ENGLISHNESS

(I wrote this a while ago and have posted it before - on my old Facebook page for example. It was interesting to reread it. I still agree with what I wrote then. Maybe I will develop some of the themes I touch on here.)

I am English. I am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I was born and raised in England (which is just one of the United Kingdoms) and it as an 'English man' I identify myself. And I am proud of that and I am proud of my country. I feel no embarrassment about my pride. I used to do, and I am painfully aware that my country is not what it once was. It has fallen pray to political correctness, the 'victim' culture, fragmentation of old communities, economic failure, poor education … I could go on, but these are issues for another occasion I think.

What I want to try and do here is describe what I think it means to be 'English', or at least describe what elements of English culture endured for a very long time and helped us define ourselves. I do not want to fall into the trap of claiming some form of 'enduring essence' which is so common when people talk of culture, because I don't believe that for a moment. But out of our evolution as a nation emerged certain long lasting elements that became central to our 'English-ness.'

First of all a general description as taken from Wikipedia's article on England.

“England became a unified state in the year 927 and takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled there during the 5th and 6th centuries. It has had a significant cultural and legal impact on the wider world being the place of origin of the English language, the Church of England and English law, which forms the basis of the common law legal systems of many countries around the world. In addition, England was a crucial early leader of the Industrial Revolution. It is home to the Royal Society, which contributed greatly to modern experimental science. England is the world's oldest parliamentary democracy and consequently many constitutional, governmental and legal innovations that had their origin in England have been widely adopted by other nations.”

After the Roman Army withdrew in the year 410 CE the old province of Britannia fell relatively quickly to various Germanic tribes – Angles, Saxons and Jutes. During the course of the 5^th Century the geographical area we call England came to be occupied by several independent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. This geographical area was known as 'Engleland' (Land of the Angles), but that did not refer to a single state or monarchy. In 793 the first Viking raid is recorded as having occurred at Lindisfarne in northern England. To cut a long and complex (and VERY interesting!) story short the Vikings eventually held the Kingdom of Jorvik in northern England and the Danelaw in the east of England. The Kingdom of Jorvik existed from approximately 866 CE to 954 CE, when it was absorbed into the then Kingdom of England. The Danelaw came into existence in approximately 800 CE and was a loose grouping of mainly Danish Viking minor kingdoms. It effectively became incorporated into the Kingdom of Wessex in 884 CE when the Danish chief was baptised and became Christian. It continued to exist as a legal entity for many centuries.

The presence of these Viking 'states' had several important effects. They destroyed or absorbed many of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until only the Kingdom of Wessex was powerful enough to resist and, eventually, absorb them. In other words, they cleared the field for the eventual unification of 'Engleland' under the kings of Wessex . This was achieved by the year 927 CE.

Later, came the Norman Invasion of 1066 and the face and direction of English development was changed forever.

As absolutely fascinating as I find this history to be, it is not my purpose here to give a narrative history of England. IF one is interested the various articles on Wikipedia are a great place to start. I just wanted to sketch in the origin of the country of 'England' as a unified state.

What, in my opinion, defines 'Englishness'? I have six broad themes I wish to discuss and they are:

1. Distrust of authority
2. Tolerance
3. Amateurism
4. Sex
5. Humour
6. Education
7. Scepticism

Distrust of authority

Up until the 18th century the English were regarded by most of Europe as ungovernable. The English state was a rather ramshackle and, indeed, amateurish affair and people felt loyalty to their locality first and foremost. This, of course, is probably true of most places at most times. But in England there was a very strong sense of localism and local 'independence'. In England local government and authorities had far more influence than the state. Again, not so different from most places I would guess. But when the two came into conflict then the localist and anti-authoritarian strand becomes more visible.

For example, if one considers the history of policing in England. In 1829 the Metropolitan Police were established to cover metropolitan London. This was the first depersonalised, hierarchical and bureaucratic police force in England. Compared to Prussia or France England was many years behind. For the rest of the 19th Century many 'Police Acts' were passed allowing local authorities to establish their own police forces. That is why we, technically anyway, do not have a national police force in England but rather 39 'County' forces. There were many more but many amalgamations have taken place. The establishment of these forces was not a smooth process, but was actively and violently resisted in most places and police officers were attacked frequently. It was a very long time before police forces became routinely tolerated.

This is just one simple example of what I mean by a 'localistic' anti-authoritarianism. It still exists, but in a much dampened down form, finding expression in satire and humour on the one hand and a growing sub-culture of 'resistance' expressed, unfortunately, all to often as criminal violence.

Tolerance

People have always been welcome in England. The impression one has today is somewhat different, I agree, but it is still far from the norm. Since we welcomed the Huguenots in 1685 we have welcomed refugees and rebels of all kinds. The most famous individual being, probably, Karl Marx in 1849. He remained in London the rest of his life.

Again, a single incident to illustrate this. In 1849 or 1850 an Austrian general made an official visit to London. This general had been responsible for some very brutal reprisals against the rebels of 1848. He was received politely, but coldly, by the government. But in the streets he was booed at, jostled and had garbage thrown at him. The ordinary working class people identified with his victims. This is an example of intolerance to bullying and injustice, and solidarity with the downtrodden.

Mmmmm – as I write this in a sort of free flowing fashion I realise that I may have contradicted myself here. However, on reflection I think not – 'Englishness' is very tolerant, but also very Intolerant of injustice. This needs a little deepening maybe, but I think that is fair. More on this maybe later.

Amateurism

In philosophy (and in engineering) the English have a tradition of empirical pragmatism. What I mean in everyday terms is a sort of 'muddle through' and 'It'll do' attitude – If it works why fix it? This is exemplified in the figure of the 19th gentleman who, with a degree in Classics from Oxbridge was expected to be able to run a province of the British Empire – and usually did, fairly well.

Two more concrete examples – in the 18th Century if the Royal Navy captured a French warship it was repaired and commissioned into service with them. That was a fairly common practice, admittedly, but the French warships were so much better. Well designed, elegant, good sailors and so forth. And that was because they were designed from the bottom up from theoretical principles. This made them expensive and the building took time. English warships, on the other hand, were build very quickly based on years of experience. They weren't perfect, but they would do the job.

During World War 2 the official slogan of the research and development people was 'Second best today'. This meant if it works, maybe with rough edges and some crudity, but IF it works get it into production. When German equipment was captured everyone marvelled at its superiority, its superb design and so on. The Germans used a lot of time and money getting it right before it went into production, so it was excellent but could never be produced in enough numbers because it was expensive in time and materials.

This amateurism can be seen in many areas. And take a look at the works of Heath Robinson (check good old Wikipedia).

It is a sort of anarchistic style that can be a very creative and inventive. But, of course, it is anti-professional and anti-theoretical, and it does not do well in the modern world.

Sex

This might seem a strange topic to include in any definition of Englishness. I am well aware that the English are perceived as sexually repressed and rather cold emotionally. Not true! Certainly, the domination of middle-class Victorian values during the 19th Century can give that impression, but under that veneer was a different world – hypocritical maybe, but not cold!

If, however, one looks at the rural agricultural classes and, later, the industrial working classes one finds a crude (yes) but very open and honest approach to sexuality (admittedly, as long as you weren't gay – but even there in pre-industrial times there was far more acceptance than people realise). Up to the early 19th century there were many festivals and celebrations in the countryside associated with the seasons, crops, the harvest and so on. Many of these had changed little for centuries and, despite Christianisation, had a distinctly 'pagan' flavour that included a rough and very open sexuality.

The rise to dominance of 'Victorian' middle class values either brought about the removal of these festivals or greatly tamed them.

Even though the values of the middle class gained dominance, there was still a very 'active', though hidden and hypocritical, sexuality. Not so hidden for the working classes however, look at the very open nature of music hall entertainment for example.

And, of course, the old aristocracy had a far more open and, possible, healthier attitude altogether before that, too, became swamped with middle class attitudes.

It is a far more entangled and complex history than most people realise and far more than I can do justice too here.

But this attitude to sexuality is still visible in some elements of English comedy for example (Benny Hill – I do not personally like him, but he represents an important strand.) It is also visible in the minutia of daily life and humour.

Humour

And that leads on to the English sense of humour. I, of course, think it is the best to be found. Sorry about that little bit of ethnocentrism. I think the real key to our humour is the English language itself. English is such a huge language. It is impossible to say how big the vocabulary is because new words enter all the time, slang evolves in many directions and there are enormous regional variations. The Oxford English Dictionary has a very strict set of rules regarding what is allowed in and it still has over 600,000 entries. This gives the language a great flexibility.

It is also a very forgiving language. By this I mean that the grammar can take a great deal of hammering and still produce a meaningful sentence.

I think it is this quality of English that produces the best and most 'English' humour.

As a quick example take Rowan Atkinson's work. His character 'Mr. Bean', while representing a distinct strand in English humour (the visual more 'slapstick' style) stands in contrast to his 'Blackadder' persona. Blackadder depends on the use of language. A great deal of English humour depends upon the sheer breadth and flexibility of the language.

This is also apparent in everyday life, at home, at school or at work where verbal wit and quips are used all the time.

I think this type of humour gets to the very centre of 'Englishness' as via this wonderful medium many of the other aspects of what we are can be expressed in a sharp and often witty way: anti-authoritarian, creativity, and so on.

Education

This is also a massive topic and I do not intend to discuss the history of education in England, although is a fascinating subject. What I mean is a sort of drive to learn, to self education, to 'improve oneself' by learning. This is an element of Englishness that, I fear, has almost been destroyed by the modern system.

One simple example – at some point in the mid-19th Century two well educated gentlemen were waiting for a train on a platform somewhere in England. They could not help but notice a group of railway workers, who were stood a short distance away, engaged in a heated discussion. Thinking it would be amusing to hear what a group of working class men could get so heated about the two gentlemen sauntered over to within earshot. They were amazed to hear the workers in a heated debate about the philosopher Plato.

During the 19th Century the working class, in particular, demonstrated a burning desire for education. This desire led to the emergence of many evening school systems – some Trades Union sponsored some local authority or private. It led to the emergence of the Adult Education and Workers Education Authorities. It fuelled the rise of the mass printing of cheap paperback books.

Even in the middle classes the desire for 'self improvement' through education, through learning, was a very strong theme.

I do fear this has been lost, but it remains an element in my perception of 'Englishness.'

Scepticism

Scepticism is a strong element of Englishness, especially amongst the rural and industrial working classes. It is an aspect of our anti-authoritarianism, our amateurish creativity and our humour.

My grandparents taught me scepticism. Not in a formal way, but in practice. My father's parents were 'simple' country people, but they had a very healthy, pragmatic and empirical scepticism. 'Show me' was their typical attitude – you say so-and-so, so please show me!

I learned a sort of basic sceptical attitude from them, for which I am grateful.

Conclusion

That's it, sort of – or maybe just a start. In writing this in an open and 'free-flowing' manner I have not concerned my self with sourcing my claims – the joy of blogs! I could though, if I had the time.

I have also discovered various themes that I hadn't really thought through before – material for further writing maybe?

I am aware, also, that I grew up in a very different England to the one that now exists. I was born in 1953 – so the years of greatest significance to my development as a person are probably from about 1960 to 1975 or so. A period that has far more in common with my parents world, and even my grandparents world, than modern England does. 

Finally – and a little bit off topic, but not totally. I do not think it is meaningful for people alive today, for existing governments, to apologise for the actions of their ancestors and predecessors. I think it meaningless actually. And that brings me to the subject of the British Empire – for which, I truly believe, no apology is required or necessary. That is a topic for another time – maybe.