The Journal of the European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations

Volume 21 Number 2 April 1995

Contents:

• David Miller, 'Reflections on British national identity' [Abstract]
• Bernard Crick,'The sense of identity of the indigenous British' [Abstract]
• David Marquand, 'After Whig imperialism: can there be a new British identity? [Abstract]
• Anthony Arblaster, 'Unity, identity, difference: some thoughts on national identity and social unity' [Abstract]
• Rodney Barker, 'Whose legitimacy? Elites, nationalism and ethnicity in the United Kingdom' [Abstract]
• Albert Weale, 'From little England to democratic Europe?' [Abstract]
• Iain Hampsher-Monk, 'Is there an English form of toleration?' [Abstract]
• Andrew Mason, 'The state, national identity and distributive justice' [Abstract]
• Bhikhu Parekh, 'The concept of national identity' [Abstract]

David Miller, 'Reflections on British national identity':

Why does it matter whether the citizens of a state like Britain share a national identity? National identities are neither primordial - they are continually being redefined for policitical reasons - nor monolithic - people who share a national identity can also acknowledge differing identitites of other kinds, especially differing ethnic identities. National identities matter, however, because they provide the means for people to make sense of their social world as it has evolved historically, and because they provide the bonds of mutual trust that make successful democratic politics possible. British national identity was originally Protestant and liberal in its substance, and neither imperialism nor high monarchism was ever as central to that identity as is commonly thought. Post-war experience - of relative economic decline, of constitutional disarray, and of decolonisation - has, however, put the value of British identity in question. Rather than taking refuge in the private values of 'cultural Englishness', what is needed is a political redefinition of British identity, drawing on past traditions but embodied in a new constitutional settlement.

Bernard Crick,'The sense of identity of the indigenous British':

The article argues that any discussion of the relationships and tensions of the post-war immigrants to British society must be set in a context little appreciated by spokesmen for immigrant groups and less and less by contemporary English political leaders and opinion-makers: that historically the United Kingdom emerged from the feudal Kingdom of England as a multi-national state. Both the culture and the administrative arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Ireland reflected this, and still do. The state was never as homogeneous a 'community' nor as centralised as myth has it and present-day English Conservatives like to believe. The old English Tories were more pragmatic and utilitarian than the ideological new conservatives. Scots, Welsh and Protestant Irish have and had a dual identity. The English have trouble distinguishing between Englishness as a cultural term and Britishness as a more limited but crucial political and legal allegiance. The main binding factor is language but historically the concept of 'the gentleman' helped to create a genuinely British elite.

David Marquand, 'After Whig imperialism: can there be a new British identity?':

This article starts from the premise that political communitites are held together by shared identities that depend on a sense of common origins and a common destiny. In the case of the political community we call 'Britain', that identity has been Whig Imperialist. But the Whig Imperialist vision of Britain and the British identity left the relationship between the multi-national British state and the various nationalities of the British Isles in a state of confusion. Entry into the European Union and the loss of empire have called it into question, creating a vacuum of feeling and rhetoric into which has rushed and authoritarian English nationalism, which accentuates the differences between the various nationalities of Great Britain and impedes adjustment to membership of the EU. The time has come to reconstruct Britain's identity on pluralist lines, by retrieving the civic humanist vision of statehood

Anthony Arblaster, 'Unity, identity, difference: some thoughts on national identity and social unity':

The concept of 'national identity' is a difficult and dangerous one. It can lead to definitions, of 'Britishness' or 'Englishness' for example, which are based on ethnicity or a particular history, and so lead to exclusivity and intolerance. Claims that Britain is a Christian society or nation can only mean that Jews, Muslims, Hindus not to mention agnostics and atheists, are regarded as either marginal or second-class citizens.
Nevertheless, the concept of national identity is neither empty nor indefensible. Every society needs a degree of unity, a core of shared values, and while these should not preclude pluralism and multi-cultural diversity, they will set some limits what can be tolerated. A society committed to gender equality cannot, or should not, tolerate institutions which systematically discriminate against women. A society committed to racial equality, cannot, or should not, tolerate racism. The article argues for a necessary degree of 'commonality' in any society, which may, and often does, find expression in the idea of a national identity.

Rodney Barker, 'Whose legitimacy? Elites, nationalism and ethnicity in the United Kingdom':

The most powerful form of legitimation in the contemporary world is nationalism. A widespread assumption, in describing nationalism both within the United Kingdom and in the world as a whole, has been that nationalism is a movement of peoples against states. But there are good initial reasons to be sceptical of the national or ethnic claim to speak for a community of equals. As a form of legitimacy, nationalism familiarly presents the leader, regime, government, or state as the representative of the nation, the culture of the community or patria politically expressed. Nationalism seeks exceptional representativess of its mundane virtues, and has a long history of fondness for heroes and patriarchs. So the state in the United Kingdom, if it seeks to maintain legitimacy by entering into semi-corporate partnership with the representatives of minorities, will not only legitimise itself, but the leaders, patriarchs, or representatives as well.

Albert Weale, 'From little England to democratic Europe?':

Political identity and the problems to which it gives rise have come to occupy a central place in English political debate because of the UK's membership of the European Union. Reviewing a recent account of nationalism, this article argues that a sense of political identity in general, and a sense of identity for European nations, need not rest on deep cultural or social foundations, but may be constituted through political practices. In the European case such practices need to be democratic in character and some institutional implications of this view are spelt out to illustrate the force of the argument.

Iain Hampsher-Monk, 'Is there an English form of toleration?':

This article traces the historical form of and arguments for toleration in early modern England in order to show how these were shaped by the politico-religious circumstances of the time. In particular the content and range of toleration was determined by a particular view of the individual and of the religious beliefs it was designed to accommodate. I try to suggest ways in which this particular shape of toleration finds echoes in contemporary arguments about the tolerable and the proper province of legislation, which are similarly underpinned by a particular view of the individual and the kind of society needed to sustain her.
This notion that toleration is a product of and shaped by a specific social circumstance is contrasted with the contemporary aspiration to a wholly neutral, culture-transparent form of toleration. Attention is drawn to the claim that workable forms of toleration depend on the logical compossibility of what the various groups in society regard as acceptable. This suggests that an ideal of culture - neutrality is logically impossible, and that pluralist societies are best advised to seek practical accommodation amongst the existing groups, rather than restricting or offending any in pursuit of an unnecessarily broad ideal of neutrality.

Andrew Mason, 'The state, national identity and distributive justice':

This article explores the issue of whether socialists and left-liberals commit themselves to valuing a shared national identity by defending redistributive policies. It begins by criticising Michael Sandel's argument that Rawls and other 'deontological liberals' cannot defend principles of justice which require redistribution unless they view the self as partially constituted by its attachment to the community over which redistribution is to occur. It then focuses upon David Miller's claim that redistribution will receive widespread support on grounds of social justice only if citizens see themselves as fellow nationals. It argues that Miller's claim has some plausibility, but does not provide sufficiently strong grounds for aiming to foster a substantive shared national identity in societies such as Britain which contain a high degree of cultural pluralism.

Bhikhu Parekh, 'The concept of national identity':

Although national identity is a subject of much agonised debate in almost all countries today, the debate is marred by several dubious assumptions. These include such beliefs as that national identity consists in being different from others and is diluted by intercultural borrowing, that it is historically fixed, that it is the sole or the major source of political legitimacy, that the state's primary task is to maintain it, and that national identity defines the limits of permissible diversity. The author challenges these and related assumptions. He argues that national identity is a not a substance but a cluster of tendencies and values, that it is neither fixed nor alterable at will, and that it needs to be periodically redefined in the light of historically inherited characteristics, present needs, and future aspirations.