Well said. I'm English in the cultural sense, though my parents are Indian and I'm an American citizen. Not British, but English - in fact, a Londoner to be precise, I tend to get a little nervous in the countryside. Culture is what has shaped me, it's what I care about and identify with. So it bothers me when "social construct" lefties attack or deny English culture, and allow it to be trampled by Islamic hardliners and what have you. Where the rubber hits the road though is trying to articulate what this magical "English culture" actually is. It's a grey, uncertain area and any attempt to articulate it will be gleefully attacked, you'd be mad to try it. But the truth is Englishness isn't infinitely elastic. It's quite specific in some ways. What are the best articulations of Englishness that you've come across?
Love it! Also: Self-deprecating, quick-witted, restrained then completely out of control, open-minded, proud, fierce, polite, understated, queues, taking the almighty piss, tea and biscuits, the Ploughman's Lunch, a sharp palate (mustard, cheddar, Marmite), hobbyists, tinkerers, rule bound but wildly creative.
I am genetically 50% Danish. Culturally 100% English. I have visited Denmark and it is foreign to me. The genetic argument is just cover for racism. Ethnicity is cultural
This reminds me of Trevor Noah getting into a tiff with the French ambassador to the US several years ago over whether the black players on the French national football team were French, African, French-African, or African-French. The ambassador was arguing they were simply French and Noah was arguing (as i recall) they were either African or African-French. I remember wondering if either of them had bothered to ask any of the players how they thought of themselves, and how they would take it in the likely event there were a mix of attitudes on the team.
Honestly, Sunak is very plainly English, accent and culture. This is true of every white and black and asian athlete representing England in football, rugby, and cricket. I do not understand the resistance to acknowledging this. Ethnicity is a terrible demarcation method. Indeed, even if one's ancestors came from totally foreign countries, once you have been raised in the culture and it has adopted you, you become one with that culture. That is the goal of assimilation, no?
As for being British, that's a catch-all status that not only encompasses the four nations of the British Isles but even us far flung colonials who rarely, if ever, venture to the Mother Country. It's more of a status than a nationality. While it technically applies, it's often as misplaced as referring to the Welsh or Scots as being English. The home nationality is what one identifies with, and is the correct term in most cases. When we team up with the other nationalities under the common banner, that's when we are British.
Very insightful indeed. Certainly got to the heart of the matter pertaining to a shared cause and integration.
Historians typically distinguish between the French kind of civic nationalism that like the American one is about a creed, versus the blood and soil conception of germanic nationalism. Not entirely sure if that dichotomy would obfuscate more than it clarifies in an English context.
I like this piece which asks us to consider our position on ethnicity being genetic versus social. It declares a preference for the latter because “it is the thing we can have some influence over”. I agree, but it does open opportunities for people who are not as well-meaning as yourself. The social justice activists you mention being a case in point.
We can think like this: that everything is about groups. Rishi Sunak belongs to countless groups, his ethnicity being just one of them. His skills, hobbies, languages, beliefs, all go in other boxes in that large matrix. We are all like this. In any situation, at any moment, one of our group affinities can override the others.
It is half a century since I lived in England, but when I come to visit I am pleasantly surprised by how natural the younger people are with people looking different from themselves, smiling and joking with each other like they are one big family. As I see it through my group lens, in their matrix of group affinities, the social one has overridden the ethnic one. They are all Rishi Sunaks now. Isn’t this the England we should wish for?
You might be amused at this elaboration on the dichotomy between lumpers and splitters, something which, arguably, encompasses the internecine warfare in the "science" of biology over whether sex/the-sexes is/are a binary or a spectrum:
“... splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera ... and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. ... Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat.”
*Idiots or fools, and I’ll allow no discussion on the matter of an overlap, Venn!
An interesting article with ideas well articulated. The white ethnonationalists think they're the only ones who've noticed the grave mistake of cultural relativism with regard to Islam's inability to integrate into Western liberal values. It's important to refute both ethnonationalism as well as cultural relativism.
Of course. And if someone of a brown complexion appeared speaking like Steve Irwin, there's no way I'd not identify him as an Aussie. It's even more obvious in that context!
This is an incredibly explosive issue, and I applaud you for your courage in wading into it.
I do have some comments.
You start out by noticing that “there simply is not a consensus that we call people “English” based on their ancestral genetics and “British” based on their legal citizenship or distinguish between being genetically or legally English.” That is correct, yet seems irrelevant. If there were a consensus on one side of the other, would you use it as a cudgel to silence opposition? Surely not, given your history of bucking the prevailing opinions. So why note it?
You quote Rishi Sunak. Mr. Sunak has been a politician for over a third of his adult life, rising to the highest office in the land. One doesn’t do that by speaking his mind. I would examine anything he says through the political lens; hence, his opinions matter politically but not factually.
You note correctly that “Genetic ancestry is not a social construct,” yet quickly dismiss it because “our brains did not evolve to evaluate each other via genetic ancestry.” I believe the picture is a bit more complex than that. Our brains certainly did evolve to evaluate each other via genetic ancestry first, for well over a million years, while we lived in small tribes warring with other small tribes. Early on in human history, genetic relatedness (kinship) was a reliable proxy for alliance-building because helping those who share your genes increased the chances of the tribe’s survival. This history explains powerful instincts such as nepotism and tribal/ethnic loyalty.
When we discovered agriculture (around ten thousand years ago) and started settling in groups greater than Dunbar’s number (150+ people), we had to evolve other principles for cooperation, looking for cues beyond genetics, such as religion (shared rituals), culture (shared behaviors), and vocations and hobbies (shared interests). This adaptation let us cooperate with non-kin, a crucial ability as human societies scaled up.
I believe we are a product of both of those two forces. Whether they influence our behaviour and perceptions is not debatable; the question is, by what share (%%). One was active for a very long time, affecting even how we evolved into anatomically modern humans; another developed later under powerful cooperation imperatives. I think of them as overlaying one another: the instinct provides the impetus, the culture channels it into a societally acceptable expression.
The latter part of your post rightly disposes of both extremes: ethnonationalism and “race as a social construct.” Yet, it’s not the end of the story. Culture, before it became a crucible of some part of human nature, was developed by the ethnicity that lived in the same place for a protracted period of time. Of course, every ethnicity is a blend of initial tribes as they migrated, dominated, were subjugated by other tribes, and migrated again (or not). Yet cultures don’t develop instantaneously when different people happen to get together.
My understanding is that the English nation was indeed a mix of tribes from various parts of Europe arriving at various points in history; yet it was only after they settled into a stable polity did the English culture as we celebrate it today emerge, shaped by the ethnic majority. The current English culture is the product of the people who inhabited the land called England for the last thousand years or so. If another nationality starts migrating into England, bringing their own culture and language with them, insisting on their own religion, cuisine, and general way of life, will not the result be a culture no longer recognizable as English?
We have many historical examples of that. Consider Mexico. Five hundred years ago, the geographical area we now call Mexico was a gorgeous mosaic (to coin a phrase) of indigenous cultures—Aztecs, Maya, Zapotecs, and others—speaking hundreds of languages. Then came the Spanish, with their conquest and subsequent migration. The impact was seismic. Over the next few centuries, Spanish —a language alien to the Americas—became the dominant language. Nahuatl, spoken by the Aztecs in 1500, dwindled to a minority language. The Catholic Church replaced indigenous faiths for most of the population. European architecture, science, and medicine replaced the native approaches.
The ancient Greeks considered both sides of the coin – culture and ancestry – when deciding who was Greek and who was not. Cultural touchstones were crucial – speaking Greek, worshipping the gods in the Greek pantheon, participating in Olympic games, consulting the Delphic oracle; yet genetics were also determinative: they called true Greeks Hellenes because they were supposed to have descended from Hellen, the father of many sons whose descendants formed the main Greek tribes who founded the major city-states.
Shouldn’t we be equally balanced? Doesn’t it make sense that we need to consider both the “hardware” (DNA, ethnicity, ancestry, etc.) and “software” (language and culture) in determining our nationality?
Of course, human brains are much more pliable than microchips; yet we are also hardwired by our DNA to be more receptive to specific cultural patterns than others. Eventually, we may evolve to adapt to the culture; yet doesn’t it make sense that it should take generations for natural selection to work its magic?
Perhaps it would be instructive to consider specific scenarios rather than speak in generalities.
1. Let’s say an Englishman who, as a child, was brought by his adoptive parents to live in Japan, and fully assimilated to the Japanese language and culture. In his declining years, he decides to move back to his birthplace. He speaks English with a heavy Japanese accent, reads Japanese press and literature, and, culturally, is indistinguishable from an elderly Japanese gentleman who is in England on holiday. Would you consider him English?
2. A Japanese woman decides to stay in England after attending an English university and graduating with a degree in English literature. She marries an English woman, becomes an English professor in turn, and yet continues to commit certain social faux pas that she considers to be proper behavior due to her upbringing and is not willing to change. Is she English?
3. Now, let’s say this Japanese lady did fix her behavioural quirks and speaks and behaves like a native Englishwoman, yet she believes Japan suffered irreparable harm at the hands of the Anglosphere and is actively plotting to pay the “debt of honor” with as much destruction is possible. Is she English?
Now, reverse the nationalities and the countries. Would you expect their answer to be equivalent to yours?
"If there were a consensus on one side of the other, would you use it as a cudgel to silence opposition? Surely not, given your history of bucking the prevailing opinions. So why note it?"
I'm not sure what you mean? As you point out, if I only ever mentioned things I'd use to silence opposition, I'd never mention anything. If I want to say that there is a wide variety of views on something in existence because it is relevant to how people understand and talk about things, how else should I say that?
"Our brains certainly did evolve to evaluate each other via genetic ancestry first, for well over a million years, while we lived in small tribes warring with other small tribes."
No, they evolved to think in terms of tribes recognisable by common goals, alliances and customs. Some great apes are patrilineal and some matilinial so either sexually mature males or females would leave their own group and join another.
Great read Helen. I'm just wondering if you have any suggestions for historical/present books that look at British history and values from a culturered perspective and not genetics/biology. I didn't even know this conversation was going on and will probably avoid it at all costs :)!
Well said. I'm English in the cultural sense, though my parents are Indian and I'm an American citizen. Not British, but English - in fact, a Londoner to be precise, I tend to get a little nervous in the countryside. Culture is what has shaped me, it's what I care about and identify with. So it bothers me when "social construct" lefties attack or deny English culture, and allow it to be trampled by Islamic hardliners and what have you. Where the rubber hits the road though is trying to articulate what this magical "English culture" actually is. It's a grey, uncertain area and any attempt to articulate it will be gleefully attacked, you'd be mad to try it. But the truth is Englishness isn't infinitely elastic. It's quite specific in some ways. What are the best articulations of Englishness that you've come across?
Love it! Also: Self-deprecating, quick-witted, restrained then completely out of control, open-minded, proud, fierce, polite, understated, queues, taking the almighty piss, tea and biscuits, the Ploughman's Lunch, a sharp palate (mustard, cheddar, Marmite), hobbyists, tinkerers, rule bound but wildly creative.
I am genetically 50% Danish. Culturally 100% English. I have visited Denmark and it is foreign to me. The genetic argument is just cover for racism. Ethnicity is cultural
I think this whole debate is peak Britishness
This reminds me of Trevor Noah getting into a tiff with the French ambassador to the US several years ago over whether the black players on the French national football team were French, African, French-African, or African-French. The ambassador was arguing they were simply French and Noah was arguing (as i recall) they were either African or African-French. I remember wondering if either of them had bothered to ask any of the players how they thought of themselves, and how they would take it in the likely event there were a mix of attitudes on the team.
Honestly, Sunak is very plainly English, accent and culture. This is true of every white and black and asian athlete representing England in football, rugby, and cricket. I do not understand the resistance to acknowledging this. Ethnicity is a terrible demarcation method. Indeed, even if one's ancestors came from totally foreign countries, once you have been raised in the culture and it has adopted you, you become one with that culture. That is the goal of assimilation, no?
As for being British, that's a catch-all status that not only encompasses the four nations of the British Isles but even us far flung colonials who rarely, if ever, venture to the Mother Country. It's more of a status than a nationality. While it technically applies, it's often as misplaced as referring to the Welsh or Scots as being English. The home nationality is what one identifies with, and is the correct term in most cases. When we team up with the other nationalities under the common banner, that's when we are British.
Very insightful indeed. Certainly got to the heart of the matter pertaining to a shared cause and integration.
Historians typically distinguish between the French kind of civic nationalism that like the American one is about a creed, versus the blood and soil conception of germanic nationalism. Not entirely sure if that dichotomy would obfuscate more than it clarifies in an English context.
I like this piece which asks us to consider our position on ethnicity being genetic versus social. It declares a preference for the latter because “it is the thing we can have some influence over”. I agree, but it does open opportunities for people who are not as well-meaning as yourself. The social justice activists you mention being a case in point.
We can think like this: that everything is about groups. Rishi Sunak belongs to countless groups, his ethnicity being just one of them. His skills, hobbies, languages, beliefs, all go in other boxes in that large matrix. We are all like this. In any situation, at any moment, one of our group affinities can override the others.
It is half a century since I lived in England, but when I come to visit I am pleasantly surprised by how natural the younger people are with people looking different from themselves, smiling and joking with each other like they are one big family. As I see it through my group lens, in their matrix of group affinities, the social one has overridden the ethnic one. They are all Rishi Sunaks now. Isn’t this the England we should wish for?
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" ...
But what have the Romans ever done for us? 😊
"Splitter!!" 😉🙂
You might be amused at this elaboration on the dichotomy between lumpers and splitters, something which, arguably, encompasses the internecine warfare in the "science" of biology over whether sex/the-sexes is/are a binary or a spectrum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
And they* say academics have no sense of humour:
“... splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera ... and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. ... Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat.”
*Idiots or fools, and I’ll allow no discussion on the matter of an overlap, Venn!
An interesting article with ideas well articulated. The white ethnonationalists think they're the only ones who've noticed the grave mistake of cultural relativism with regard to Islam's inability to integrate into Western liberal values. It's important to refute both ethnonationalism as well as cultural relativism.
sry to bring matters of empire herein, but Rishi would likely be called a pom in Australia.
Of course. And if someone of a brown complexion appeared speaking like Steve Irwin, there's no way I'd not identify him as an Aussie. It's even more obvious in that context!
This is an incredibly explosive issue, and I applaud you for your courage in wading into it.
I do have some comments.
You start out by noticing that “there simply is not a consensus that we call people “English” based on their ancestral genetics and “British” based on their legal citizenship or distinguish between being genetically or legally English.” That is correct, yet seems irrelevant. If there were a consensus on one side of the other, would you use it as a cudgel to silence opposition? Surely not, given your history of bucking the prevailing opinions. So why note it?
You quote Rishi Sunak. Mr. Sunak has been a politician for over a third of his adult life, rising to the highest office in the land. One doesn’t do that by speaking his mind. I would examine anything he says through the political lens; hence, his opinions matter politically but not factually.
You note correctly that “Genetic ancestry is not a social construct,” yet quickly dismiss it because “our brains did not evolve to evaluate each other via genetic ancestry.” I believe the picture is a bit more complex than that. Our brains certainly did evolve to evaluate each other via genetic ancestry first, for well over a million years, while we lived in small tribes warring with other small tribes. Early on in human history, genetic relatedness (kinship) was a reliable proxy for alliance-building because helping those who share your genes increased the chances of the tribe’s survival. This history explains powerful instincts such as nepotism and tribal/ethnic loyalty.
When we discovered agriculture (around ten thousand years ago) and started settling in groups greater than Dunbar’s number (150+ people), we had to evolve other principles for cooperation, looking for cues beyond genetics, such as religion (shared rituals), culture (shared behaviors), and vocations and hobbies (shared interests). This adaptation let us cooperate with non-kin, a crucial ability as human societies scaled up.
I believe we are a product of both of those two forces. Whether they influence our behaviour and perceptions is not debatable; the question is, by what share (%%). One was active for a very long time, affecting even how we evolved into anatomically modern humans; another developed later under powerful cooperation imperatives. I think of them as overlaying one another: the instinct provides the impetus, the culture channels it into a societally acceptable expression.
The latter part of your post rightly disposes of both extremes: ethnonationalism and “race as a social construct.” Yet, it’s not the end of the story. Culture, before it became a crucible of some part of human nature, was developed by the ethnicity that lived in the same place for a protracted period of time. Of course, every ethnicity is a blend of initial tribes as they migrated, dominated, were subjugated by other tribes, and migrated again (or not). Yet cultures don’t develop instantaneously when different people happen to get together.
My understanding is that the English nation was indeed a mix of tribes from various parts of Europe arriving at various points in history; yet it was only after they settled into a stable polity did the English culture as we celebrate it today emerge, shaped by the ethnic majority. The current English culture is the product of the people who inhabited the land called England for the last thousand years or so. If another nationality starts migrating into England, bringing their own culture and language with them, insisting on their own religion, cuisine, and general way of life, will not the result be a culture no longer recognizable as English?
We have many historical examples of that. Consider Mexico. Five hundred years ago, the geographical area we now call Mexico was a gorgeous mosaic (to coin a phrase) of indigenous cultures—Aztecs, Maya, Zapotecs, and others—speaking hundreds of languages. Then came the Spanish, with their conquest and subsequent migration. The impact was seismic. Over the next few centuries, Spanish —a language alien to the Americas—became the dominant language. Nahuatl, spoken by the Aztecs in 1500, dwindled to a minority language. The Catholic Church replaced indigenous faiths for most of the population. European architecture, science, and medicine replaced the native approaches.
The ancient Greeks considered both sides of the coin – culture and ancestry – when deciding who was Greek and who was not. Cultural touchstones were crucial – speaking Greek, worshipping the gods in the Greek pantheon, participating in Olympic games, consulting the Delphic oracle; yet genetics were also determinative: they called true Greeks Hellenes because they were supposed to have descended from Hellen, the father of many sons whose descendants formed the main Greek tribes who founded the major city-states.
Shouldn’t we be equally balanced? Doesn’t it make sense that we need to consider both the “hardware” (DNA, ethnicity, ancestry, etc.) and “software” (language and culture) in determining our nationality?
Of course, human brains are much more pliable than microchips; yet we are also hardwired by our DNA to be more receptive to specific cultural patterns than others. Eventually, we may evolve to adapt to the culture; yet doesn’t it make sense that it should take generations for natural selection to work its magic?
Perhaps it would be instructive to consider specific scenarios rather than speak in generalities.
1. Let’s say an Englishman who, as a child, was brought by his adoptive parents to live in Japan, and fully assimilated to the Japanese language and culture. In his declining years, he decides to move back to his birthplace. He speaks English with a heavy Japanese accent, reads Japanese press and literature, and, culturally, is indistinguishable from an elderly Japanese gentleman who is in England on holiday. Would you consider him English?
2. A Japanese woman decides to stay in England after attending an English university and graduating with a degree in English literature. She marries an English woman, becomes an English professor in turn, and yet continues to commit certain social faux pas that she considers to be proper behavior due to her upbringing and is not willing to change. Is she English?
3. Now, let’s say this Japanese lady did fix her behavioural quirks and speaks and behaves like a native Englishwoman, yet she believes Japan suffered irreparable harm at the hands of the Anglosphere and is actively plotting to pay the “debt of honor” with as much destruction is possible. Is she English?
Now, reverse the nationalities and the countries. Would you expect their answer to be equivalent to yours?
I am looking forward to finding out!
"If there were a consensus on one side of the other, would you use it as a cudgel to silence opposition? Surely not, given your history of bucking the prevailing opinions. So why note it?"
I'm not sure what you mean? As you point out, if I only ever mentioned things I'd use to silence opposition, I'd never mention anything. If I want to say that there is a wide variety of views on something in existence because it is relevant to how people understand and talk about things, how else should I say that?
"Our brains certainly did evolve to evaluate each other via genetic ancestry first, for well over a million years, while we lived in small tribes warring with other small tribes."
No, they evolved to think in terms of tribes recognisable by common goals, alliances and customs. Some great apes are patrilineal and some matilinial so either sexually mature males or females would leave their own group and join another.
Great read Helen. I'm just wondering if you have any suggestions for historical/present books that look at British history and values from a culturered perspective and not genetics/biology. I didn't even know this conversation was going on and will probably avoid it at all costs :)!