‘Britishness’ or ‘Globalness’? - Mandarin Bennett

According to most dictionaries, the word ‘Britishness’ does not exist. Yet in 2006 it is one of the most talked about concepts in the media, in politics, and increasingly in the education sector. Since the 7/7 bombings the idea of ensuring that Britain’s ethnic minorities adopt a ‘British’ identity, feel loyalty to the British nation and adhere to a common set of British values, has been pushed to the forefront in ensuring that the new breed of ‘home-grown terrorism’ doesn’t strike again.

Gordon Brown MP, speaking in January 2006, called for a renewed British patriotism in order to ‘address…the major challenges facing this country’:

“You must have a clear view of what being British means, what you value about being British and what gives us purpose as a nation.”

Bill Rammell MP (Minister of State, Department of Education and Skills), speaking in May this year suggested to educationalists that a way of ‘neutralising the minority of extremist voices’ would be to incorporate the teaching of Britishness into citizenship education at secondary school.

Britishness: Indian cuisine, Chinese fish and chips, Portuguese café culture and the ‘Hare and Hounds’

But what on earth is this elusive ‘Britishness’ that is so important for this nation’s peace and cohesion? Is it intangibly found in Fish and Chips or these days more likely to be Chicken Tikka Masala? Is it better represented by Buckingham Palace or Birmingham Central Mosque? David Beckham or Sajid Mahmood? Ye Olde English Pub for a pint of ale or the posh Italian Café for a Frappuccino? Are we, as Norman Tebbit famously contended all those years ago, not truly British until we support the English cricket team?

In terms of the new education agenda, ‘Britishness’ has been defined as two things. Firstly, it is an understanding of British cultural and social history. This effectively means that pupils should understand that in 1215 Magna Carta enshrined the liberties of the English, the fact that Britain had a civil war to secure rights for the British people over the monarchy, and the long-standing commitment of this country to democracy. Even the British Empire will be dusted off from under the rug where it had been hastily hidden in embarrassment, to be once again introduced in a proud and positive light. After all, the roots of British diversity lie in our colonial past.

Secondly, ‘Britishness’ will be taught in the classroom as a set of common values; values that have been fundamental to the British mindset throughout history. Tolerance, respect for diversity and a sense of fair-play, have all been designated as typically British traits.

So, will an increasing emphasis on what it means to be British actually work towards a more inclusive Britain? Many educationalists have their doubts. For one thing, it has to be acknowledged that most people have multiple identities, and that closely identifying with one aspect of one’s identity does not preclude one from having others. I can be female, a Muslim, an engineer, a mother, a volunteer…and be British.

Furthermore, there is a case to strongly question whether such a thing as an identity can be taught at all. What the government is proposing is a prescriptive identity, in the words of John Denham MP (Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee):

“The question is not ‘who we are’ but ‘who we want to be’.”

Put this way, the flaws of this plan become resoundingly obvious. How about starting from where young people are, asking them what it means to be British? If they feel, in this globalised world of MySpace, podcasting, apples from Kenya and trainers from China, that they have a British identity; and if they actually want to be British (as opposed to Scottish, Brummy, Global) at all anyway?

The concept which Development in Action strongly supports is that of Global Citizenship. It seems preposterous to claim that qualities such as tolerance and fairness are exclusively British traits, rather than being the universal qualities of humanity. To teach Britishness in schools is to exalt the national over the global, suggesting that being British is somehow more important that being a citizen of the world, and suggesting an illusion of separateness and even superiority. Surely the way to achieve integration and harmony in this country is less about creating new barriers and more about breaking them down.