STEFAN MAKHOUL
Academia can often be an echo chamber, where the same (typically left wing) ideas bounce around and fester, while the rest of the country looks on with contempt. There is undeniably a certain amount of classism endemic to academia and the media which makes them naturally opposed to Brexit. Nationalist sentiments are often viewed as ‘simple’. However Brexit is, on a purely economic basis, a bad idea. As one would be hard pressed to find a way in which the UK is economically better of outside of the EU than in it, there must be more to people's views on the issue than simply economics.
The past decade has seen a rise in (in many cases extreme) right wing sentiment in the UK. In the 2015 general election, a total of 12.6% of the United Kingdom voted for UKIP – a far-right nationalist party which harbours strong nationalistic sentiments. During its period of activity, the EDL ran small but vocal protests, decrying the increase in immigration and what they perceive as a foreign invasion. However we note that the recent rises in nationalism take on a particularly English element, especially in the north of England (the area of the country with the highest number of ethnic Brits).
In Gavin Esler’s book ‘How Britain Ends’, he explores the rising discontent among white working class Britons, and confronts assumptions that we might have about this group, which is so often characterised as "racist and dumb". The conclusions he draws are incredibly insightful yet complex; he describes Brexit largely as a reaction to dissatisfaction with the establishment and the desire for an English state. As devolution has increased since 1999, and more still since 2016, patriotism is starting to give way to nationalism. The West-Lothian question (why should Scots vote on English matters even though the English can’t vote on Scottish matters?) was haphazardly answered by ‘English votes for English laws’. In confronting the deeply emotive question of ‘why does each nation get democratic representation apart from ours?’ with a small change in legislative process, the government ignorantly glossed over the concerns of people who are systematically underrepresented.
In many ways, the Brexit vote and rise of English nationalism in the UK is a reaction against the way the North has been disregarded by London. The process of de-industrialisation and the rise of the financial sector has largely left the North behind; it’s therefore no surprise that a region hit so hard by globalism and neo-liberalism would be opposed to multiculturalism and remain defiantly English.
However to describe the movement as Conservative in nature would be inaccurate; in fact the shift proposed by English nationalists (including those who desire an English parliament and perceive with indifference the departure of Scotland and Northern Ireland from the UK) is a radical shift in the way we view the United Kingdom. Up to this point, the UK defied the concept of the ‘nation state’, as popularised by Rousseau. The United Kingdom is a multinational state unified by one political system. It’s different to France and Germany in the sense that in many ways, national sentiments and political systems haven’t always been aligned. Therefore, during times of stress, rather than leaning on nationalism to unify the country, governments rely on patriotic sentiments – the notoriously vague sense of "Britishness".
The UK is a multinational state unified by one political system ... [but] national sentiments haven’t always been aligned. Therefore, during times of stress, rather than leaning on nationalism to unify the country, governments rely on patriotic sentiments – the notoriously vague sense of "Britishness".
As Scotland and Ireland start to realise that their national interests aren’t in line with the current political reality, their drive towards liberal nationalism is starting to rise. There are incredible parallels between the state Scottish Nationalists seem to desire and the state recommended in Rousseau’s "Considerations on the Government in Poland", where he suggests that Poland embrace its role as a small nation state with liberal principles. Furthermore Rousseau’s recommendation to reduce inequality as a means of kindling national identity by removing differences between countrymen is in line with the left wing policies of the SNP – the dominant party in Scotland. The drive for civic nationalism in Scotland is in stark contrast with the conservative cultural nationalism present in England.
English nationalism takes on a certain nativist aspect, meaning that the economic rights of ‘ethnic Brits’ (a debatable grouping) should be, according to its proponents, prioritised over those of immigrants. One would therefore expect that an English nationalist would proudly accept the history and the values of England, including the taste for foreigners and globalism that we’ve acquired over the centuries. In fact, the UK largely spearheaded the process of globalisation with the British Empire, and let’s not forget the countless times we’ve invited foreigners to rule our country: the Hapsburgs, William the Conqueror, William of Orange. However, the details seem to be lost in a cloudy haze of tea, the Royal Family and St George and the dragon. English nationalists seem to be harking back to a time that never has existed. In short, the nationalistic spirit felt by English Nationalism is irrational.
German philosopher Johan Godfreid Von Herder describes exactly this phenomenon. Herder disavowed the rational approach taken by enlightenment philosophers, instead suggesting that (almost like a collective consciousness) nationalism is something natural and inexplicable. Much like Rousseau’s concept of the general will, Herder suggested that the people (Volk) had a ‘National spirit’ (Volkgeist), something that should be curated and celebrated. This perhaps explains the copious amounts of England memorabilia English nationalists often adorn themselves with.
While one could blame Northern discontent with London on bureaucratic and economic unfairness, there’s also a deeper emotional element to it. What the "northerners" view as a rich, neo-liberal, multicultural elite has chosen to opt out of the concept of Volksgeist, and has abandoned its countrymen and national spirit for money and foreign values. This appears to be a largely accurate assessment of the closing down of steel mines and the financial liberation during the Thatcher years. It therefore makes sense that English nationalists feel a constant sense of being attacked while still being the most powerful member of the United Kingdom.
However it’s important to separate this from the British nationalism of Disraeli, Churchill and now Johnson. The question of ‘English or British?’ can be seen as a clash between civic nationalism and nativist nationalism. Due to the multinational nature of the UK, rhetoric based on nationality proves ineffective at unifying the country, so instead abstract platitudes about ‘Britishness’ are thrown around, with little tangibly holding it together apart from a remarkable belief in British exceptionalism.
This is where the arbitrary and useful nature of nationalism is laid bare. While of course Rousseau believed societies fell into distinct groupings, nationalism is also a pragmatic way to align a group of people with similarities, in the hope of promoting cooperation and stability. Rousseau noted the importance of propaganda and ceremony in creating a sense of a nation. Perhaps ‘British Values’ may simply be a cultural construct designed for the mutual benefit of all (or one) parties involved.
If George Orwell were still alive, his critiques of English nationalists would be scathing. In his essay ‘notes on nationalism’, he largely explains the logical leaps that many nationalists make to defend their nation. A nationalist cannot accept that their country might be in the wrong, or has ever been in the wrong at any point in time, and therefore must bend reality to suit his vision. However I believe his critique of the academic elite is equally scathing: a lot of the reaction to the rise in English nationalism could fall under the category of ‘Negative Nationalism’. As Orwell noted in the '30s, there is a genuine Anglophobic streak in Britain’s intelligencia and (in particular) in the Labour Party. The stereotypes and prejudices against "northerners" are based on the same logical foundation: that there is such a thing as English culture, one that is separate from ‘British Culture’ and all of its new-age trappings.
The next few years will be decisive with regards to the future of Britain, as immigration and (ironically) globalisation may continue to rise even after Brexit. The nativist concerns of English nationalists can’t be ignored. For as long as English National issues are placed secondary to those of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, the simmering discontent could soon erupt into a boil.
[This article is extracted, with permission, from Stefan's blog - smessayarticles.wordpress.com]