So we are all to
celebrate British Day, are we? That's nice, how shall we celebrate it? (Update: here are
some cracking suggestions.
Via) I argued
a while ago that there is an almost unlimited number of narratives that can be constructed on the basis of British history, and that although many of us stand for the national anthem, there is no agreement on what the anthem stands for. I also made the fairly obvious point that to be an English nationalist (it was April 23), one needs some sort of vision of the English people.
Regular readers (hi mum!) will know of my scepticism towards nationalism. Don't let
the title of this blog mislead you too much on this point, however. Although I do think that national identity is constructed, like Anderson I don't in fact think that this constructed nature in itself renders national identity meaningless. There are war memorials all over this country and others that prove the mobilising power of nationalism, yea, even unto death. Another connotation of this blog's title is my perception of a decline in community values, and whether this trend can be reversed. Some form of
civic nationalism superficially seems attractive as a countervailing, cohesive force. But even when we talk about civic nationalism rather than
ethnic nationalism, I believe it to be inherently exclusive, and often downright harmful: the more you begin to speak in favour of 'x', simply because you perceive it to be "British", the easier it becomes to denigrate 'y' simply because it is not British. *Update:
Rob Jubb covers this point very well.*
A further objection is that these two flavours of nationalism are separate only in theory; in practice nationalism always seems to take on elements of both: France and the USA are both held up as exemplars of civic nationalism (
David Cameron pointed to the USA just today- isn't there something slightly odd about looking abroad to bolster one's nationalism?*) yet neither country is an obvious role model in terms of positive ethnic relations.
Still further, the idea of British identity has never been too strong. Geoffrey Hosking has suggested that the weakness of Russian national identity has its roots in the constant presence of other nationalities within the borders of the Russian Empire, even from the earliest days of Muscovy, making it difficult to distinguish between metropolis and periphery. The burden of empire building was borne at the expense of nation-building for the ethnic Russians. Could it be that a similar process was at work during the creation of the British Empire, meaning that the process of creating one meaningful identity for the home nations was never completed? Whether or not that surmise is true, British identity has clearly come under threat as a result of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and increased English nationalist resentment over the West Lothian and related questions. The cynic in me cannot resist observing at this point that the Scottish Nationalist Party recently supplanted Labour as the largest party in the Scottish parliament...
Yet even if all my misgivings were to be somehow addressed, I am at a loss as to how the vague platitudes on offer from New Labour will bring us all together as one happy nation: someone needs to tell us a convincing narrative around which we can come together. Whichever talking head was rolled out onto the radio this lunchtime suggested that communities would be left to decide how best to mark the occasion.
Subsidiarity is admirable in most cases, but in this instance how cohesive would it prove? "Hey mate, your flag's empty."
Also, would someone please explain to me how
policies which are clearly divisive will serve to unite us? I am a British citizen, but have never had to swear allegiance to the Queen. My republican feelings have a fine British pedigree, incidentally. The Imaginary Friend is also a British citizen, yet she was forced to
swear affirm allegiance to Brenda. How will it bring together citizens by birth and citizens by naturalisation if the latter group have had to perform a list of tasks that the former never had to?
Anthony D. Smith stipulated that one of the six criteria for an
ethnie was a shared history; his view was that, even when there were disagreements over the interpretation of particular events, in the long-term this brought an
ethnie together, as such debates ipso facto acknowledge there is a meaningful ethnocultural group seeking to be defined. But for all the famed news-management expertise of New Labour, I doubt that they could achieve such subtlety. Please tell me that wasn't a
dog-whistle I thought I heard.
Update 7/6/07: since I wrote this, Not Saussure has made a
characteristically thoughtful contribution to the debate.
* I won't be the first to observe that there is something even odder about each group of nationalists claiming that they are unique, and thus deserve for themselves a nation-state
just like all the other nation-states.
Labels: british day, dog whistles, nationalism
