Young People on Being British and European: Some Scottish Identities James Oliver University of Sheffield, UK Introduction With

Young People on being British and European: Some Scottish Identities

James Oliver University of Sheffield, UK

Introduction With this conference paper I hope to explore one of the questions that I asked young people during my PhD fieldwork. That question was: Is being Scottish the same as being British or European? I have chosen this question as I feel it might make my research a bit more relevant and interesting to the delegates at this social science conference. From the outset though, I should make it clear that this is not a paper about nationalism, it is about identity. Therefore, to get to the heart of this paper I have to frame it within the context of my PhD thesis, which has the provisional title, Young People and Gaelic in Scotland: Changing Identities in a European Region. The aim of this research has been to get inside (Macdonald 1993) the identities of some young people in Scotland, with particular reference to the Gaelic language. Gaelic is a Celtic language indigenous to Scotland, which is unrelated to the English language; however, unlike the language issues in Wales and in Ireland, Gaelic is not intimately associated with nationalism. As a cultural entity though, it is linked to issues of identity. For my fieldwork I interviewed a total of 46 young people who attended two different secondary schools in Scotland that provide Gaelic-medium streams of education. These schools were chosen because at the time they were the two largest providers of Gaelic-medium education at secondary level. But also because they were based in two very different regions, and the two spatial contexts also

giving me an opportunity to explore the rather crude dichotomies that are often used in sociological studies of Scotland as a whole: that is, Highland/Lowland, rural/urban, Gaidhealtachd/non-Gaidhealtachd (see below). I initially conducted 6 focus groups with the 46 students, and the focus groups were then supplemented with individual interviews. This research though was not restricted to those who could speak Gaelic as Gaelic is only an optional medium of education, and only available in some schools. Some interviewees had no knowledge of the language at all, other than that it was a possible medium of education in their school.

Research context Traditionally, Gaelic is the language of the Highlands and western islands of Scotland, a large rural area known as the Gaidhealtachd. The 1991 Census, however, reported that those who are still able to speak the language are evenly distributed, approximately half-and-half, between the Highland area and the Lowland central belt, a largely urban area. From the Census it was also possible to establish that the two most concentrated areas are now the Outer Isles and the Glasgow conurbation. The Outer Isles being a traditional Gaelic community and Glasgow being a modern city where people from the traditional areas go to live and work. There has also been a general and large decline in the number of Gaelic speakers throughout the 20th century. A quick overview of the Census figures show that in 1891 there were approximately 250,000 speakers of Gaelic, 6.84% of the population of Scotland, whereas in 1991 there were approximately 66,000, 1.37% of the population. The next Census is expected to report further decline to approximately 50,000. Not surprisingly, the fall in numbers has resulted in a decline in the actual use of the language, and especially amongst the speakers that go to, or continue to live in, an urban setting. However, since the mid 1980’s, much money has been issued from the public purse to bolster the Gaelic language, particularly in the field of broadcasting where there are now over 300 hours of Gaelic television broadcasted in Scotland every year, consuming £8 million. A less highlighted but equally important development has been within the education system, where Gaelic medium education has been promoted by the Government as a progressive means of teaching for the first time since the 1872 Education Act (Scotland).

Gaelic medium education is mainly available at primary school level, as an optional stream of education along side an English stream of education. It is not compulsory and most of the primary schools are in the Highland region and the Western Isles. There are some in the Lowlands also, with Glasgow having a Scotland’s only all Gaelic primary school. In some secondary schools, there are also Gaelic streams, where some classes are taught through the medium of Gaelic, this is on much smaller scale and is often dependant on the availability of teachers who are able to teach a subject through Gaelic. In total there are approximately 2500 students engaged in Gaelic medium education each year, and that is excluding the less regulated pre-school classes which will often feed into the system. The Gaelic language has therefore become a much more conspicuous feature in Scottish society and politics than it previously was. This increased visibility of Gaelic, especially in relation to broadcasting exposure, has brought Gaelic much further into the public domain and consciousness. My thesis is an investigation into the identities and identifications of young people in Scotland, with particular reference to the Gaelic language and culture. I am interested in the changing values, perceptions and identities that may be occurring within Scotland, particularly in relation to the question of what it means to identify as a member of a specific community or group. For example, according to recent work related to Gaelic identity, Sharon Macdonald (1997, 1999) suggests that Gaelic may not be so central to the identities of the younger generations from traditional Gaelic communities, and she also suggests that Gaelic may be shifting from a language of interaction to a more symbolic marker of identity. Ultimately, identities may be shifting from ‘Gael’ to ‘Scot’. From my own research results, this would appear to be the case, with respondents less sure and more reticent as to what a Gael is, compared with claiming to be Scottish. But apart from the possibility that there is an increased sense of Scottishness, I am interested in the fluidity of identity, how it changes and cannot be defined once and for all.

Theory Identities are dynamic and often simultaneous, which can challenge external attempts to categorise. For example, in a geographical sense at least, Scottish

people are also British and European, and there may be any number of other identities competing with those classifications. My approach to identity is based on the ‘subjectivist’ and ‘situational’ perspectives of Barth (1969), Cohen (1982) and Jenkins (1996). This approach does not assume identity to be fixed. In terms of a group identity, it is therefore important to understand that the identities of each individual constituent member of that ‘group’ is relevant, and especially so if it challenges a stereotype. From the ‘situational’ perspective there are major problems of validation when attempts are made to objectively define an identity; therefore, subjective self-ascription is seen to be far more important than definitions imposed from the outside. And that is because and individual’s identity may have little to do with what the wider world perceives to be a group identity, especially if the perception is largely rooted in the past and in former, historical, imposed identities. Tom Nairn, the political scientist, pointed out in his book The Break-Up of Britain that ‘the one thing which the Scots can never be said to have lacked is identity’ (Nairn 1981 [1977]: 131). A generalization that can, without a doubt, be applied to all nations. However, that does not mean that there is no grain of truth in the statement. In my interviews, for example, I gleaned these responses:

Scottish people tend to be a bit more protective of their country because…some people think we’re part of England, like Americans and that, so we feel much more Scottish than we do British, while a lot of English people might feel British rather than English. [phs –Nfg]

I don’t think there’re many Scots who aren’t proud of where they come from, you know. But then there might be people in other countries who are not proud of where they come from, you know. They could be adopted Scots, you know… somewhere where they feel proud. [phsp – fg]

Identity, therefore, is about a sense of belonging but it is often easier to be more conscious of the orders of difference than the orders of sameness, which we take for granted. As a result, ‘groups become aware of their ethnic identity when they engage with others’ (Barth 1969:24). This engagement is the vital in informing our reflexive identity. This, in essence, is Barth’s concept of boundaries and boundary

maintenance (Barth 1969). Scottishness, like any identity, is often most visible at its boundary of difference and in the Scottish case it is often the boundary of difference from the English that has to be maintained: ‘We are not English!’ is a common cry, to paraphrase M. McDonald’s: We Are Not French! (1989):

Mm… yeah… if they think you’re British they just… then most people automatically think, mainly kind of English, when you say British, if they don’t know where you’re from, if you haven’t spoken to them before. [phsp – Fm2]

Mm… I don’t think it’s very different from being British but when you think of British you’re more likely to think of English people. Do you know why? Because there’s more of them and they seem to have more influence within Britain. [phsp – Fm1]

Knowing there is a difference, however, does not necessarily mean that we have a coherent expression of ourselves. Barth’s work showed that ethnic groups are ‘socially constructed’ at the boundary of their existence with other groups, and that without such a boundary they, in effect, could not exist as a group because their content - the cultural stuff - is so fluid and unstable. Barth therefore suggests that a ‘common culture’ is actually an ‘implication or result’ of an ethnic group, as opposed to the ‘common culture’ being the ‘primary and definitional characteristic’ of an ethnic group. Anthony Cohen (1985), in The Symbolic Construction of Community, takes up these thoughts of Barth and suggests that the boundary exists precisely between similarity and difference and that the boundary itself is also not necessarily fixed because it is affected by the ‘cultural stuff’. This suggests that the dialectic of similarity and difference is not once and for all negotiated but suggests that as experiences change, as culture changes, identities are continually negotiated and, depending on the individual, need reinforcement or reappraisal. However, the expressions of what is imagined to be ideal, real or true is very difficult, and that is where identity is problematic: what does it mean to have a certain identity? From my interviews it was easy to discover that most of the young people thought of themselves as Scottish and that being Scottish was not exactly the same as being British (largely as an antithesis to being thought of as English), but they found another question – what does it mean to be Scottish? – far more complicated. That is maybe not too surprising because not all people have had the

same experiences or been brought up in the same way, therefore, they will read the texts differently, even within the same culture. For example, you can see from the quotations about Britain that people have slightly different views on the entity:

No… Well, I don’t know. Just… it’s all the same thing but it’s just more specific to say Scotland. [phs – Lf2]

Britain’s not a country, it’s like a bundle of countries. If I was from Wales I’d say I was Welsh, I wouldn’t say I was British. So `cause I’m from Scotland I say I’m Scottish. [hps – Ff1]

As Cohen points out though, a boundary is not just a physical marker of territory; it can be symbolic marker of identity too. A symbolic marker gives meaning to an identity claim but, as a symbolic entity, it is also fluid and multidimensional. For example, because a symbol has been placed at the boundary for negotiation, different people (group members and outsiders) can affix different meanings to it, and construct different identities. So, the meaning of the symbols and the positioning of boundaries may differ in different environments and periods of time. And essentially these symbols can become unhelpful stereotypes, as was discovered by the following respondent:

Yeah. Well if you say your British you could be anything in Britain, sort of English or whatever. Whereas when you’re Scottish people know sort of specifically what you are, then sort of begin to think where you live and what you’re like. Whereas, if you’re British you don’t really… you’re a stereotypical British person… If you say you’re Scottish then people sort of begin to think of you as sort of… like you play the bagpipes and those sort of things… but you know (laughs). [phs – Lf1]

Richard Jenkins’s use of ‘nominal’ and ‘virtual’ identity is a good way to help explain this dilemma. My ‘nominal’ identity may be ‘James Oliver’ but my ‘virtual’ identity is likely to be diverse and will change with personal experience. Therefore, I may always be ‘James Oliver’ but the ‘external’ and ‘internal’ negotiations of who James Oliver is are unlikely to be synchronised. In the same sense the terms Scottish or

British - or the symbols of the Lion Rampant and Union Jack, haggis eating or real ale drinking - can tell you very little about a personal, cultural or national identity. The use of symbols is important though. Gaelic used to be symbol of Highland identity but Gaelic medium education has now made Gaelic more accessible - that is more accessible to parents who do not have a Gaelic or Highland connection, and who would not have otherwise had Gaelic speaking children, but who wish their children to speak it because it is ‘Scottish’. This is what Malcolm Chapman (1978) calls ‘symbolic appropriation’. Symbolic appropriation occurs when a ‘thing’ becomes symbolic through the shaping and reinterpretation of it by those ‘outside’ of it. Chapman was specifically writing of the symbolic appropriation of Gaelic and the vestiges of its culture by ‘others’, that is non-Gaels, and the repositioning of Gaelic culture as central in representations of Scottish culture. But Chapman also notes that there is a re-appropriation, where the categorised reconstruct their own identities. Which brings us back to the dialectic between the internal ascription and external categorisation of identity. The result in the Gaelic-Scottish dialectic is perhaps, as Macdonald suggests, that the ‘internal’ are engaged in the repositioning of Gaelic as a symbolic marker of culture and heritage, in the possible shifting identity of ‘Gael’ to ‘Scot’. And, in the process of an identity becoming more Scottish, the concepts of being British and European may then seem unsatisfactory. This then leads me to the concept of ‘hollow categories’ (Ardener 1989). Hollow categories are indistinct ‘ethnic groups’ that are needed by other ‘ethnic groups’, usually for the purpose of reinforcing self-identity, in a similar way to that ‘internal’ insistence, ‘I am not English’. But this idea can also be applied to the idea of being European. None of my respondents, for example, felt that they could call themselves European. One even suggested that Europeans were all the same but different from Scottish:

I’d rather be Scottish than any other European country anyway. We seem to be a lot more unique. We’ve got our own identity, you know. I don’t know, maybe that’s because you live there and you feel that way. Maybe someone in Switzerland thinks like that as well. I couldn’t imagine being anything else, it’s just a big blur of people, but then you think of countries like that, you know, and you think what’s the difference

between being Swiss, Austrian, French and all that. You can’t imagine it being very different, but then being Scottish is quite a lot different. [phsp – fg]

But essentially, by partially subscribing to the concept of ‘hollow categories’, I am reinforcing the idea that identity is not primordial and fixed but fluid and diverse. And I am not suggesting that the classifications of ‘European’ or ‘British’ are hollow categories in the sense that people should not call themselves those things. What I do mean to state is that by the very process of people imagining what being ‘Scottish’ is for themselves, in relation to Britain and Europe, they add to the fluidity and diversity of what ‘Scottish’ is. Again, that is not to say that the concept of being British or European is imaginary but that it is variously imagined (Anderson 1983). One other possible reason for my respondents not regarding themselves as European is reflected in responses about both Britain and Europe. If I return to Anthony Cohen, in the 1980’s he produced and edited seminal work on communities and local identities in the UK. For him, the individual is more influenced by local identity than by national identity, writing that: “local experience mediates national identity, and, therefore, an anthropological understanding of the latter cannot proceed without knowledge of the former” (Cohen 1982: 13). Of course, that is not so different form the discussed theory about internal-external dialectics but it reminds us more explicitly of the importance of environment and locality in personal identity ascription. If we look at some other quotations, a more literal interpretation is also part of the process:

No… Well, I don’t know. Just… it’s all the same thing but it’s just more specific to say Scotland. [phs – Lf2]

Um… yeah but no, kind of... Yeah. Well no because Scotland’s in Britain but Scotland’s like separate, a part of Britain. [phs – Nf1]

Yeah, it’s sort of more specific, if you know what I mean, when you say you’re Scottish than when you’re European. [phs – Lf1]

Eh, yeah, because that’s like wider. Like that could mean you’re from a variety of places rather than just one, like Scotland. I don’t know. You ask me difficult questions. [phs – Lf2]

Yeah, definitely. It’s a continent - this is a tiny country. [phs – Lf3]

In conclusion I will repeat that the aim of my research is to get inside the identities of some young people in Scotland. This paper has explored how some young people have negotiate the concepts of being British and European but it has not been an attempt to define Scottish, British or European identity. It has however been an exploration of statements made by young people who could be externally categorized as Scottish, British and European.

References Anderson, B. (1983), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso. Ardener, E. (1989), The Voice of Prophecy and other essays, ed. M. Chapman, Oxford: Blackwell. Barth, F. (Ed.) (1969), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, London: George Allen and Unwin. Chapman, M. (1978), The Gaelic Vision in Scottish Culture, London: Croom Helm. Cohen, A.P. (Ed.) (1982), Belonging: Identity and Social Organisation in British Rural Cultures, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Cohen, A.P. (1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community, Chichester and London: Ellis Horwood Ltd and Tavistock. Jenkins, R. (1996), Social Identity, London Routledge. Macdonald, S. (Ed.) (1993) Inside European Identities: Ethnography in Western Europe, Oxford: Berg. Macdonald, S. (1997) Reimagining Culture: Histories, Identities and the Gaelic Renaissance, Oxford: Berg. Macdonald, S (1999) The Gaelic Renaissance and Scotland’s Identities, Scottish Affairs, No. 26. McDonald, M. (1989) We are not French! Language, Culture and Identity in Brittany, London: Routledge. Nairn, T. (1981) [1977] The Break-Up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-Nationalism, London: Verso.

James Oliver was born in Dundee, in 1973, and brought up in his ancestral home, a croft in Glendale, on the Isle of Skye. After gaining distinctions in athletics and smoking in toilets, he left Portree High School and his prefects badge behind to attend Glasgow Caledonian University, where he completed a BA honours degree in Social Science. A Masters degree in research (MRes) followed at the University of Strathclyde, which subsequently helped secure an ESRC grant to undertake his current PhD research at the University of Sheffield. E-mail: [email protected]