1.

The Backdrop to Debates on Britishness, National Identity and Citizenship

1.1 The Concept of National Identity

Historians and social scientists have considered at length what constitutes national
identity. A full overview of the concept and the many debates it has engendered are
beyond the scope of this paper. However, there are some general themes that can be
mapped out. A number of early writers, such as Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Gottfried
Herder, argued for a cultural definition of national identity based on the primordial ties of
language and the notion of national culture as a living energy not imposed from above. 1
Writers such as Ernest Gellner, suggested that though elements of pre-existing culture
were not unimportant, national identity was more a product of state formation,
industrialisation and modernity and hence a product of the 18th and 19th centuries. 2
Other writers, such as Eric Hobsbawm and Bendict Anderson, have argued that the
concept of nation and national identity is essentially a socially engineered construct with
elements of invented and imagined traditions. 3 This latter approach also emphasised
the importance of social phenomena, such as class. More recently, academics have
sought to cast national identity as one of a number of ‘multiple’ or ‘fractured’ identities,
mediated by other issues such as race, gender, ethnicity and religion and globalisation. 4
The latter approach suggests that national identity could be experienced differently
according to one’s social characteristics. Many accounts, however, offer a synthesis of
some of these approaches. For instance, Anthony D. Smith suggests that national
identity is the result of the interaction of the ethnic past and the forces of modernity. 5
This approach has allowed social scientists to identify different types of national
identity—civic and ethnic. Civic national identity refers to residence, shared political
values, common civic institutions and shared language, whereas ethnic national identity
is seen as being related to ancestry and emersion in national customs and traditions.

1.2 Britishness as a Historical Phenomenon

The concept of Britishness has been the source of some recent debate amongst
historians. Some commentators have noted that the study of Britishness as a distinct
national identity is complicated by the fact that many accounts tend to conflate
Britishness with Englishness, and often treat English events and trends as though they
were synonymous with British developments. 6 However, a number of historians have
charted the development of Britishness as a distinct national identity. Linda Colley
argues that Britain was an invented nation “heavily dependent for its raison d’etre on a
broadly Protestant culture, on the threat and tonic of recurrent war, especially war with
France, and on the triumphs, profits, and ‘otherness’ represented by a massive overseas

1
See Paul Lawrence, Nationalism: History and Theory, (2005), p. 4, and James McKay, ‘An
Exploratory Synthesis of Primordial and Mobilisationist Approaches to Ethnic Phenomena’, Ethnic
and Racial Studies, vol. 5 no. 4, (1982), p. 395–420.
2
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, (1983).
3
For example, see Eric Hobsbawn, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, (1992) and Benedict
Anderson, Imagined Communities, (1991).
4
See for instance Paul Lawrence, Nationalism: History and Theory, (2005), p. 198–206; Harriet
Bradley, Fractured Identities: Changing Patterns of Inequality, (1997); Mattei Dogan, ‘The Decline
of Nationalisms within Western Europe’,Comparative Politics, vol. 26, no. 3 (April, 1994), pp. 281–
305.
5
See Anthony D. Smith ‘Gastronomy or geology? The role of nationalism in the reconstruction of
nations’. Nations and Nationalism, vol. 1, no. 1, (1994), pp. 3–23.
6
See for instance Linda Colley, ‘Britishness and Otherness: An Argument’, The Journal of British
Studies, vol. 31 no. 4, (October 1992), pp. 309–329.

1
empire”. 7 Keith Robbins argues that the historical roots of Britishness are to be
understood in relation to a ‘blending’ based on: the continued existence of historically
established local and ethnic identities; the development of overarching political
institutions; the historical evolution of the idea of ‘Britain’ and Britain’s relationship to the
wider world. 8 Lawrence Brockliss et al. argue that Britishness was a subtle and
‘composite’ national identity that developed after 1800 and which made limited demands
upon its subjects. 9 Importantly, they contend that no formal attempt was made to make
Britishness a primary cultural identity, which allowed a number of interpretations of what
being British meant. Instead, they point to the various social and economic processes of
industrialisation and the ‘peculiar’ role of Parliament in the acceptance of Britishness.

1.3 Britishness as a Social and Legal Construct—British Citizenship

National identity can be seen as a concept linked to citizenship. Citizenship has been
described by social scientists. For example, Paul Whiteley describes it as “a set of
norms, values and practices which bind society together, makes democratic government
possible and helps individuals to solve collective action problems”. 10 Citizenship has
also been legally defined in terms of legislation. It has been seen increasingly as a way
of introducing new entrants into the UK to the values and rights and responsibilities
which accompany being a British Citizen. The scope of such legislation has changed
over time, which by inference has changed perceptions of Britishness. The British
Nationality Act 1948, for example, saw common citizenship extended to citizens of the
UK and Commonwealth. However, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 defined
such citizenship in terms of the place from which one’s passport was issued, while by the
time of the Immigration Act 1971 it had been linked to clear ancestry. The British
Nationality Act 1981 took this further. While all previous legislation held onto the
category of Citizen of the UK and Commonwealth (CUKC) and to the notion of
subjecthood, the 1981 Act abolished the former and largely abolished the latter. A new
category, UK citizen, was established and specified a more standard form of citizenship.
Essentially, a child born in the UK would be granted British citizenship if either its mother
or its father was a British citizen or settled in the UK, and naturalisation for residents
without kinship linkages was made relatively easy.

1.4 Views of Britishness as a Current National Identity

On 20th January 1999, The Guardian published the views of various commentators
ranging from historians and politicians to writers and musicians on the question of what
Britishness meant. 11 Michael Ignatieff, writer and broadcaster on issues including
nationalism, commented that:

If Britishness is about anything it isn’t about places or people, it’s about

institutions. Britishness is parliamentary democracy, rule of law, fairness and
decency. It is the institutions that deliver this. It’s not black, it’s not white, it’s not
the shires, it’s not London, it’s not brassy and it’s not old-fashioned.

7
ibid.
8
Keith Robbins, Great Britain: Identities, Institutions, and the Idea of Britishness, (1997).
9
Lawerence Brockliss and David Eastwood, A Union of Multiple Identities: The British Isles,
c. 1750–c.1850, (1997).
10
Paul F. Whiteley, ‘What makes a Good Citizen? Citizenship across the Democratic World’, in
Alison Park et al. (eds.), British Social Attitudes: The 24th Report, (2007), p. 173.
11
[Link]

2
The historian, David Cannadine, who has written on Britishness, noted its elasticity:

Britishness is a complicated and enormous thing—what different people see as

meaning different things. It can mean one island, a group of islands off the coast
of Europe, or it can mean the British Empire—at times it means all those things.
Politicians, and the rest of us, define it in different ways at different times.

Lord Bragg, the author and broadcaster, sought to emphasise the cultural aspects:

Britain has always benefited from having tensions and competing tribes inside it.
The force of the country has come from that mix. To me, Britishness is a
Saturday night in London, in Glasgow, in Cardiff, or in Belfast—it’s the variety on
offer for people aged 14 to 70, the vivid culture.

John Major, the former Prime Minister, evoked a pastiche of various images:

…long shadows on county cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs,
dog lovers and—as George Orwell said—old maids bicycling to Holy Communion
through the morning mist.

In July 2005, the Daily Telegraph published what it called the ten core values of the
British identity, which underpinned its campaign for Britishness. 12 These values
included:

I. The rule of law. Our society is based on the idea that we all abide by the
same rules, whatever our wealth or status. No one is above the law—not
even the government.

II. The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons
and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no
appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.

III. The pluralist state. Equality before the law implies that no one should be
treated differently on the basis of belonging to a particular group.
Conversely, all parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the
existence of their rivals.

IV. Personal freedom. There should be a presumption, always and

everywhere, against state coercion. We should tolerate eccentricity in
others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.

V. Private property. Freedom must include the freedom to buy and sell
without fear of confiscation, to transfer ownership, to sign contracts and
have them enforced. Britain was quicker than most countries to recognise
this and became, in consequence, one of the happiest and most
prosperous nations on Earth.

VI. Institutions. British freedom and British character are immanent in British
institutions. These are not, mostly, statutory bodies, but spring from the
way free individuals regulate each other’s conduct, and provide for their
needs, without recourse to coercion.

12
[Link]

3
 VII. The family. Civic society depends on values being passed from
generation to generation. Stable families are the essential ingredient of a
stable society.

VIII. History. British children inherit a political culture, a set of specific legal
rights and obligations, and a stupendous series of national achievements.
They should be taught about these things.

IX. The English-speaking world. The atrocities of September 11, 2001, were
not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the
anglosphere—on all of us who believe in freedom, justice and the rule of
law.

X. The British character. Shaped by and in turn shaping our national

institutions is our character as a people: stubborn, stoical, indignant at
injustice. ‘The Saxon,’ wrote Kipling, ‘never means anything seriously till
he talks about justice and right.’

The Daily Telegraph hosts a range of materials on its website concerning its Call
Yourself Britishness Campaign. 13

1.5 Multiculturalism and Britishness

Public discourse has also centred on the merits of multiculturalism, often in relation to
accounts or evocations of Britishness. Lord Parekh’s Report of the Commission on the
Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, set out the values which should underpin a multicultural
British society. 14 The report questioned the notion of Britain ever being a homogeneous
society in the past and present, pointing to the continuing complexity of different
communities with internal diversity and disagreements linked to differences of gender,
generation, religion and language. This meant that the identities of the British people
were constantly in transition. As such, the report argued that a single national culture
could not address the diversity of its citizens and instead proposed a culture based on
“cohesion, equality and difference”. In the introduction to the report, Lord Parekh
elaborated a number of principles on which such a society could be based. This society
had to recognise that the differences emerging from such a culture would often lead to
conflicting requirements that would need to be resolved. Since citizens had differing
needs, he argued that equal treatment required that full account be taken of their
differences and as such equality had to be defined in a culturally sensitive way and
applied in a discriminating but not discriminatory manner. While he accepted that every
society needed to be cohesive as well as respectful of diversity, it also needed to find
ways of nurturing diversity while fostering a common sense of belonging and a shared
identity among its constituent members. Similarly, while every society needed a broadly
shared body of values, of which human rights were a small but important part, there was
a risk of defining them so narrowly that their further development was ruled out or
legitimate ways of life were suppressed. While values, such as tolerance, mutual
respect, dialogue and peaceful resolution of differences were paramount, society also
needed to respect deep moral differences and find ways of resolving inescapable
conflicts.

13
[Link]
14
[Link] See also Bhikhu Parekh,
Rethinking Multiculturalism : Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, (2006).