A very English nationalism
PAUL READMAN welcomes a timely reappraisal of nationalism in England, but takes issue with the writer’s style
Jeremy Black wants to rescue English nationalism from the extremists – from those on the right who peddle a perverted, racially exclusive idea of identity, and from those on the left who caricature mainstream Englishness in precisely those terms. It’s a laudable aim, particularly in light of Brexit and the lingering possibility of Scottish independence: the tricky question of English nationhood is topical as never before.
Does he succeed? The answer must be a qualified one. Black wants to show that English nationalism has deep historical roots, that its legitimacy derives from real – not fancifully invented – continuities: it had a living presence right back to Anglo-Saxon times. There’s much to be said for this perspective. Black is correct to emphasise the importance of ‘deep history’ in the construction of Englishness, and he’s also correct to point to the existence of a strong, pre-Conquest polity. But the reality of a sophisticated Anglo-Saxon state is not conclusive proof of the antiquity of the English nation, let alone English nationalism.
A related problem is that Black places too much stress on the state as a determinant of nationalism, which he describes as “fundamentally political” in character. However, nations have cultural as well as constitutional underpinnings. The post-1707 history of Scotland shows how its inhabitants have not needed a Scottish state to articulate various forms of nationalism, from the Walter Scott-inflected Balmorality of tartan-touting North Britons, to the strident separatism of the SNP.
Something similar is true for England, whose often undemonstrative nationalism is founded as much on culture and mentalities (and perhaps also a love of the countryside) as it is on state structures that are in any case more British than English.
The book is also weakened by an expository style notable for its excessive use of the passive voice, and what might charitably be described as syntactical infelicity. These are faults in any book; they are rife here, and are particularly to be regretted in a work aimed at a wide audience.