Examining culture closer, there are at least two definitions of what culture is. The first is what has been called ‘high culture’ meaning the artistic or aesthetic cultural products put together to form a national culture: music, literature, theatre and art. (Clarke, 2009, p.219) These could include Elgar, Dickens, Austen, Shakespeare and Constable. The second definition involves viewing culture as everyday life – the habits, practices and ‘ways of life’. An example of this can be seen in the extract of a statement made by David Blunkett (cited in Clarke, 2009, p.221) where he stated ‘Britishness is defined not on ethnic or exclusive grounds - but through our shared values, our history of tolerance, of openness and internationalism, our commitment to democracy and liberty, to civic duty and the public space.’ He goes on to mention the great institutions that these values are embodied in, including the NHS, the BBC and The Open University. The extract from Trevor Phillips incorporates the same values, but symbolised not by institutions, but by the way people behave towards one another; ‘... our national identity is essentially about the way we treat each other. In a phrase: British is as British does. It is about what people do, not who they are.’ (cited in Clarke, 2009, p.223)
This brings us to the question, who uses the label British? As mentioned earlier in this essay national identity and citizenship do not always mean the same thing. A crucial point of debate is the relationship between national identity and diversity, as Britain has become a multi-ethnic and multicultural society. There have been claims from various individuals, parties and movements that diversity has gone too far, undermining national identity and the social solidarity. Looking at the extract from the essay by David Goodhart, the editor of Prospect magazine, he states ‘Britain in the 1950s was a country stratified by class and region. But in most of its cities, suburbs, towns and villages there was a good chance of predicting the attitudes, even the behaviour, of the people living in your immediate neighbourhood. In many parts of Britain today that is no longer true...’ (cited in Clarke, 2009, p.225) He goes on to say that ethnic diversity has been added through two big waves of immigration, firstly the mainly commonwealth immigration from the West Indies and Asia in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by asylum-driven migrants from Europe, Africa and the greater middle east in the late 1990s. Following on, he states ‘The diversity, individualism and mobility that characterise developed economics – especially in the era of globalisation – mean that more of our lives is spent among strangers.’
A differing view to diversity is raised in the extract by Bhikhu Parekh, commissioned by the Runnymede Trust. In the extract Parekh states ‘England, Scotland and Wales are at a turning point in their history. They could become narrow and inward-looking, with rifts between themselves and amount their regions and communities, or they could develop as a community of citizens and communities.’ (cited in Clarke, 2009, p.226) He makes suggestions of things that need to be done in order to build and sustain this community of citizens and communities, including rethinking the national story and identity, understanding all identities are in a process of transition, and addressing and eliminating all forms of racism. He goes on to state that ‘... We believe that it is possible and vitally necessary to create a society in which all citizens and communities feel valued, enjoy equal opportunities to develop their respective talents, lead fulfilling lives, accept their fair share of collective responsibility, and help create a collective life in which the spirit of civic goodwill, shared identity and common sense of belonging goes hand in hand with love of diversity.’ Where Goodhart seems to focus more on negative aspects of ethnic diversity – ‘stranger citizens’ with whom ‘we must share’, Parekh acknowledges the difficulties of ethnic diversity, but remains more positive, talking about sharing values and creating a ‘love of diversity’.
The extracts examined all use the words ‘we’ and ‘our’ which, although being an everyday habit, can be thought by some as being a practice that plays a vital role. The anthropologist Benedict Anderson has described nations as ‘imagined communities’ that are constructed through a variety of symbolic forms, including marking borders, flags, everyday ceremonies and linguistic ways. (cited in Clarke, 2009, p.229) It can be said that through Anderson’s view, nations have to be constructed with an imagined set of connections or affinities, and an invention of a shared history. Nations are neither permanent or eternal. A similar view to this is one written by social psychologist Michael Billig, about ‘banal nationalism’ which is the small everyday practices in which the imagined community is both assumed and reinforced. An example of this is the focus of weather forecasts on the national territory, with an appropriate map. (cited in Clarke, 2009, p.229)
To conclude – is Britishness a matter of ‘shared values, ideas or ways of life’? Whilst these are important factors in attempting to define Britishness, I do not believe they can be the sole definitions. British identity has variations that are constantly changing along with traditions, culture and values. As mentioned in this essay, there are many people who would not use British to describe their identity, preferring to use English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish. People will also define themselves by religion or ethnic group, sometimes combining that with British, as in ‘British Muslim’ or ‘British Asian’ but it is still unclear who exactly can define themselves as British. Is every single person born in Britain counted, whether they live here now or not? How much effect does their parentage have, are they classed more British if their parents are also British born? What about people who were migrants, who have chosen to live and work here, contributing to society and communities? It seems that Britishness is something impossible to define, as the parameters for what makes a person British will be different depending on who is discussing it. Many questions are raised about who ‘we’ are and how ‘we’ might live together, so it is clear that ethnic diversity needs to be considered as part of the definition of Britishness.
Word count: 1422
References:
Clarke, J. (2009) ‘Making national identities: Britishness in question’ in Bromley, S., Clarke, J., Hinchcliffe, S. And Taylor, S. (eds) Exploring Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
