Some corner of a foreign blog that is forever England: Britishness in the 21st century and why the experts are wrong.

The definition of 'Britishness' seems a very en vogue topic at present. Of course, I would trace its current manifestation to the easy, short-term political capital generated from the (seemingly exagerated) 'threat' of immigration. The difference at the moment is the Left's (well, Labour's) preoccupation with the topic. Labouristas have flirted with the rhetoric of xenophobia in their jockeying for position as Tony Blair begins to wind down his time at number ten. It is certainly an age-old and reliable technique that generates support from the right-leaning sections of the party and headlines in the Mail. Gordon Brown has his speeches on national identity and the style Jack Straw's comments on Islamic headwear seem an almost faint mimicry of Kilroy-Silk, and common sense dictates that any similarity with that man is something to be avoided if at all possible. It is a crude way of doing politics and no doubt will be discarded rapidly for its effects are only short-term.

However, the underlying question remains: What does it mean to be British? Some, such as Lord Tebbitt, believed it can be reduced to a 'cricket match' test: Who would you support in cricket match? Others, such as the Guardian believe it is a set of values, particularly individuality, liberty, inclusiveness and other such terms that sound good but generally become very vague and nebulous upon examination. I mean, it is nice to think of England as the home of noble virtues but we did have the Empire for a good long while, a great cause of oppression, chauvanistic nationalism and general snobbery. Such a definition is woolly and untenable under any intensive scrutiny. So let us take the politicians out of the picture and see what some historians have to say.

If one is to believe the post-structuralists, meaning is derived by a term's opposition to something else, thus, in the past, Britishness was formed by opposition to other countries, particularly the Empire; the stoic rationality of the British was shown by the effeminate barbarism of subject nations. Yet, previous objects of comparison, such as the greasy Frenchman or the lazy Irishman, no longer seem valid. [Note to self -finish this section later]

So what is the answer? Well, the solution is firstly to separate the nation from the state, for it is when the two are combined that problems arise. When nationality can be minutely defined by, say, ethnic critieria, then this legitimises processes of exclusion - tighter border controls, id cards etc. Conversely, vague, rose-tinted values are easily manipulated or used to justify any sort of policy - 'liberty' when spoken by a politician usually means free trade and/or helping out businesses, 'self-sacrifice' and 'civic values' means we'll be probably fighting in some war soon etc.

Far better to recognise nationality in the political sphere as just being a beaureaucratic boundary, lines on a map for administrative purposes, somewhat arbitrary but useful for sharing resources to citizens. Of course, this leads to organisations of a supra-national nature, but I shall return to the theme of cosmopolitanism at a later date.

And a definition of Britishness? Not questioning what Britishness is, not seeking to know its exact causes and forms, that is to be British. To assume the quality of Britishness just emerges from whenever by virtue of itself and accept that as a valid definition in others. If you have to question it, pin it down and study it then it disappears. I believe that is what it means to be British. Without wishing to sound too much like a slacker hippy: 'let it be'.

Hmm quoting Lennon seems to invalidate my argument somehow, I shall reexamine tomorrow.