1.3. Englishness, Ideology, and Identity: Debating Conceptions of Britishness and Englishness

Defining Englishness remains a difficult endeavour, that is why we would first focus on some corner-stones throughout history that have led to the current understanding of Englishness from a diachronic perspective. Thereafter, we would outline how Englishness and Britishness tend to be distinguished nowadays in a synchronic approach. When taking a look at the historical progress of how national identity was understood, it is remarkable that the term “Englishness” itself was apparently first introduced as late as 1805 [44, p. 1], and the first book with a title containing the term was published only in 1956 [57]. As Paul Langford remarks, the “invention” of the term is thus of relatively recent origin, which does not mean, however, that an idea of national identification had not existed earlier [44, p. 1]. Antony Easthope argues that “the great foundational moment for Englishness” [26, p. 28] was the period between 1650 and 1700, i.e. before the Acts of Union and the “forging” of a common British identity that Linda Colley traced in her seminal publication [11, p. 21].

However, before “discovering” a distinct national awareness that opposed an overall British identity at the beginning of the 20^th century [42, p. 202], the English rather identified themselves in terms of regional identities and “thought of themselves as either locals or cosmopolitans” [42, p. 120]. According to Linda Colley, the conception of Britishness was fundamentally forged in the course of the Acts of Union in 1707. For decades then, the English as the majority of the British were not clearly identified, as Christopher Bryant points out: “For the English, Britishness came to subsume Englishness, so that the two were often indistinguishable; for the Scots, the Welsh and later the Irish, Britishness was more of an overlay” [16, p. 394]. As Krishan Kumar remarks, English national identity was not a clear-cut concept but rather was connected to the project of imperialism, since the English would take pride in their role as empire-builders [42, p. 10]. A significant “moment of Englishness” can be identified at the end of the 19^th century [42, p. 25]. In his study “Englishness: Twentieth Century Popular Culture and the Forming of English Identity” (2009), Simon Featherstone aptly shows that a number of literary accounts and performances in popular culture of the early 20^th century illustrate a rediscovery if not a revival of English traditions [28]. Englishness became associated with images of what we now mainly think of as a traditional, rural, idyllic England closely connected to the landscape as a counterpoint to the industrialized cities and areas. Literature helped to create and disseminate images connected to this “original” perception of national identity.

In recent decades, the attention to the problem of self-identification has increased. One of the types of identity is national identity, which is understood as a complex of “collective attitudes and beliefs that characterize a group of people as a nation” [3, p. 158]. This notion acquires relevance in the modern world, which is under the influence of globalization processes and counter anti-globalism.

One of the first problems of national identity was delivered in respect of British culture, which has the highest level of public reflection. As a result, the notion “Englishness” has appeared, describing the features of national character and the way of life of the British. It is believed that the main components of “Englishness” were issued by the end of the 19^th century. [13, p. 2] The term “Englishness” in the contemporary literary criticism is the subject of constant discussion and clarification.

In order to explore and highlight the differences between Englishness and Britishness as they have been understood in the last two decades, we propose to examine them on two levels from a synchronic perspective: firstly, in terms of the context in which they are referred to, and secondly, with regard to the attributes they tend to be associated with. On the first level, concerning the context in which the concepts are used, it is apparent that Britishness is more often a reference in political and legal discourses requiring political correctness, while the term Englishness is predominantly used in the cultural sphere. Bearing this in mind helps to explain why narratives originating from a national political and media context (e.g. the BBC) generally refer to Britain and Britishness.

In contrast to Britishness, Englishness is generally referred to in cultural discourses, including literary ones [13, p. 27]. In addition to novels, this is also mirrored in the disciplines that are interested in Englishness; publications about literature, (popular) culture, music, art, media, tourism, architecture, humour and many more are almost exclusively concerned with Englishness and not with Britishness. Although the narrative that would be analyzed in this study at times also challenge ideologies linked to ideas of Britishness, our own study is primarily concerned with constructions Englishness. This also holds true for the second level that needs to be discussed when differentiating between Englishness and Britishness.

On the level of attributes that tend to be attached to each of the concepts, a main distinction between Englishness and Britishness may at first glance even seem surprising: the focus on a redefined perception of Englishness does not, as could be suspected, entail exclusive values connected to a white, male, middle-class identity in the way it was understood in the earlier 20^th century. Instead, Krishan Kumar observe that attributes have become attached to this new version of Englishness that involve inclusion, democracy and egalitarianism, multiculturalism and openness to other cultures, while Britishness tends to be associated with aspects such as backward looking traditionalism, hierarchy, conservatism, imperialism and xenophobia [42, p. 105]. This is also reminiscent of a statement by Bernard Crick, who observed already in 1991: ‘“British’ is a political and legal concept best applied to the institutions of the UK state, to common citizenship and common political arrangements. It is not a cultural term, nor does it correspond to any real sense of a nation” [24, p. 97]. Britishness might then be seen as “a set of institutions and bundle of interests” [33, p. 7] attached to a multinational state rather than a common feeling for a shared national identity.

Literature is, and always has been, a central medium for the negotiation of national identity, and English literature can look back on numerous narratives that deal with the state of the nation, national character and identities. The impression that the English literary canon is often reduced to a number of outstanding authors and their works has been highlighted in several studies concentrating on the relation between literature and Englishness. The English canon underwent a comprehensive process of “formation” during the first half of the 20^th century, and has since exerted a tremendous influence on national culture and identity: “English culture, at its deepest level, is seen as created by a series of great “national” poets, dramatists and novelists. Their writing embodies values, whole ways of life, which express the aspirations of the national culture at its best and most characteristic” [42, p. 215]. The English preference for structuring the national literary history and heritage according to outstanding writers and “a clear preference for particulars [...] and concrete “facts” [50, p. 166] mirrors the way in which both Englishness and the English canon are organized in general; this is to say that instead of promulgating abstract definitions and trends, individual authors (in English literature) and icons (of Englishness) tend to be listed as pars-pro-to to elements as a means of facilitating an understanding of the overall notion of Englishness and its canon. As such, this approach itself exemplifies a “deep-rooted philosophic tradition” [26, p. 5] of the English, namely empiricism.

One of the most influential wartime narratives is George Orwell’s 1941 essay on English national identity, which presents a paradigm in the discourse on Englishness: Orwell hints at the particular habits, the unique weather conditions and the countryside as distinct features of Englishness. The English novel as it existed between the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth century can be characterized by realism as a traditional mode of writing; this in turn has become associated with literary representations of a traditional concept of Englishness. As an innovative mode of writing, the role of postmodernism in twentieth-century English literature and in representations of Englishness is evaluated differently and is thus a crucial topic when considering questions regarding literary tradition and innovation. Similarly, comical understatement and irony have been evaluated as traditional English features [26, p. 96.], but are also prevalent aspects of postmodern novels. Apparently, a number of essential and canonized works by celebrated authors who tackled questions of national character and identity have influenced the way in which the concept of Englishness has developed throughout history. Scholars have been able to identify “heydays” in cultural and literary history that have formed and fostered traditional images of Englishness.

John Fowles is one of the first who began to consider that question in his works. In 1964, he wrote an essay, “On Being English, not British”, and in his novel “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” (1969) he illustrated his ideas by creating a stylized Victorian novel. The author seeks to show that “Britishness” has no relationship to “Englishness”. In his essay, he notes, “Britain” is a passport word, comfortable for politics and organization. In all fundamental cases of personal order, I am English, not British” [31, p. 3].