?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

October Books 9) The English

9) The English: A Portrait of a People, by Jeremy Paxman

As you would hope from the author, this is a witty, erudite, but very readable book about the English. Anyone who has contact with English people on a regular basis should read it. It is written, of course mainly for them, but we who observe them at close quarters will be amused and perhaps enlightened by Paxman's analysis of his own people.

I admit that that paragraph was a bit provocative. I'm not English; I have lived in England for only five of my 41 years; none of my ancestors, as far as I know, in the last 300 years was English. Of course I married an Englishwoman, and my father and his parents (one Irish, one American) were educated in England, as was I myself for the five years of my various Cambridge activities. I remember once having an earnest sherry-fuelled discussion with the Master of my college as to whether or not the Irish were foreign. Paxman's book reminds me that the English are definitely foreign. It was very interesting as an intellectual exercise to separate out England and Englishness, to acknowledge the fact that I am an outsider to both, and to consider them as phenomena in themselves.

Having said that, I found myself in silent agreement with an awful lot of what Paxman writes about the English attitudes to history, the countryside, religion, sex, food, property and history again - so much so that I'm not going to recapitulate it, just urge you to read the book. There were just two points that jumped out at me as especially thought-provoking.

First, a rather technical historical point, and one that is not original to Paxman. The dissolution of the monasteries and Henry VIII's breach with the Pope, it is argued, had deep effects on England's cultural psyche; a rich mainstream (Catholic) European artistic heritage was literally destroyed forever, and the new concentration on the Word of scripture, translated into English, created the intellectual space for Shakespeare, etc, while England was unable to match the continent in the more visual arts. I suspect one could find plenty of opposing evidence if one wanted, but I sense there may be something there, and I should read more about it.

The second, more general point I picked up from Paxman's book is this: that for many English people, national identity is not something that actually has to be considered at all. Going back again to my Cambridge days, I remember one friend from Essex assuring me, "I daon't really 'ave an accent!" Of course he did, but he had never thought of it in that way; he just though he talked normal, and that I talked funny. We who come from smaller, or indeed just other, countries and nations are constantly (made) aware of our origins when we are in England. Other nationalities (certainly everywhere else I have lived, including even the US) accept that they are themselves a distinct and particular group of people, and that other countries are the same; in England, we visitors sometimes feel that we are weirdly and perhaps quaintly deviating from the default state of humankind, which is only found locally.

("Yet, in spite of all temptations / to belong to other nations / he is an Englishman! / He remains an E-e-e-e-e-e-englishman!")

Paxman then goes on to suggest that because the English sense of Englishness (or Britishness) is poorly or even unpleasantly articulated, it becomes much more difficult to have a rational discussion of European integration. To expand his point, the Belgians, Germans, Latvians, and Portuguese all have a good idea of where they are starting from, so are less worried about and more interested in going down the European track. Going back to Paxman, the British (and that largely means English, with certain peculiar exceptions in the territory where I was born) sense of mission collapsed with economic austerity and the loss of Empire after 1945, without anything much to replace it. Yet paradoxically the civic liberal tradition which is one of England's most admirable contributions to the world makes it almost impossible to construct a replacement national ideology. And even if that were possible, it's difficult to see how the Scots and Welsh might buy into such a project; consider how silly Gordon Brown's recent pronouncements on Britishness sounded, especially coming from a Scot.

Anyway, that's what I thought. I hope none of you English people reading this are offended - I like most of you and I love some of you!

Comments

( 16 comments — Leave a comment )
webcowgirl
Oct. 14th, 2008 07:38 pm (UTC)
Sounds great! I saw that book and thought about getting it. Maybe soon! (Well, after Time Regained.)
alese
Oct. 14th, 2008 08:28 pm (UTC)
Soooon....
I sent this review on to the boyfriend, who has promptly Bookmooched it, and I'll get it after him. Hurrah! I'm intrigued.
nwhyte
Oct. 14th, 2008 08:42 pm (UTC)
Re: Soooon....
Hmph, he could have had my spare copy! But I see he mooched it from a fellow UK resident!
sharq
Oct. 14th, 2008 08:53 pm (UTC)
Re: Soooon....
Aww, yes, sorry about that - I just decided to not 'pay' more mooch points than I had to :)
nickbarnes
Oct. 14th, 2008 09:27 pm (UTC)
You should read Kate Fox's "Watching the English", and post a comparison.
liberaliser
Oct. 14th, 2008 09:34 pm (UTC)
Seconded. Haven't read Paxman, but I thought Kate Fox was spot on.
artw
Oct. 15th, 2008 09:27 am (UTC)
That was in the house for a while, I think borrowed from my sister, and I'm not sure if N read it. I loved the anecdotes but, as I so often do, I took against the big sweeping Thesis. But I haven't read Paxman properly - neither of the two copies.
(Anonymous)
Oct. 15th, 2008 04:34 pm (UTC)
I thought it was a really good book and interesting. It should be read alongside Watching the English by Katie Fox (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watching-English-Hidden-Rules-Behaviour/dp/0340818867) to understand these odd folk.

quarsan
forodwaith
Oct. 15th, 2008 06:56 pm (UTC)
So am I more or less accurate in thinking that Irish:English::Canadian:American?
nwhyte
Oct. 15th, 2008 07:48 pm (UTC)
Er, no. Not unless I missed the 750-year US occupation of Canada.
liberaliser
Oct. 15th, 2008 08:37 pm (UTC)
Thank you Nicholas, nice to see there are Irish people who would not tolerate such a slur against their brotherly and formerly-but-no-longer-imperialistic neighbours. Or something.
inuitmonster
Oct. 15th, 2008 09:58 pm (UTC)
The relationship is somewhat similar, though - little country (population wise)-big country, little country feeling all taken for granted while big country does a lot of taking for granted, etc. Similar situations include: Austria-Germany, Denmark-Germany, Denmark-Sweden, etc.
liberaliser
Oct. 17th, 2008 06:23 am (UTC)
Er, did you say *750* years? I knew my high-school history was a bit gappy, but I seem to have missed a few centuries here. Looking forward to being edified a bit.
nwhyte
Oct. 17th, 2008 06:33 am (UTC)
My maths hasn't let me down, has it? Roughly 1170 to roughly 1920? Anyway I have plenty of edifying literature to lend you!
liberaliser
Oct. 15th, 2008 08:36 pm (UTC)
Now THAT is insulting. :-D But I forgive you.
(Anonymous)
Oct. 17th, 2008 11:22 pm (UTC)
> So am I more or less accurate in thinking that Irish:English::Canadian:American?

Er, no. Not unless I missed the 750-year US occupation of Canada.

Oh good heavens, Nicholas. I certainly hope you're just having a leg pull at the expense of your Canadian friend. I'd hate to think your brain had been possessed by some of the less pleasant denizens of a usenet group we used to frequent!

And in any case, as any fule kno, Canadian:American::English:Australian. Or something.

-- Mrs Tilton
( 16 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel