Connecticut College Digital Commons @ Connecticut College English Honors Papers English Department 2020 BrexLit: The Problem of Englishness in Pre- and Post-Brexit Referendum Literature Dulcie Everitt Connecticut College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/enghp Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons Recommended Citation Everitt, Dulcie, "BrexLit: The Problem of Englishness in Pre- and Post-Brexit Referendum Literature" (2020). English Honors Papers. 46. https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/enghp/46 This Honors Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the English Department at Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Honors Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Connecticut College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author. BrexLit: The Problem of Englishness in Pre- and Post-Brexit Referendum Literature An Honors Thesis presented by Dulcie Everitt to the Department of English in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Honors in the Major Field Connecticut College New London, Connecticut May 2020 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone with whom I have become close during my four years at Connecticut College. My gratitude for their support—from cheering me on in the pool, to offering me a place to stay during the Thanksgiving and Easter holidays, to standing by me during my greatest challenges—cannot be overstated, and I will miss having them close in the years to come. I would also like to thank my entire family, and my parents in particular, for their support of my education from the beginning. By example, they have shown me the meaning of hard work, and they have encouraged my love of English and writing without reservation. Their unwavering support of me travelling across an ocean to study at Connecticut College has further pushed me to work hard in everything that I do, and though I know my being abroad was difficult, I hope they know that it has paid back in immeasurable ways. Certainly, none of us could have predicted that leaving England would be what piqued my interest in Englishness, but removing myself from the English soil has undoubtedly offered me a new and clearer perspective that has not only enabled me to write this thesis, but has also allowed me to better understand myself. For that I am truly grateful. I must also thank my readers, Professor Patton and Professor Shoemaker, who have willingly provided support when I needed it most. My thesis would not be half of what it is without the knowledge and guidance they have given me in and outside the classroom over the last four years, and I hope I have done them justice in this final product. Finally, I would like to thank my thesis and major advisor, Professor Jeff Strabone. Professor Strabone absolutely knows more than I do about my own country, and deserves his British citizenship immediately. His guidance over the past year has been unparalleled, and he has further inspired my enthusiasm for BrexLit with his own. I am also indebted to him for the exponential increase in my vocabulary and grammar proficiency since my first year at Connecticut College. Without his expertise, questions, and support, this thesis would have been completely impossible. I am especially grateful for his ongoing willingness to work with me remotely this spring—although the world seemed to stop, his support made sure that this project did not. 2 Abstract The Brexit referendum of June 23, 2016 was an unparalleled political shock that forced an entire nation into a state of heightened self-reflection and polarisation. The United Kingdom became the Disunited Kingdom, with Scotland and Northern Ireland voting to remain in the European Union, while England and Wales voted to leave. The results of the referendum highlighted fundamentally dissonant understandings of nationhood—what it means to be “English” as opposed to “Scottish,” “Irish,” and “Welsh”—and revealed how all of these separate nationalisms are beginning to overtake a collective, overarching “British” identity. However, because the majority of Leave voters reside in England, Brexit raised particularly significant questions about what it means to be English, hence the focus of this thesis on problems of Englishness. Unsurprisingly, Brexit caused an immediate stir within the literary community. British authors sprinted to complete novels that shed light on the struggle to pin down English identity— a literary phenomenon dubbed “BrexLit” by the Financial Times. Englishness has proven difficult to define, both in literature and political science. The difficulty lies in the fact that Englishness is a type of nationalism that struggles to recognise its own peculiarities, and any satisfying incarnation of it is steeped in myth and falsehood. Despite this conundrum, authors have been grappling with English identity for decades—centuries even—making literature an integral tool for understanding it. Due to this extensive history of literature as a medium for defining Englishness, isolating BrexLit as the means to this end would be imprudent. Instead, I compare texts published before and after the Brexit referendum in order to explore the problem of Englishness from two temporal perspectives. In this thesis, I explore the theoretical literature on how nationalisms are formed, and I examine English nationalism as a unique and “exceptional” case. I also dissect the history of the UK’s relationship with the European Union to better understand the precedent for the Leave vote, and I analyse how relationships within the UK—between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and England—have triggered renewed attempts to define Englishness. I then engage the literature, starting with texts published in the two decades leading up to the referendum vote, before considering BrexLit, which I define as texts published in the period between 2016–2020, between the vote and the UK’s official departure from the EU on January 31, 2020. Because scholarly criticism of BrexLit texts is not yet available because they were published so recently, I have turned to periodical book reviews to capture the immediate critical reception of these novels. I conclude that Englishness is an enigma, not because no identity exists at all, but because the impulse of Englishness is itself a paradox. Englishness attempts to be both an identity of exceptionalism and superiority, yet it is simultaneously rooted in post-imperial grievance and the fear of being dominated by Europe. BrexLit texts vary in their visions of English society post- referendum—in some, the break with Europe provides an opportunity for renewal, while for others, England’s future vanishes entirely. Ultimately, BrexLit seeks to re-examine the nature of Englishness and offers readers the opportunity to step outside of the chaos, to reflect, and in many cases, to heal from the dismal anxiety of the present. 3 Contents PART ONE Chapter One. Introduction: Theories of Nationalism and the English Case ....................................6 Chapter Two. The UK, the EU, and the Rise of Insurgent UK Nationalisms ...............................23 PART TWO Chapter Three. Pre-Brexit Referendum Literature: Problematising Englishness ..........................47 Chapter Four. BrexLit: Writing in the Present ...............................................................................88 PART THREE Chapter Five. Conclusion: Reimagining Membership .................................................................177 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................183 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................185 4 Note on Usage Writing about England and the United Kingdom can create challenges for a readership unfamiliar with the nuances of terminology associated with them. To ease these problems for the reader, I have made decisions that may come at the expense of convention but offer a greater opportunity for clarity. I have used “UK” and “Britain” interchangeably throughout this thesis to avoid confusion about the difference between the two. Having said this, I also use “Britain” or “British” when I am referring to the Empire or the British people at large, though I use it taking for granted the reader’s understanding that Britain, even today, is dominated by England in terms of politics and power. I would also like to make clear, for the benefit of the reader, that “England” is not the name of the polity of the United Kingdom. When I refer to England, I refer specifically to the subnational territorial unit that lies south of the Kershope Burn and east of the River Wye. When I refer to Englishness, I refer specifically to a national identity that is distinct from “British” and that represents a constituent part of the United Kingdom—an identity that forms itself in opposition to other national identities within the UK, those of Scotland, Wales, and (Northern) Ireland. 5 PART ONE Chapter One Introduction: Theories of Nationalism and the English Case The Romans first with Julius Caesar came, Including all the nations of that name, Gauls, Greeks, and Lombards; and by computation, Auxiliaries, or slaves of every nation. With Hengist, Saxons; Danes, with Sueno came, In search