The nations, not so blest as thee

by Henry Farrell on May 10, 2007

I’ve recently been blogging about the inadequacy of cultural explanations of national differences, but was struck by this “aside”:http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2007/05/tony_blairs_far.html by Gideon Rachman on Tony Blair’s farewell speech.

I really hated the bit when he declared that Britain is “the greatest nation on earth.” This struck me as a very unBritish statement. My faith in my fellow countrymen was, however, restored by the fact that this declaration was greeted with lukewarm applause, rather than whoops and standing ovations.

It’s true as best as I can see it, and it does make Britain quite different from other countries. Try getting away with a major speech in the US that doesn’t have some bumptious language about national greatness. France is the same I believe (albeit with a different language of triumphalism). Even Ireland has its passive-aggressive equivalent of _gloire nationale_; I read somewhere or another that there was a myth that Ireland had a special dispensation from the times of tribulation preceding the Day of Judgement because of its unsullied guardianship of the Christian virtues – the entire country would slide under the waves before the Antichrist got up to speed. But not Britain. My vague memories of reading Linda Colley’s work a decade or more ago (it surely talks about this _in extenso_) is that this wasn’t always the case. However, it certainly is now. Anyone up to date with speculations as to the reason why British nationalism doesn’t trumpet its virtues? My working hypothesis, which is open to revision or refutation, is that it’s a subtle form of Bourdieuvian one-upmanship along the lines of the “ironic gnome rule”:https://crookedtimber.org/2005/07/11/the-ironic-gnome-rule/, expressing the belief that anyone who has to proclaim their national greatness by definition doesn’t possess it.

{ 1 trackback }

Κοινωνικές τάξεις και Αγγλικός εθνικισμός at Σπιτάκι
05.10.07 at 8:12 pm

{ 50 comments }

1

dsquared 05.10.07 at 8:02 pm

Basically because of Suez, surely? The land of Hope and Glory, birthplace of both Whiggery and jingoism, was not exactly backward in coming forward when we had something to boast about; it’s just that for the last fifty years we have been rather embarrassingly the little doggies of our mates the Yanks and don’t like to draw attention to the fact.

2

nick s 05.10.07 at 8:03 pm

My vague memories of reading Linda Colley’s work a decade or more ago (it surely talks about this in extenso) is that this wasn’t always the case.

Colley’s general thesis is that ‘British’ identity emerged in ideological fashion, allowing the Whig ascendancy to gloss over the importation of a Dutch and then a German monarch. It’s very much an oppositional, fuck-the-Jacobites identity that evolves into ‘North Briton’ sentiments later in the 1700s.

The cliché of modern British self-identity is ‘we’re crap, but by God we’re proud that we know it’. There’s a related discussion here, although there’s also a distinction to be made between one’s ‘Britishness’ and one’s ‘sense of Britain’.

3

Lester Hunt 05.10.07 at 8:05 pm

A hypothesis closely related to yours, Henry, would be that in the past the British didn’t have to boast, because their greatness was so obvious. The rest of us had to worry that if we didn’t raise a shout, no one would notice how great we were. The fact that Blair felt a need to holler suggests, ironically, that there has been a downward trend in Britain’s fortunes. Its greatness cannot any longer be taken as obvious.

4

Anderson 05.10.07 at 8:16 pm

The greatness is evident, but it’s infra dig to announce it in public?

5

Matthew 05.10.07 at 8:16 pm

I think it’s because we did believe we were the Greatest Nation on Earth, and probably were in the terms in which we defined it, which basically was Empire and Naval Power. Those who are prone to such declarations still believe it is to do with Empire and Naval Power, but aren’t delusional enough to believe we are still No.1.

This can be seen from the Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson Society, who really do still believe in Naval Power above all, and are left stirringly and ludicrously declaring that Britain is “unquestionably the second most powerful nation on earth”.

6

Cheryl 05.10.07 at 8:18 pm

There are an awful lot of things that the British are very clearly not best at. Look at our sports teams, for example – constantly receiving drubbings in a whole lot of sports we invented. But other nations have their faults too. And the one thing we Brits can be proud of is that we are not so crass and dumb as to go mouthing off about how wonderful we are when it clearly isn’t true. We are the best nation in the world at not being triumphalist. (Well, most of are not, but that’s just another reason to be glad we are rid of Bliar.)

7

James 05.10.07 at 8:22 pm

This is also reminiscent of the Flanders & Swann line:

“I think that the reason for this is that in the old days – you know, the good old days when I was a boy – people didn’t, we didn’t bother in England about nationalism. I mean, nationalism was on its way out. We’d got pretty well everything we wanted and we didn’t go around saying how marvelous we were – everybody knew that – any more than we bothered to put our names on our stamps. I mean, there’s only two kinds of stamps: English stamps in sets at the beginning of the album, and foreign stamps all mixed at the other end. Any Gibbon could tell you that.”

Though that is specifically about the English, not the British. Is Britain a nation, or merely a country?

8

a 05.10.07 at 8:23 pm

The British stiff upper lip disappeared at Diana’s death. I see no reason why Britsh modesty should not be far behind.

9

dr green 05.10.07 at 8:55 pm

Umm, it seems to me the answer is because Britain is not a nation. Rather, it is made up of the ‘four nations’ (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), as anyone who has watched the last night of the Proms will know. (There are live broadcasts and concerts in Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London.) This should be especially present in people’s minds after the Scottish National Party victory over Labour in last week’s regional elections.

For anyone in doubt over this, go and check out the far right in Britain – while they may claim to be British, like the British National Party, they in fact are very much English in their support. (I once attended a BNP rally in London for sociological reasons, and saw more English flags than British ones.)

Indeed, Colley’s point, as suggested above, is that British identity was formed in opposition to 1) the French and 2) Catholicism, which were two factors uniting the newly-created state of Great Britain (later to become the UK) and its consituent parts.

10

Peter 05.10.07 at 9:18 pm

This feature of British culture — of not boasting about the greatness of the country — is not driven by humility or reticence. Rather, it derives from a snobbish condescension towards Johnny Foreigner. It’s the same reason that British stamps do not name their country, and that so many British organizations do not announce their nationality (“The Royal Society”, “The Royal Academy”, “The National Theatre”, “The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music”, “The World Service”, etc).

If you live in the centre of what you believe is the world’s greatest empire, with everyone else looking at you (rather than you at them), there’s no need to say where you are. Similarly, all that public boasting by Americans about how great their country is may be an attempt to convince themselves that the truth is not otherwise.

11

nick s 05.10.07 at 9:26 pm

Picking up on no. 10, ‘British’ is generally the primary self-identifier for a) Ulster Unionists [1]; b) ethnic minorities; c) expats [2].

[1] See 2:25 onwards. And the comments on that link really do miss the point.

[2] At least, in some expat environments.

12

Richard 05.10.07 at 9:55 pm

The fact that Blair felt a need to holler suggests, ironically, that there has been a downward trend in Britain’s fortunes. Its greatness cannot any longer be taken as obvious.

Ahem. My own impression is that Britain has been in constantly reducing circumstances as a ‘great nation’ since about 1870, with the occasional blip of an upturn, and the inexplicable exception of the housing market, which has now spiralled so far out of control that buying a house in a significant part of the country has become a multi-generational problem. It now nestles in the cultural and political shadow of the US – a position which is becoming rapidly less comfortable – but it lacks the social capital, strength or inclination to make a go of the EU. Britain’s GDP was exceeded by Italy’s in (IIRC) the late 1990s; the country appears to survive on banking and financial services alone, and has a steadily-dwindling number of middle-class jobs to offer.

I think the kinds of British people we’re talking about here (which, let’s be honest, isn’t any such creature as the ‘general public’) don’t trumpet British ‘greatness’ exactly because they don’t feel it, and have many of their investments abroad. Perhaps this small group remembers the Empire wistfully; perhaps it’s even shocked into silence by its creeping oblivescence (and obsolescence).

It was typical Tony, though (stern expression, defiant eyebrows).

13

JakeB 05.10.07 at 10:08 pm

14

Alex 05.10.07 at 10:23 pm

Britain’s GDP was exceeded by Italy’s in (IIRC) the late 1990s

s/b mid-1980s: no longer factual anyway.

15

vavatch 05.10.07 at 10:26 pm

British GDP: $2.341 Trillion

Italian GDP:$1.78 Trillion

Relative decline, in the sense of being overtaken by a few other developing nations, is not the same thing as actual decline.

There’s a strange tendency among some british people, such as richard, to go beyond bashfulness about britain to believing and hoping for failure. Such people often invent a mental landscape of doom and gloom. Strangely, these people are often also somewhat left wing, or at least wet. Perhaps it justifies their agenda to leap into the dark and effect radical change? Who can say.

16

John Emerson 05.10.07 at 11:24 pm

Subaltern nations led by poodles are not in a position to be jingoistic. They’re loyal and humble.

17

Richard 05.11.07 at 1:04 am

Relative decline, in the sense of being overtaken by a few other developing nations, is not the same thing as actual decline.

Quite so, although when the decline was relative to Germany at the beginning of the 20th century it seemed rather important to the government of the day. Try using this argument with Americans nervous about rising Chinese and Indian commerce, or (briefly) about the Euro as a competitor for the title of ‘world’s currency.’ Relative rather than actual decline might also describe Indian trade compared with British in the 18th century, or the Dutch East India Company against the English one: it seems to have been quite enough in each case. My point above was to try to summarise a mood, predicated mostly on a sense of political importance, rather than economic figures: I’m fairly convinced that the perceived trajectory of rise or fall is more important to morale than where one actually is on one’s path (within certain values: Afghan poverty probably breaks that model).

believing and hoping for failure

No, I deny that, and I really don’t see where you got hoping from. I may not care much about ‘Britain’ but I certainly want the people there to be comfortable, hopeful and successful; just like everywhere else.

Thanks for the GDP data BTW: I wonder if you can tell me whether the shift back is because of British growth or Italian decline? The last several years have been rough on many European economies, as I understand it from the news media.

18

christopher 05.11.07 at 1:09 am

Germany also does not seem fond of bromides — methinks World War II, Nazism, genocide are too recent in our memories.

19

Richard 05.11.07 at 1:10 am

Oh, and: left wing or at least wet
are we really still trading in this outdated model?

their agenda to leap into the dark and effect radical change
So am I a totalitarian modernist or a fundamentalist cultist? Who can say. You choose.

20

Aaron Swartz 05.11.07 at 1:39 am

In England all the boasting and flag-wagging, the ‘Rule Britannia’ stuff, is done by small minorities. The patriotism of the common people is not vocal or even conscious. They do not retain among their historical memories the name of a single military victory. English literature, like other literatures, is full of battle-poems, but it is worth noticing that the ones that have won for themselves a kind of popularity are always a tale of disasters and retreats. There is no popular poem about Trafalgar or Waterloo, for instance. Sir John Moore’s army at Corunna, fighting a desperate rearguard action before escaping overseas (just like Dunkirk!) has more appeal than a brilliant victory. The most stirring battle-poem in English is about a brigade of cavalry which charged in the wrong direction. And of the last war, the four names which have really engraved themselves on the popular memory are Mons, Ypres, Gallipoli and Passchendaele, every time a disaster. The names of the great battles that finally broke the German armies are simply unknown to the general public.

(George Orwell, “England Your England”, 1941)

21

jim 05.11.07 at 1:58 am

dr green, upcomments, invoked The Last Night of The Proms. Henry’s title comes from (a verse of) one of the standard fixtures of The Last Night, the chorus to which is enthusiastically sung: “Britannia rule the waves.” But perhaps the most full-throated response comes when the conductor turns to the audience for the reprise of Land of Hope and Glory: “How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?” There is an odd self-consciousness at work, here. One is safest expressing one’s sense of superiority through humour. Flanders & Swann, again: “The British, the British, the British are best; I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest.”

22

Chris Bertram 05.11.07 at 4:59 am

_go and check out the far right in Britain – while they may claim to be British, like the British National Party, they in fact are very much English in their support._

… apart from the ones who are Welsh, if election results are to be believed. Mind you, the BNP Welsh stronghold appears to be Wrexham (see the notes to Daniel’s Bud post for further details on that benighted town).

23

MQ 05.11.07 at 5:06 am

I’m waiting for Henry to ban John Emerson now.

I believe the answer is given in this fine book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_All_That

which ends when it becomes irrefutably clear that Britain is no longer Top Nation. The Brits take a wounded pride in their realism. It would give the lie to their centuries as a true lion to strut about as a bantam rooster now.

24

Jon Kay 05.11.07 at 5:35 am

Of course, as your and Blair’s different answers show, you’re entertaining a stereotype where, really, different Britons have different reactions.

Part of it probably is London vs. the rest of Britain; to create yet another stupid stereotype, big cities tend to be more pessimistic in outlook.

Also, I believe rather more Britons USED to be on the arrogantly nationalistic side. During the Empah and all that.

25

stuart 05.11.07 at 6:38 am

Surely talking about the greatest nation in the world is about as sensible as saying which is the greatest movie of all time. It is purely subjective – one person might rate the US highly because of its dominant military while another would find it morally repugnant to be paying tax just so that some political elite can play soldiers for fun. No doubt you can eliminate some countries from the running without much argument, just as you could probably eliminate Spiderman 3, but to try to narrow it down to a single candidate is largely meaningless to everyone else (however if you actually provided justification for it rather than a bald statement that could be of interest).

26

magistra 05.11.07 at 7:32 am

Even before the decline of British power, expressions of patriotism (British or English) always had a class aspect to them as well. Have a look at Rudyard Kipling’s chapter in Stalkey and Co on the ‘Jelly-Bellied Flag Flapper’. Among the genuine multicultural concerns today about prominent flying of the St George’s Cross, there’s often still an undercurrent of sneering at the lower orders. On the other hand it’s perfectly acceptable for middle class liberals to talk about Britian having the best television in the world, however much evidence to the contrary there may be.

Apparently there are signs up in Scotland calling it ‘the best small country in the world’. I leave it to the non-English among you to discuss the significance of this.

27

Richard 05.11.07 at 9:43 am

Flanders & Swann, again: “The British, the British, the British are best; I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest.”

Um, no. That’s English – the verses all denigrate the Welsh, Irish and Scots.

28

tom hurka 05.11.07 at 9:44 am

Re #21:

Go to a medieval-weapons display at e.g. Warwick Castle or Kenilworth (as we recently did with our 8-year-old). It’s all about Crecy and Agincourt and how the stout, yew-bow wielding English beat the poncey French. The fact that these were battles in a war the English eventually lost isn’t mentioned at all. It’s exactly the opposite of what Orwell says: only victories are remembered from a war the other side ended up winning.

And though it’s not quite a ‘poem’, isn’t the post-Agincourt speech in Henry V pretty stirring and pretty popular?

29

bad Jim 05.11.07 at 10:14 am

How long has it been since any German public figure attempted to remind us of their national greatness? 62 years?

How many months until the dirt nap of the American reputation?

30

sanbikinoraion 05.11.07 at 10:22 am

Peter @ 11:
Because clearly the US doesn’t do this at all. Baseball, anyone?

I suspect that the “British Broadcasting Corporation World Service” might object to the claim that it doesn’t feature where it’s from in the title.

Also, the Royal Society: can you name another (sizeable) English-speaking country that has a monarchy other than the British one? No? Then I think that they are safe in proclaiming themselves to be the Royal Society in English.

And “The National Theatre”? C’mon. It’s not as if other countries don’t have national theatres. Like the US, for example.

31

Elliott Oti 05.11.07 at 11:30 am

Also, the Royal Society: can you name another (sizeable) English-speaking country that has a monarchy other than the British one?

Canada and Australia?

32

Peter 05.11.07 at 11:32 am

I think some of the explanations quoted above are partly correct. It’s a strange feeling when you’re about the only country that doesn’t have an Independence Day, and nearly everyone else’s is about independence from you.

But an equally important factor is the ingrained English dislike and distrust of any strong emotion. Love my country? Well, you know, it’s alright.

33

Glorious Godfrey 05.11.07 at 11:39 am

cheryl at #7: We are the best nation in the world at not being triumphalist.

That’s complete and utter bollocks, you know. There are countries beyond the one you see across the Channel and that other one across the pond. You surely have never talked to Spaniards, for instance. The aversion of Germans to boisterous patriotism has been already mentioned, but I guess that for many Britons, It’s Jerry and he just doesn’t mean it.

The thread is doing a pretty good job, but two things deserve to be stressed:

a) triumphalism and nationalism are not identic. The denizens of the Balkan countries are in general under no illusions about their place in the larger scheme of things. This doesn’t prevent the level of nationalism from being well above the European average (although the perception of this in Western Europe tends in turn to be quite exaggerated).

b) more importantly, there’s the issue of whether one thinks that the nation-state (or at least something that has been around for long enough to be often identified with one, like the UK) is the ultimate depositary of democratic legitimacy and such, whether one has an instinctive dislike of or distrust towards (some) international institutions, etc. In this regard, I’d say that nationalism in the UK, and in England in particular, is alive and well.

34

Glorious Godfrey 05.11.07 at 11:45 am

Hmmm, replace “triumphalism” above with something more general like “perception of exalted status” or whatever.

35

Glorious Godfrey 05.11.07 at 12:06 pm

And it’s “identical”, of course.

36

bill the turk 05.11.07 at 12:24 pm

‘Flanders & Swann, again: “The British, the British, the British are best; I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest.”

Um, no. That’s English – the verses all denigrate the Welsh, Irish and Scots. ‘

Not quite true –

‘And crossing the channel, one cannot say much
For the French and the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch,’

although the Germans, I think, are derided foir being ‘German’.

Incidentally, has no-one else remarked on the irony of an English ‘song of patriotic prejudice’ being sung by a Mr. Flanders?

37

Peter 05.11.07 at 12:49 pm

To Sanbikinoraion at #30:

Your quibbles about (some) examples of my claim don’t refute the claim. To answer your question about The Royal Society: When The RS was founded in 1660, there WAS indeed another English-speaking monarchy in existence — in fact, just next door — in Scotland. The two kingdoms did not join in union till 1706.

After the Hanoverian accession to the British thrown the lack of a geographical identifier on the name of The Royal Society is even more noticeable, because each male Hanoverian monarch was both King of Britain and Elector of Hanover. Odd that the people running the Royal Society never felt they had to clarify exactly which royal it was whose society they were.

38

Francis 05.11.07 at 12:59 pm

Incidentally, has no-one else remarked on the irony of an English ‘song of patriotic prejudice’ being sung by a Mr. Flanders?

Oh, of course. And both Swann’s parents were immigrants. (I believe Michael’s were as well, but I’m not so sure of that). That’s what the line “The flower of the English” is all about…

39

Nathaniel 05.11.07 at 1:29 pm

I’ve always been partial to German president Gustav Heinemann’s response when asked whether he loved his country:
“I love no states. I love my wife. That’s all.” (Ich liebe keine Staaten, ich liebe meine Frau, fertig!)

I suppose that’s a prominent example of a high-ranking Jerry who meant it :-)

40

ajay 05.11.07 at 1:59 pm

It’s the same reason that British stamps do not name their country, and that so many British organizations do not announce their nationality (“The Royal Society”, “The Royal Academy”, “The National Theatre”, “The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music”, “The World Service”, etc).

Well, Britain had stamps first – no need to put your name on them if no one else has them. (see TLD suffixes.)
And if you can unlimber the chip on your shoulder long enough to look around, Britain isn’t exactly alone in this. Picking some random examples: the National Geographic Society, for example, expects you to know which nation. The Swedish Navy simply calls itself “Marinen” and its ships “HMS”.

When The RS was founded in 1660, there WAS indeed another English-speaking monarchy in existence—in fact, just next door—in Scotland.

Which had, and follow me closely here, THE SAME KING AS ENGLAND. Blimey.

And, yes…
The Germans are German, The Russians are Red,
And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed!

And all the world over, each nation’s the same,
They’ve simply no notion of playing the game –
They argue with umpires, they cheer when they’ve won,
And they practise beforehand, which ruins the fun!

41

Cirkux 05.11.07 at 3:48 pm

I’d actually like to make a case for Sweden as being far less nationalistic than Britain.
In Sweden flagwaving is really only ever done by the far right, and as opposed to our neighbours in Denmark and Norway (who were of course bot occupied by the germans during WWII) we don’t celebrate national day (6th of June which is only an excuse for a day off work).
Britons in my experience are quite ethnocentric and do tend to think other countries are slightly underdeveloped without ever having visited them, and surely that must count for nationalism?

42

rm 05.11.07 at 7:36 pm

There’s a long history to this. Look at the mention of “Protestant imperial guilt” and “a religion of self-restraint” here. I took the course before it was a book. What I mainly remember is that when the Native Americans in California offered to worship Drake as a god (according to Hakluyt, of course; no one really knows what the Californians were thinking), he piously and humbly refused, which is exactly what gave Drake the moral right to claim the land! (Neat how that works.) In contrast to those evil Spaniards who are happy to deceive the simple natives.

43

Phoenician in a time of Romans 05.12.07 at 9:02 am

It’s the same reason that British stamps do not name their country,

They don’t name the country because they were the first to have stamps. They didn’t need to say “UK” on them, unlike everyone else.

Unfortunately, my country is not immune to nationalism. Fortunately, we channel it into fifteen men on a field beating the snot out of the Poms, Aussies and South Africans.

44

Matt McIrvin 05.12.07 at 1:00 pm

How many months until the dirt nap of the American reputation?

Until?

I’d actually like to make a case for Sweden as being far less nationalistic than Britain.

It also fell to the Swedes to sing about Waterloo.

45

John Emerson 05.12.07 at 3:37 pm

Gustavas Vasa: the Father of His Country — or a self-educated fugitive slave? Only the Swedes have to ask themselves that kind of question.

46

John Emerson 05.12.07 at 3:39 pm

Or maybe just Gustav Ericsson.

47

Koranteng Ofosu-Amaah 05.13.07 at 6:36 am

Quoting Malcolm Bradbury in Eating People is Wrong:

After all, there was one thing that every Englishman knew from his very soul, and that was that, for all experiences and all manners, in England lay the norm; England was the country that God had got to first, properly, and here life was taken to the point of purity, to it’s Platonic source, so that all ways elsewhere were underdeveloped, or impure, or overripe. Everyone in England knew this, and an occasion like the present one was not likely to prove that things had altered. I have lived in England, was the underlying statement, and I know what life is like

Handwaving here as usual…
It is interesting to compare John Major and Blair – Major’s prime legacy is grayness: the notion that the UK is ultimately middling and understated. Blair’s elevates the stakes but in declaiming his typical focused-group empty slogans he is applying the American hard sell to a country that has no need for Dr Feelgood. Everyone likes a little bit of nostalgia but there is no need to go overboard like he does.

48

Alan Kellogg 05.13.07 at 7:19 pm

I recall a commercial (for something or other) where the point about the product (whatever it was) was made by telling the story behind the builidng of Carnegie Hall in NYC. It ends with a man shouting down from the seats to the architect, who responds in a normal tone of voice, “In this theater you don’t have to shout.”

49

stostosto 05.15.07 at 9:16 am

as opposed to our neighbours in Denmark and Norway (who were of course bot occupied by the germans during WWII) we don’t celebrate national day

What? We Danes don’t even have a national day. What a typical ignorant, chauvinist, snooty Swedish comment.

It’s true that we’re big on flagwaving, though. The Muhammad cartoon crisis last year with Middle Easterners routinely torching the Danish flag only resulted in a brief lull in this. As best I can see we’re back to waving flags at every given occasion: Birthdays, home-comings, sports events, Sundays at the garden house.

50

stostosto 05.15.07 at 9:47 am

Is it true that Britons are hopelessly confused when arriving at a cross-channel customs service and finding signs saying “French nationals” and “Foreigners”? Because they, of course, are neither.

Comments on this entry are closed.