The project is ours, it is all up for grabs and it is for us to work out. Nations endure if we will them. It is not the state or any orchestrated notion of national identity that will capture the greatest investment.
So concludes Charlotte Williams, Professor of Social Studies at Keele University, in this extract from "Breaking up Britain". She looks at "post-devolution" identities and questions whether they would be, as English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh nationalism generally claims, naturally more inclusive or egalitarian than those which exist presently on the bigger canvas of the United Kingdom.
"Did this new separateness offer the potential (for the United Kingdom’s ethnic minorities)for reconciliation with or retreat from the notion of Britishness".
Ms Williams cites the belief (or "folly" as she describes it) of all “proto-nationalists” that increasing “independence” from the “oppressive grip of British, or more accurately English rule would somehow produce more egalitarian relationships.” There is no reason whatsoever as to why it should; for them to succeed in achieving their prime target, English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh nationalism requires the majority of those living within their defined "nation" to buy into their definition of "their" nation and what it means to be English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh. At the base of their political philosophy there is a general reluctance to accept the possibility of a shared British-English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh national identity. That is the core shared identity at the centre of all their parts of the UK and if they have difficulties acknowledging that fact, then why should ethnic minorities be confident their multi-faceted identities would not only survive, but actually thrive in the case of the nationalists achieving their aim of the break-up of the UK?
Professor Williams puts it slightly more poetically:
"But why for example would sitting in the garden on St David’s Day under the softly billowing be any different to Brown’s proposals," (for an imposed shared Britishness) "albeit rendered small, for reconciling the tensions between cultural diversity and nation?"
A rhetorical question I suspect, but one that also highlights her distaste for the Brown version of Britishness…he’s trying to impose a formula that follows too closely the “flag-waving politicking and assimilationist mandate which has characterised British race relations for so long". I can fully understand and to a large extent agree with her on this; I’ve written before that Unionism (by definition) should be a philosophy that can offer a much wider version of national identity than the (by definition) much narrower version on offer from the various strands of Celtic and English nationalism. The United Kingdom at its core is a multi-national entity and that should give us the self-confidence to let the definition of our nation's identity, our Britishness, to be as wide as possible. As I keep on repeating, our diversity should be our strength and Brown’s cack-handed attempts to narrow our identity to a "one-size fits all" certainly "flies in the face of the emergent and spontaneous nature of the formation of identities and of a vibrant history of a variegated UK".
Charlotte Williams wants a "vibrancy, chanciness and spontaneity of an emergent multi-culturalism"” built on:
1.An independent and ‘robust” civil society.
2.An open society and institutions
3.Political forums where open, free and robust debates can take place to "struggle over and negotiate outcomes".
All three points can be guaranteed within a United Kingdom, but to do so will take a determined effort on the part of all of us who have the long-term future of our shared nation at heart- sadly all three points are nowhere near where they should be at the minute.
So, not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination but:
"Maybe the durability of Britain is ensured by all this contestation, such that it becomes relevant as a point of reference rather than something that accurately reflects how we live our lives".
8 comments:
There is no reason whatsoever as to why it should; for them to succeed in achieving their prime target, English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh nationalism requires the majority of those living within their defined "nation" to buy into their definition of "their" nation and what it means to be English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh.No, it really doesn't. The minimal requirement for any of this to work is participation in the institutions and acceptance of the legitimacy of the state. That is the same anywhere.
The United Kingdom at its core is a multi-national entity and that should give us the self-confidence to let the definition of our nation's identity, our Britishness, to be as wide as possible.This is just another variant of civic nationalism, however much you protest. In the US you have Irish-American, Italian-American, Mexican-American. I would be quite content for their to be -Irish variants, and I'd guess most Irish and Scottish nationalists would feel the same. But there has to be points to unite around.
Be everything to everyone and you wind up being nothing. The problem with what is proposed is that you allow people an opt-out of the civic society around them. Immigrants to England are in England. They would be better placed becoming involved to some extent with the traditions and institutions of England rather than declaring themselves "British" and setting up their own fifedom. There is absolutely no reason why that would imply giving up their heritage. Rather it adds to the English identity, over the long term.
Second, there are democratic issue here. No one likes feeling imposed on, see Scotland in the 80s or the abuse Brown gets for being cottish. By encouraging a patchwork of identities you encourage a patchwork of potential resentments. And supernational instiutions by their nature incrase the democratic distance.
Be everything to everyone and you wind up being nothing."
Or...allow them to develop their identity as they see fit, within the widest boundaries allowed by the State and you end with a citzenry deeper committed to the overall "umbrella" of Britishness.
The State's job is not to determine national identities.
"The problem with what is proposed is that you allow people an opt-out of the civic society around them."
Give a definition of civic society...not possible to have an all-encompassing one. Developing civic values is an organic process which cannot be passed down from the top. I'm against the policy of allowing communities (or more often their leaders) dictate exactly their place within society, apart from that it's up to the individual to determine his involvement in the wider society---also that problem you mentioned of non-engagement is not one limited to ethnic minorities.
"No one likes feeling imposed on, see Scotland in the 80s or the abuse Brown gets for being cottish. By encouraging a patchwork of identities you encourage a patchwork of potential resentments."
Those two statements contradict themselves surely. Williams is arguing that Britishness can't be imposed- by being laissez faire enough to permit a patchwork of identities you are giving people the space to develop individually and personally their relationship not with the British state (law takes care of that) but their own particular relationship with the British identity.
Or...allow them to develop their identity as they see fit, within the widest boundaries allowed by the State and you end with a citzenry deeper committed to the overall "umbrella" of Britishness.
The State's job is not to determine national identities.The State must ultimately promote and protect itself. It cannot be other.
Ultimately you are allowing people to develop their "national identity" within bounds, otherwise it threatens the intergity and cohesion of the state and society. It ultimately doesn't matter if that bound is "British" or "Irish", it is still the same thing. For immigrants naturalisation must occur to a greater or lessor extent. Perhaps you feel "British" offers a wider scope. If it does it also carries higher risks because of looser bounds and there is no objective measure of what offers more reward.
Give a definition of civic society...not possible to have an all-encompassing one. Developing civic values is an organic process which cannot be passed down from the top. I'm against the policy of allowing communities (or more often their leaders) dictate exactly their place within society, apart from that it's up to the individual to determine his involvement in the wider society---also that problem you mentioned of non-engagement is not one limited to ethnic minorities.Civic society is ultimately what we make it. The problem isn't simply that communities do not engage, it is that they can set up parallel systems and opt out. That happened to a great extent here. It also happens in various Muslim communities in England.
Those two statements contradict themselves surely. Williams is arguing that Britishness can't be imposed- by being laissez faire enough to permit a patchwork of identities you are giving people the space to develop individually and personally their relationship not with the British state (law takes care of that) but their own particular relationship with the British identity.No contradiction required. First up, a laissez faire approach to national identity is impossible. You have all these national and regional organisations, some of them governmental, some not, that play a part in forming national conciousness. How they are structured and regulated has a great impact.
Second, the more laissez faire you go, the more you end up with something meaning completely different things to different groups with differing importance. Therein lies tension.
If people come here then there is an extent they must accept the legimacy of the institutions and integrate into communities, as much as we must accept them and allow them to express themselves. That is doubly so if they want citizenship. The result should be a mutually benefical relationship whereby they add to the tapestry of the nation while becoming part of the core. There is a balance to be struck but there is no escaping it whether or not you personally favour national or supernational government.
"The United Kingdom at its core is a multi-national entity and that should give us the self-confidence to let the definition of our nation's identity, our Britishness, to be as wide as possible."
I completely agree. So given the fact of national parliaments / assemblies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland how can the English be in and for themselves looking after their own interests whilst being part of Britain.
I favour an English parliament. You've never really answered the question.
Kensei
If I had to summarise my argument in a sentence it would be that you cannot create a national identity nor a civil society by legislation. What you can do be legislation is to finetune the immigration rules (but even there, forcing people to sit an exam in Britishness doesn't make them feel British), you can also refuse funding for those projects (eg religious schools) which lead to the developmnet of the separate societis within a society you mentioned. But that's it- no one can make people feel more "British" (or at least one standard defn of Britishness) by compulsion, they can however be made to feel comfortable with a wider version of *Britishness* by being to made to feel that their identity is an integral part of the greater whole.
"So given the fact of national parliaments / assemblies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland how can the English be in and for themselves looking after their own interests whilst being part of Britain.
I favour an English parliament. You've never really answered the question."
Toque,
I think I have and more than once answered that one:)
I'm not in favour of an English parliament in the same way that I'm not in favour of a N.Irish, Welsh or Scottish parliament. But I believe that the English, like the N.Irish, Scottish and Welsh should be given the opportunity of deciding for themselves on the question. Assymetrical devolution is the worse of all worlds!
oneill
If I had to summarise my argument in a sentence it would be that you cannot create a national identity nor a civil society by legislation. What you can do be legislation is to finetune the immigration rules (but even there, forcing people to sit an exam in Britishness doesn't make them feel British), you can also refuse funding for those projects (eg religious schools) which lead to the developmnet of the separate societis within a society you mentioned. But that's it- no one can make people feel more "British" (or at least one standard defn of Britishness) by compulsion, they can however be made to feel comfortable with a wider version of *Britishness* by being to made to feel that their identity is an integral part of the greater whole.You can create a national identity form scratch but I think you are dismissing rather lightly the impact that government action (legislation or otherwise) can have in helping to form and maintain that identity. Or indeed, destroy it, as bad actions can.
Applying for citizenship is a bit like applying for a job; typically, you have to actively seek your employer out, and they have positive qualities that made you make that choice. Your potential employer is interested in what skills you can bring and what new ideas you can add. But they also want you to fit into their organisation and work with other people. There are rules you have to follow and things you have to respect. There are things they'll do to make you happier, mine gives breakfast and supplies money to the social club but you don't get free reign to define your working conditions or role and if you push too much you'll wind up in conflict and difficulty. Allowing more slack in the parameters may or may not be useful, depending on the employer but it would not be a good idea just to continually increase it.
There are rules you have to follow and things you have to respect.That's a pretty good analogy, but what gets you into the job (or a country) and helps you thrive is obeying the rules and practices. But outside the job, as long as you don't get arrested or bring the company into disrepute most bosses will be prepared to let you do what you like be it stamp-collecting or getting hammered on Buckie.
Post a Comment