It’s difficult to decide which is worse: that a Conservative MP with leadership aspirations should be thought of as brave for talking fondly of “English identity”; or that the Left establishment via its media outriders should be so predictably sniffy about the possibility of there even being such a thing. “Englishness”, for the Left, is like Australian wine or the success of Clarkson’s Farm: tolerable only to the extent that it’s not discussed.
Robert Jenrick MP has an inexplicable aspiration to lead the post-election wrecking yard still bafflingly known as the “Conservative Party”. He has written this, for the Daily Mail:
The combination of unprecedented migration alongside the dismantling of our national culture, non-integrating multiculturalism and the denigration of our identity have presented huge problems.
Cue the inevitable “gotcha” ambush, this time from a house mediocrity on Sky News, who demanded from Jenrick a definition of this curious relic he calls English identity. Jenrick’s reply was sensible enough, as far as it went: that he was unable to condense in soundbite form a set of cultural, historical and legal phenomena which make for a collective of quantum complexity is hardly surprising (I’m helping him out a bit here, but that’s the gist).
The journalist’s question amounted to a crude, tedious and very voguish reiteration of the Socratic strategy. The Socrates of the Platonic dialogues, talented though he undoubtedly was, was also a nuisance who spent his days walking the streets of Athens in search of likely marks on whom he could lay down his own “gotcha” schtick. This would involve asking them to provide a definition of an abstract concept (such as “justice”) and then explaining to the victim why his response was deficient.
Most of us know how that ended: a speedy trial followed by an invitation to down the cup of hemlock – cancellation being of a less reversible (and arguably less deserving) form in those days.
A “gotcha” of this sort is philosophically in error. It assumes that for a thing to have an identity then it must have an essence, one which is definable in non-vague terms. But the world is not constructed like that. There are logical systems which are constructed in acknowledgement of the fact that vagueness is an intrinsic feature of the universe. It would be absurd to think, for example, that a person is not bald when he has n hairs but becomes so when that number declines to n-1. There is hirsute, there is comb over, and there is bald – and the details of that journey are not conducive to a strictly arithmetical formalisation. Certain parts of that map are of necessity impossible to read.
What is it we want from a definition? Wittgenstein, whose competence as a philosopher of language arguably exceeds that of even the most intellectually agile news anchor, has some persuasive things to say here. In his later writings he suggests that it is strange to think that the meaning of a concept is reducible to a list of necessary and sufficient conditions which determine its application:
The idea of a general concept being a common property of its particular instances connects up with other primitive, too simple, ideas of the structure of language.
The example Wittgenstein uses is that of a “game”. There are all manner of games. Some of these require a ball others do not; some are played as a team while others are not, etc. These things we call “games” admit of no single unifying definition but share in a common resemblance. As with games so with “English identity” – perhaps its resistance to an easy classification is evidence of the strength, rather than the weakness, of the concept.
We do not need a theory of Englishness to be able to know it when we see it, any more than a Catholic communicant is required to fully understand the concept of transubstantiation before she receives the Host. An account of English identity might refer to the Common Law, make mention of the complicated history of the Anglican church, or valorise the peculiar nature of English traditions (including the tradition of being sceptical about the nature of Englishness). Or it might prefer to point at the perverse pleasure we take in an England batting collapse, or the Pavlovian and very English default to apology when somebody bumps into us.
These are, of course, all things which exercised the wonderful mind of Sir Roger Scruton, whose explication and defence of English culture and identity is distributed throughout many articles and books. Sir Roger was famously ostracised by the Tory parliamentary party for “unacceptable” remarks he made during a New Statesman set-up job a year or two prior to his death. Remarks which, it almost goes without saying, his accusers had not bothered to contextualise. Perhaps the current crop of Tory leadership contenders would find it useful to look at what Scruton had to say about our shared culture and the increasingly acute threats to it? (An appreciation of irony is, of course, also a very English thing.)
Sky’s question to Jenrick was not worthy of serious consideration. And to his credit Jenrick displayed a very English embarrassment at being expected to answer it. I’d have been more robust. If asked the same question I’d have said that English identity includes an affection for eccentricity and a love of queueing. If further pressed I’d have pointed out that Englishness is a bit like crap journalism: we can’t define it, but we know when we are in its presence.
Questions about immigration are not exclusively questions about economics. They can also arise from a sense that a national identity is something worth preserving. Jenrick is quite correct to reframe the discussion in this way. Yet again the legacy media has shown that it is more interested in the easy gotcha than a serious discussion. Which is a pity for all of us, because that discussion is becoming urgent.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Englishness is a bit like crap journalism: we can’t define it, but we know when we are in its presence.”
I love that phrase and will be using it in future.
A great article.
Yes.
I find that people on the Left yearn for rules by which other people should live their lives. They get angry when those people don’t follow those rules and remark that this is the source of all our problems – other people not following the rules. For these types, the role of government is to write rules and to enforce them.
The Left is generally unable even to contemplate the possibility that there are many shades of grey.
The Left is generally uncomfortable with the glorious ambiguity which is the human condition.
Last week in the office I asked a Lefty type (who proudly and haughtily told me that he voted Labour, apparently for the sole reason that he doesn’t like the nasty tories, yawn) how two people, a loaf to share between them, should ensure that neither side feels unfairly treated. He immediately suggested that they should employ a third party to decide the matter. When I suggested that the best way was for one to cut the loaf and the other to chose which of the two pieces to take, I watched his head explode. It seemed he had never considered the possibility that there may be a way for people to cooperate without external authority forcing them into an “accord”.
Ah well. I offered him some of my Quality Street. He hasn’t talked to me since.
At which point they had to split the loaf three ways.
40:30:30 I expect!
Who’s responsible for the slow-mo destruction of Britain, across all contexts, again? What does the evidence point to? Well it’s the same culprits who are pushing all of the insanely damaging agendas, and last time I looked these people come in more than one ‘flavour’;
”OBR data confirms that low-skilled immigration is destroying the UK economy
Each low-skilled migrant will cost the taxpayer £465k by age 81
Only 5% of migrants (1 in 20) are net contributors to the economy as high-skilled workers. They contribute £1 to the economy whereas low-skilled immigrants cost the economy £1.60.
Mass immigration is not boosting economic growth, it’s crippling it.
By every measure – economic, cultural and social – mass immigration has been the greatest act of harm in our long island story. It’s worse even than the cost of fighting the Second World War.
A generation of Quisling politicians of all stripes have betrayed Britain and are complicit in our nation’s civilisational decline.
Those who aided and abetted in the catastrophic events of the past quarter-century must be held to account.
This means not only the politicians & civil servants who pushed this false prospectus, but also their Lord Haw-Haw cheerleaders in the media.
And it includes those in the CBI and big business who, without any concern for the wider societal impact, selfishly lobbied government for a never-ending supply of cheap labour.
Importing cheap labour suppressed wages and enabled them to avoid the costly – but vital – investment in innovation, technology and capital infrastructure that would have reduced the need for low skill migrants in the first place. (Eg. Job mechanization/automation, robotics etc.)
Never forgive. Never forget.”
https://x.com/RafHM/status/1836078827476516942
Excellent 20min lecture and overview of this topic from Rafe here ( 2022 );
”Over the past 25 years, since the election of New Labour in 1997, Britain has undergone a profound demographic shift that has fundamentally changed the character of towns and cities across the kingdom. The fabric of many of these communities has been altered to such an extent that they are often unrecognizable to the generations who once called them home.
From the old mill towns of the North to the heart of our capital city, this demographic change has created parallel societies of segregated populations whose daily lives pass with little or no interaction with wider society. And, increasingly, they are becoming hotbeds for extremism, sectarianism and cultural crimes such as honour killings.
What is the solution? Historian and New Culture Forum Senior Fellow Rafe Heydel-Mankoo outlines the dire situation facing us in Britain and whether Denmark offers some practical solution to stop or at least slow our worsening predicament.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6a8BXzDPbw&ab_channel=TheNewCultureForum
It’s worth mentioning that the pygmy Tory minister who sacked Scruton by text! was none other than Action Man Tom Tugenhadt. That scion of the Tugenhadt family; uncle an EU Commissioner, father the country’s top judge on privacy & the media. I don’t hold these things against him but I’m sure an upbringing amongst such people colours your thinking.
As an aside, if you’re interested in how you set about building 300,000 houses a year in a non-disastrous fashion go & read Scruton’s report ‘Build Back Beautiful’ (I think the title was his little joke). It makes the radical suggestion that the houses, estates, new-towns, should be pleasant places to live. I know, it’ll never catch on.
Tugenhadt has also been a guest at the Bilderberg Group.
English identity is what evolved organically over millennia punctuated by very few significant influxes of foreigners – and those foreigners were white European Christians. Until recently.
Yup, pre Windrush is a good place to start. Coming back from hols on Air France the hostess was offering Tea & Coffee, when I asked for Tea she was like, ‘why an I not surprised’. Tea drinking is a good example of Britishness, not unique to Englishness though.
It is difficult to take any Tory seriously after they participated in 14 years of destruction and enabling for everything we, the people, want to remain.
I would go further and call them a bunch of lying scumbags. It was also Blair that removed the death penalty from the Treason Act. One of the first things he did in 1997 apparently, I wonder why!
I’m with you on that one.
They are a disgusting bunch the whole lot of them.
They need leaving in the gutter where they belong.
We need a bit more Trumpian spirit, fight fight fight!!!
They think it’s a “gotcha” but it’s really not. You don’t have to be able to define something exactly in order to think it is of value and to defend it – it just needs to be mean something to someone/enough people.
He doesn’t need “defending” – we should be entirely unapologetic when talking about National or Ethnic Identity. If the Sky bloke had been interviewing a brown person of some kind or a Jew or a person of some non-Christian religion, do you think he would have asked the same question.
Or a Monk from Tibet.
Excellent article. And yes the “journo” was previously with BBC, ITV and Ch 5. So, well tutored in the ‘gotcha’ skill set so prevalent these days.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Jenrick and his Tory pals have been fooling us on immigration for 14 years. Far too little, far too late Jenrick. You Tories are finished.
“than a Catholic communicant … before she receives the Host”
Part of Englishness is sticking to traditional English Grammar and avoiding Americanisms (dove into the water; sped up; etc), and fads such as using female generic pronouns as above.
Sometimes they are entirely inappropriate:
’the drunk driver is a menace: she is young, she has no impulse control; she is reckless’
’the knife carrying person is despicable: she is irresponsible, hot-headed, proud and easily impressionable’.
English identity: that would be the Angelcynn – White, Angel, Saxon, Jute, Danish mix, English speaking, Judeo-Christian heritage, Common Law abiding, shared morals, values, manners, traditions, bones of our ancestors going back 1 500+ years resting in the soil of England.
True Englishness can be summed up in the film: The Lady Vanishes. The original!
Steyn in Jenrick:https://www.steynonline.com/14664/identity-and-evasion
Superb.
To (mis)quote Louis Armstrong, “if you gotta ask you’re never gonna know”.
Ironic that the same people who would question the existence of Englishness struggle with words that do have an essentialist definition, e.g. “woman”.
Many thanks for explaining this. I came across what Wittgenstein said about games years ago and thought “so what?” but I can see the point of it now.
Excellent article – I get the same jibe about Englishness from an Irish friend and former boss. Now all I have to do is remember the argument….
Nice to see the Conservative leadership hopefuls reforming their ideas, so to speak, although every move begs the obvious question.
The definition of Englishness