As anyone who ever saw one of my shelves would tell you, I'm not one of life's joiners. I don't know if this is due to an excess or a lack of self-esteem, whether I pose the question in the form what can I offer them, or what can they offer me? It may also be the result of a healthy streak of contrariness: when I learnt that Aquarians are supposed to be unconventional, I thought, right, I'd better start conforming to the mainstream. Apparently, though, only Virgos take astrology seriously.
It may also be why I have been somewhat reserved in commenting on other people's blogs - if that's what bloggers do, then I probably shouldn't be doing it myself. Can't be seen to be joining in, now, can we? Still, things appear to be changing, prompted by a couple of posts over at the excellent Sharpener on the subject of national identity. As the name of this blog hints, I have some interest in this subject. But personally, not being a joiner, I wonder how relevant British, and certainly English, identity is to me.
Certainly, I've never really felt English. For me, the word leads me to the Home Counties, cucumber sandwiches, and a certain froideur. It doesn't encompass the looming mills of my home town, nor the open moors around it. In my understanding, I'm not English, I'm Yorkshire, although as my previous posts show I'm happy to play around with that identity, and I'm aware of its various facets and hues. There are, for example, fine degrees between plain speaking, through bluntness, to downright inconsiderateness. And whatever the positive traits might be, I wouldn't want to use Yorkshire nationalism as the basis for a political movement. Where does it end? My other blog is advertised as being written by a Bradfordian exiled to Leeds, for God's sake.
I tend to move from Yorkshire straight to British, although Chris's thoughts give me pause: is the British identity more warlike and Imperialist than the English? As he observes, it was always called the British Empire, and unless I'm wrong there were plenty of Scots and not a few Irish in the army, navy and administration that kept the colonised countries in their places, but wasn't it mostly English politicians that sent them out, and English people who occupied the senior ranks? Rob Jubb approaches this from a different angle, saying that:
the British establishment is predominantly English: the Scottish class system has had its top lopped off, and so its exploitation and status hierarchy differ from that of the English one, simply because to a certain degree you stop being Scottish once you reach a certain level. [My emphasis]
So my tentative hypothesis - I'm still thinking through the implications of this - is that my preference for British over English identity is a way of bypassing this English hegemony, and I do mean here that English is Little.
I've already been big-headed enough to drop Ernest Renan's name, and his apercu about nationalism involving as much forgetting of history as it does remembering. But, if you don't accept what has been termed the instrumentalist position that national identity can be infinitely manipulated for political ends, then any calls for national traits must have some rooting in perceived reality. Clio tells us that Liverpool was once rich, grown fat on the slave trade, yet on the other side of the country we also hear William Wilberforce hailing us from Hull. So there are traits that can plausibly be associated with British identity that I can commend, but my list would bear an eerie similarity to this one.
But I'd far rather not join the Dutch Auction at all.
Ignore this, it's just a tag: nationalism
Ignore this, it's just a tag: Britishness
Ignore this, it's just a tag: Englishness