides,
from this point of view, in the fact it presents aristocracy as a sacred


                                                                              23
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



space that assures a well-ordered society for everyone: social change is
possible, but it is seen as a perturbation of this sacred order and thus
requires a tribute.




24
                                            Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)




                               Works Cited
Baena, Rosalía – Byker, Christa, “Dialects of Nostalgia: Downton Abbey
    and English Identity”, National Identities, 17:3 (2014): 259-269.
Barthes, Roland, Mytologies, Paris, Seuil, 1957.
Barthes, Roland, “Rhétorique de l’image”, Communications, 4 (1964): 40-
    51; now in Id. L’Obvie et l’obtus. Essais critiques III, Paris, Seuil 1982 :
    25-42.
Blanchet, Robert – Vaage, Margrethe Bruun, “Don, Peggy, and Other
    Fictional Friends? Engaging with Characters in Television Series”,
    Projections, 6.2 (2012): 18-41.
Byrne, Katherine, “Adapting heritage: Class and Conservatisme in
    Downton Abbey”, Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Prac-
    tice, 18.3 (2014): 311-327.
De Heusch, Luc, Sacrifice in Africa. A Structuralist Approach, Manchester,
    Manchester University Press, 1985.
Eco, Umberto, La struttura assente, Milano, Bompiani, 1968.
Eco, Umberto, Trattato di semiotica generale, Milano, Bompiani, 1975.
Eco, Umberto, Lector in fabula, Milano, Bompiani, 1979.
Eco, Umberto, “L’innovazione nel seriale”, Id., Sugli specchi e altri saggi,
    Milano, Bompiani, 1985: 125-146.
Eco, Umberto, I limiti dell’interpretazione, Milano, Bompiani, 1990.
Fellowes, Julian, Downton Abbey. The Complete Scripts. Season One, New
    York, Harper Collins, 2013a.
Fellowes, Julian, Downton Abbey. The Complete Scripts. Season Two, New
    York, Harper Collins, 2013b.
Fellowes, Julian, Downton Abbey. The Complete Scripts. Season Three,
    New York, Harper Collins, 2015.
Freedman, Carl, “England as Ideology: From Upstairs, Downstairs to A
    Room with a View”, Cultural Critique, 17 (1990-1991): 79-106.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien, Du Sens, Paris, Seuil, 1970.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien, Du Sens II, Paris, Seuil, 1983.



                                                                                  25
Piero Polidoro, Serial Sacrifices



Greimas, Algirdas Julien, “De la nostalgie. Étude de sémantique lexi-
   cale”, Actes Sémiotiques. Bulletin, 39 (1986): 5-11.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien – Courtés, Joseph, Sémiotique. Dictionnaire rai-
   sonné de la théorie du langage, Paris, Hachette, 1979.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien – Courtés, Joseph, Sémiotique. Dictionnaire rai-
   sonné de la théorie du langage. Tome II, Paris, Hachette, 1986.
Hintikka, Jakko, “Individuals, Possible Worlds and Epistemic Logic”,
   Noûs, 1.1 (1967): 33-62.
Hintikka, Jakko, On the Logic of Perception. Models for Modalities, Dord-
   recht, Reidel, 1969.
Landowski, Eric, La Société réfléchie, Paris, Seuil, 1989.
Rawls, John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, Harvard
   University Press, 2001.
Rawls, John, Political Liberalism. Expanded Edition, New York, Columbia
   University Press, 2005.
Van Gennep, Arnold, Les Rites de passage, Paris, Nourry, 1909.



                                    The Author
Piero Polidoro

Piero Polidoro is Assistant Professor (Ricercatore) in Semiotics at
LUMSA University in Rome. He has obtained is PhD in Semiotics at
University of Bologna under the supervision of Umberto Eco and
Patrizia Violi. His main interests are General Semiotics, Visual
Semiotics and application of Semiotics to digital media. Among his
publications the volumes Che cos’è la semiotica visiva (2008) and Umberto
Eco e il dibattito sull’iconismo (2012). He has written many articles in
Italian and English.

        Email: piero.polidoro@gmail.com




26
                                         Between, vol. VI, n. 11 (Maggio/May 2016)




                              The paper
Date sent: 30/01/2016
Date accepted: 15/04/2016
Date published: 31/05/2016



                     How to quote this paper
Polidoro, Piero, “Serial Sacrifices: a Semiotic Analysis of Downton
Abbey Ideology”, Forme, strategie e mutazioni del racconto seriale, Eds. A.
Bernardelli – E. Federici – G. Rossini, Between, VI.11 (2016),
http://www.betweenjournal.it.




                                                                               27
