By City A.M. Comment Desk
City A.M.’s weekly feature takes the fiercest water-cooler debates and pits two candidates head to head before delivering The Judge’s ultimate verdict.
Is English nationalism a force for good?
Yes: Why wouldn’t we be proud of Shakespeare?
Although the English have been writing their history since the Venerable Bede in the eighth century, England nationalism is today primarily the preserve of football hooligans. As George Orwell put it, England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality.
But people have a natural desire to celebrate their country – its history, culture, and landscape – and to identify with something greater than themselves. Sneering at this instinct leaves Englishness to bigots and outcasts, rather than serving as a positive force. We lose a sense of common purpose.
Celebrating Englishness doesn’t mean whitewashing our past or ignoring the changes of recent decades. But it does mean having a confidence our politicians usually lack. Not to sound like Hugh Grant, but we are the country of Shakespeare, Churchill, and Beckham, and should be proud of it.
Every St George’s Day, I re-read Orwell’s ‘England your England’ – his attempt, during the Blitz, to define an England he loved so he could plot out how it needed to change. I do not share his socialism, but I share his sentiments. I believe in England, and I believe that we shall go forward.
England has long been submerged into larger entities: Britain, the UK, the Empire. Since the English make up four-fifths of the UK’s population, English nationalism is considered more divisive than its Celtic counterparts. Britishness seems more inclusive and appropriate for a multi-racial society.
No: We must be outward-looking, not navel-gazing
English nationalism, as we know it, has a reputation problem. Unlike the Union Jack and ‘cool Britannia’, the Saint George’s flag has become synonymous with the far right and nationalism, a dirty word. A few years ago, the Economist printed that “English nationalism is the most disruptive force in English politics” and when you look at the dictionary definition: identification with one’s nation […] to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations… then I wholeheartedly reject it!
In an increasingly interconnected world, we stand as a testament to the rich mixture of cultural diversity that has become our hallmark. As an island nation with a storied history of seafaring and exploration, the UK has always had an outward-looking perspective, eagerly adopting and integrating the best of technology, innovation, and culture from around the globe. Our openness to embracing diverse values, heritages, and nationalities enriches our society, adding vibrancy and depth to our way of life. To me, this is the opposite of nationalism, but doesn’t denounce pride in our country. When countries work together – Nato, the World Health Organisation, the United Nations – we’re better off for it.
Moreover, the UK’s cultural scene is undeniable and a large part of it is due to our openness and adaptation, attitudes which are not fostered by nationalism but which have made this country a better place. We are pros at absorbing influences from abroad, remixing them, and then sharing them back with the world has been a hallmark of our cultural power. Just look at our music, food and cinema. None of this would be so good without an open attitude to other cultures.
Embracing the future means continuing our tradition of openness and adaptation and recognising that our strength lies in our diversity. English nationalism is exclusive rather than inclusive, so it fails to serve this vision well.
The Verdict: What happened to communitarianism?
Nationalism denotes identification with one’s nation and support for its interests.
The idea that English nationalism is innate is misguided, whatever Atkinson suggests. After all, no one is born with the ‘English’ ability to knock back four pints of Stella in the first half of an England World Cup match, or with a compulsion to queue. Yet Atkinson is right to say that people have a natural desire “to identify with something greater than themselves”.
The question is whether this ‘something’ should be the nation state, institutions that really only developed in the 18th century. Before then, tribalism and communitarianism abounded on a far more local level. More authentic, perhaps.
Must nationalism be exclusionary? Bolser argues yes: nationalism is oppositional and scuppers diplomacy and global cooperation. That can be so, particularly when nations pursue protectionist policies such as the China- America chip war, or the insipidly named ‘strategic autonomy’.
Could people find pride in places other than nationalism? Communities perhaps? We’re sure a little more pride in the Square Mile wouldn’t go amiss.
