Post-Brexit and Identity

Before 2016, I rarely thought about my identity. I generally considered myself to fall into the vague category of “British”. I also tend to identify with London – the city of my birth.

However, since 2016, the question of “Britishness” has been thrust to the forefront of public conversation. People question who is “British” and who isn’t. People are asking “Am I British?”. Does it have something to do with Heinz Baked Beans? The constant conversation surrounding “British Values” seems to outline how this country is going through an identity crisis (apologies for the understatement).

Now, I’d like to make something clear. I have no idea what “Britishness” is. I have no idea what “British Values” are. I’m very confused about all of this to be perfectly honest with you. However, in saying this, I’m not asserting that “Britishness” doesn’t exist. It certainly does exist. I’m just saying that I’m not quite on the same page as everyone else. 

So, why am I talking about this topic? Well, even though I quite quantify what “Britishness” is, I think there is something interesting to be said about the relationship between Politics and Identity. I’d like to discuss how the assertion of identity can help shape (or preserve) our political reality.

Where does the national identity begin?

If you were to ask someone on the street about the origins of the modern British Identity, many would make reference to Britain’s primordial origins. Some would refer to Boudicca and the great struggle for freedom against the Roman tyrants. Some would refer to The Vikings or The Normans. Some would refer to the formation of the British Empire or the Act of Settlement. 

Francis Fukayama, political-scientist extraordinaire, discusses the formation of modern identities through the context of industrialization. He posits that before industrialisation, Europe was dominated by rural serfdoms. People would rarely leave their village and as such as, personal identity was largely hinged on your local area and your kin. 

As industrialization precipitated, European populations started to urbanise. The shift towards urban centres led to the unhinging on traditional serf identities because for the first time, many found themselves in an environment devoid of kin relationships. Working people found themselves in a very different world. 

Out of the wreckage of the feudalism emerged a new form of identity, National Identity. Instead of having an identity based on small communities and kin, Nationalism sought to create an identity predicated on the state’s primordial origins. Boudicca, The Romans, William I, The Empire, and The Act of Settlement became parts of Britain’s mythology. Now, industrial workers could place themselves in the greater story of Britain.

This shift of local identity to national identity is important because it provided the foundation for class identities to form. In the formation of a national identity, the stage had been set of competing narratives that would uphold or challenge the status quo, the most notable of these identities being the industrial working class identity posited by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. 

Class Identity became main rhetorical device through which Marx and his successors used to mobilise large swaths of industrial workers over the next century. This identity was so charismatic and encompassing, that it became the basis of the 1917 revolution in Imperial Russia, leading to the formation of the The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, one of the great powers of the 20th century. 

In this regard, it’s important to acknowledge the power in identity. Identity has the power to mobilise groups of people and shift political realities. So what does this have to do with today?

Well, across the world, we are seeing the assertion of political identity as a means of protest established political paradigms. 

In cases like Hong Kong, identity is a particularly sensitive flashpoint. The Cantonese speaking Hong Kong has found itself ruled by a government that is indifferent, or even hostile, to its unique cultural heritage. State broadcasts are conducted in Mandarin and many schools tend to focus on teaching the majority language.

Hong Kong’s history as a British colony has also informed its struggle against The Communist People’s Party. Hong Kong’s familiarity with a more Western style of capitalism, with its emphasis on civil liberties, has created an antagonistic dynamic with the mainland government. 

Brexit represents clash of established identity in a larger regionalisation project. People were forced to ask themselves, as I did “Am I British? Am I European? Or am I both?” In this regard, it’s not surprising that the economic argument against Brexit failed to gain traction with leave voters.

This theme can also be related to Scotland and her political landscape. The Scottish/British question has shown to be a very important sticking point for the people of Scotland.

Similarly, Matthew Goodwin, Professor of Politics at The University of Kent and Fellow at Chatham House, outlines that one of the many reasons Labour lost the election was down to their failings to properly communicate their values to the electorate.

Identity has, and still is, an important part of politics and identity is a mechanism of change and we’re currently seeing massive changes happening before our eyes. “Progressive Patriotism” has been a phrase that’s been thrown around recently by Labour Leadership candidates. How will identity shift now that we’ve left the EU? What will be the political implications of identity shifts?