Alexandra Runswick (Unlock Democracy): The USA has life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. France has liberty, equality and fraternity. What is the equivalent British set of values? Does it matter if we don’t know? Is it somehow un-British to even ask? These were just some of the issues raised in the RSA and Heritage Lottery Fund lecture Britishness – a values based approach is not enough.
The proposed Statement of British Values has been one of the more hotly debated aspects of the Governance of Britain agenda. While there is growing consensus about the need for a Bill of Rights, response to the BSV project as it is apparently known, has been lukewarm at best. Much of the debate has focused on the government’s decision to use a deliberative process, a Citizens' Summit, rather than what values might make it into the statement.
Dame Liz Forgan, chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund was the keynote speaker. She made a passionate case for culture, including heritage, being the core element of national identity. In particular she argued that while values are fixed, culture is porous and constantly evolves. Values, particularly those based on civic norms could become a test that it would be possible to fail while culture is a dialogue that allows people to both receive the established culture and give elements of their own. At a most basic level this is reflected in the fact of Chicken Tikka Massala being the national dish but Liz Forgan was also exploring how this can be used to resolve entrenched conflicts between communities and create a shared sense of belonging.
For those of you interested in random factoids it turns out that rather than being quintessentially British, horse chestnut trees are in fact Eastern European and Cumberland pigs, used to make Cumberland sausages, are actually Polynesian. Yet it could be argued that the very fact that they are not exclusively or originally British and yet have been absorbed into a concept of national identity does indeed make them particularly British. Certainly that is what I think Bonnie Greer was highlighting when she talked about the subtlety and fluidity of Britishness.
Michael Wills was left to defend the government's decision to start the debate on Britishness. It's hard not to feel that he is being attacked from all sides - by those who don't think he should have started the debate, those who think that Britishness is the wrong starting point and those that think the citizens summit is not going far enough.
He argued strongly that there have always been debates about national identity and that the debate would be taking place now without the government but that it would be hijacked by 'poisonous influences'. He also pointed out that it is up to the Citizens Summit whether there will even be a statement of values and that the government is entirely open minded about this.
In response to Liz Forgan's call for culture rather than values Michael Wills argued that "our heritage, our past is noise until someone makes an act of selection" and that values, rather than being a loyalty test were the criteria by which we could make that selection.
The Lecture was fascinating and it was intriguing hearing the conversations as people left the theatre. There were all kinds of debates about whether people felt more British or English/Scottish/Welsh and what influenced those identities. It certainly made me explore what Britishness means to me - a strange combination of amongst other things, geography, Jane Austen and the Suffragettes. But that is profoundly personal definition - it would certainly not be the way my brother would define his Britishness. It seems to me the personal debate about who we are has been conflated with the public debate about what values we as a society should aspire to and to which the state should be held accountable. The debate about culture is vital and exciting but also never-ending and not one I'm sure government should be involved in.
If there is to be a Statement of Values it should be a collective expression of the values we aspire to and think are important - a contract with government about the society we want to create, rather than interminable introspection about personal identity.
Comments
Personally I love 'liberty, equality and fraternity' but there is no chance of copying it I suppose.
Freedom, equality and brotherhood.
Freedom to be filmed maybe or freedom to choose between Nike and Adidas?
Equality? Certainly not before the law in any constitutional sense.
Brotherhood, well yes there is a certain camaraderie in doing a no future Mc Job in a Cornish holiday resort.
The Cornish Democrat
<i>She made a passionate case for culture, including heritage, being the core element of national identity.</i>
I have no problem with that but surely British culture is just a sum of the parts of underlying national identities: English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh (and also smaller denominations). The devolved administrations have their own departments of culture, their own radio stations, and soon their own TV stations. I'd say that values tend to be more of a common British currency than culture.
But I don't think of Britian in terms of values or culture. To me it's about institutions of state, government, military, pomp and pageantry.
Landscapes, food, works of art and literature, language, music, sensibilities, taste, manners - these to me are English (/Scottish/Welsh) or provincial rather than British. This is not a particularly objective bit of reasoning, but it's just the way that I think of things, and always have. And I think there are a lot of people like me for whom the words "British" and "English" summon up entirely different associations and emotions.
We're not looking for Brown - or anyone else - to reinvent Britishness. What the British want is a Britain whose institutions and government we can have faith in and respect, and to be left to get on with the business of being English, Scottish and Welsh without having to give a second thought to Britishness. The endless agonising over Britishness only serves to diminish it because, when compared to more vibrant national identities of the British Isles (and those abroad), it does seem a bit soulless. But that doesn't mean that Britishness can't be at least functional and practical enough to serve a useful purpose.
None of the debate about 'Britishness' has dealt with the real issue. Britishness had historically become associated with fair-dealing. i.e. mediating with due care, taking care to hear the concerns of minorities, attempting to resolve conflict evenhandedly. It is this that is being lost in multi-culturalism. It has nothing to do with landcape, diet, art or public performance. The Brits have always had catholic tastes in all these. 'Britishness' - as in 'tolerance' is being tested by the intolerence of other cultures -e.g. a recent TV documentary highlighted the Arab influence on muslims in the UK and the exortions on them never to befriend a non-muslim - yes, they could be civil to them but never friendly. Now, in my view that is indicative of the problem 'Britishness' has to deal with.
Hey, if we're going for three word marketing "strap lines", how about Freedom, Tolerance and Diversity (rearrange to suit individual taste)?
Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England
Hey, if we're going for three word marketing "strap lines", how about Freedom, Tolerance and Diversity (rearrange to suit individual taste)?
How about "Britishness, because you're worth it".
Or if it has to be three words: "England : Scotland : Wales"
Don't like the 'tolernace' bit. I don't just want to 'tolerate' people who are different to myself. I'd prefer something a bit more positive and dynamic.
Are you being serrious NB? Don't ask the Chagos Islanders, Irish, Cornish, Chinese, Highland scots, Boars etc what they think of your description.
The Cornish Democrat
You might be onto something Nora, but I'd suggest that the REAL problem of this Britishness debate is in the fact that the Britologists are making Britishness confrontational by attempting to define it.
Scottish identity and English identity are not intrinsic threats to one another because they occupy separate territories, separate places and separate spaces. English nationalism and Scottish nationalism can in fact be seen as complementary. The problem arises when the majority identity - the majority state-sponsored nationalism - "Britishness" attempts to set itself up in opposition to English and Scottish minority identities by ascribing values and culture to itself that might as reasonably be designated as Scottish or English. That's not the job of an umbrella identity, or - you might argue - a civic state.
Matters are complicated by the fact that the English have not defined their own institutions, or a space for themselves; and the Brits are fearful of allowing the English to do this. Although it's British (not English) nationalism that is in competition with Scottish nationalism, Scottish nationalists still rail against Westminster as an English institution; a fact that reflects the failure to ensure distinct institutions for each national identity, a fact that sets the positive articulation of Scottish and English identities against each other, factionalising and contesting the overarching British identity.
Everyone around Brown is equally conceited, or completely sycophantic, so they fail to acknowledge that the asymmetric beast they have created is inherently unstable and self-destructive. The question is, by the time they do realise, will it be too late?
There is no overarching British identity or definition of Britishness. Or perhaps that's it: 'No Overarching Unity' - not a motto to inspire. 'Britishness consists of the endless search to define Britishness'. So let's call Britishness the Higgs Boson of national identities. Epitaph mode: 'we went round and round in circles looking for it; but all we found was particles'. Well, maybe they'll prove its existence; but I don't know if I want to be part of that particular theory of everything when the edifice is finally built.
So far, everytime someone has come up with a definition of what Britishness is, - they have to fall back on what has been traditional English values.
By redefining English values as British, I am beginning to believe that they (the establishment) are attempting to rebrand the English. And I for one, will not agree to have my English history such as Magna Carta, rebranded as British History - it makes me angry Mr Brown; very angry.
For your sake, I hope that the other truly English value of toleration of idiots is maintained - and we can continue in mutual contempt until we can get rid of you in a civilised manner. Otherwise it just might have to be the barricades!!
In all this talk of "Britishness" and the search for a "Statement of Values" there is one unanswered question, who is the target for this orgy of "Britishness"?
There appears to be two separate parts to the exercise. The first is about the integration of immigrant cultures in England and the second about the retention of Scotland within the current United Kingdom. These two parts are quite distinct and have separate audiences both geographically and culturally. Many in Scotland regard the whole "Britishness" thing soley as an exercise in unionism driven by the unionist Labour party but many in England regard it as an attempt to integrate minorities into England in the face of cultural alienation.
To be quite honest I don't think most people really care about a "British Statement of Values". Though there is now more awareness about the difference between Britain and England in England the majority of the population in England have never really made a distinction between being British and being English and I suspect that they regard the banging on about Britishness as a bit odd and a not aimed at them but just another government scheme aimed at integrating the minorities.
For a lot of Scots it's just more of the same cultural imperialism in which they are asked to suppress their own identity and choose an identity which because of the size disparity between Scotland and England is effectively English.
It is being orchestrated by the Labour Government as a top down exercise and it is definitely not a grass roots cultural event which is being driven by popular demand. It's an odd paradoxical mix of old-style British unionism aimed at Scots and political correctness aimed integrating minorities in England by eradicating Englishness. It is nothing to do with social statements or social values as it is purely an exercise in trying to create a cohesive cultural and political identity across Great Britain. I say Great Britain because I'm never quite sure how the Labour party views the Northern Ireland part of the UK.
There is of course another strand to the whole thing which is about Gordon Brown's feelings of social and political rejection which he blames on being a Scot in England. His solution is to replace both Scotland and England with Britain to make the problem go away.
A New Zealand historian (quoted by Norman Davies in his history of the isles) noted:
“The English have little interest in Britishness unless assured the word is a synonym for themselves.”
Just as the English are beginning to disentangle Englishness from Britishness post devolution – a rather delicate operation – along come New Labour with some 19th century nation-state style of Britishness.
To me devolution was supposed to be about dismantling the old British establishment yet what have New Labour come up with? Obeisance to the union jack, oaths of loyalty to the monarchy and putting up posters in celebration of the man who sent in the army against the miners in Tonypandy in 1911 – Liam Byrne’s most egregious suggestion to date by a long chalk.
As others have noted there are two, possibly competing, strands in New Labour’s Britishness debate: Britishness post devolution and Britishness post immigration. An interesting example of this clash could be seen in Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s article in the Independent on St George’s Day two years ago (I’m afraid I haven’t got a link.) In it she rails against devolution – it’s the English, Welsh and Scots who should be made to integrate – our territorial identities and politics are standing in the way of a realising a diverse, multi-cultural Britain!
The New Labour Britishness project is doomed to failure until New Labour gets a grip on devolution.
Thanks for this very thoughtful post. History is always helpful, if people know it!
Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.
"The Privilege of Voting" is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote in England and America.
It's a real-life soap opera about the suffragettes! And it's ALL true!
Powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.
There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!
Thanks to the success of the suffragettes, women have voices and choices!
Exciting, sequential episodes are great to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.
I hope you will subscribe. It's free at
www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html
Post new comment