Peter Mandler. The English National Character: The History of an Idea from Edmund Burke to Tony Blair. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. x + 348 pp. $35.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-300-12052-3.
Reviewed by Eric G. Zuelow
Published on H-Albion (April, 2008)
A "chicken or the egg" question hangs over (including supra-national ones) that bedevil na‐ the study of nations, nationalism, and national tional consciousness" (p. 4). Mandler takes an im‐ identity. Did nations come before nationalism or portant step in this direction by moving beyond the other way around? Once asked, this query im‐ national consciousness, a notoriously difcult mediately generates still more equally vexing thing to pin down, in an efort to explore the idea problems. How can one identify the presence of a of "national character," those characteristics nation? Is it enough to fnd national conscious‐ which are popularly believed to exemplify a peo‐ ness among social elites or is it critical to fnd ple. broad support among the masses? Is it necessary Mandler is certainly not the frst to mention for historical actors to use the term "nation" or English national character (which is often consid‐ are words such as "kingdom" acceptable substi‐ ered, at least by the English, to be coterminous tutes that ultimately meant the same thing?[1] with British national character), but he is the frst These are not merely historical questions and to systematically study its history--a task that of‐ quickly involve anthropological, sociological, ten appears every bit as complex as searching for philosophical, and linguistic concerns. With al‐ national consciousness or identity. It turns out most as many defnitions of and ideas about na‐ that while national character is imagined to be tions as there are studies, most scholarly treat‐ timeless, it is an idea that is always in fux, which ments speak past one another, further confusing is constantly debated, and which is sometimes ab‐ issues that need no more obfuscation. sent altogether. Indeed, even after national char‐ According to Peter Mandler, the solution to acter was frmly established as a widespread pop‐ the problem of excessively "loose" terminology is ular discourse by the middle of the nineteenth to be found in a new and more complicated "lan‐ century, there were often competing ideas about guage--one that recognizes diferent forms of na‐ the nature and defnition of that character. tional consciousness as well as other identities H-Net Reviews
According to Mandler, national character is a cy of institutions and the characteristics of indi‐ modern idea, little more than 200 years old. Dur‐ viduals that made those institutions great. ing much of the Middle Ages, collective identities As time passed, the idea of England as a were based largely on the king: the king personi‐ "mongrel nation" that benefted from both Saxon fed the people. By the ffteenth century "English‐ and Celtic traits gradually eclipsed the civiliza‐ ness" was beginning to appear as a concept that tional model. Confdence in the union was at a was usually tied to admiration of English laws peak and the idea of the mongrel nation made it and institutions. Without the widespread use of possible to acknowledge English dominance in print language, however, there was little room for Britain while also recognizing the contributions of a vernacular of character. both the Scots and even the Irish. When com‐ By the seventeenth century new theories of bined, the strengths of each group helped explain historical origins provided the English with "more why Britain was the dominant world power. Both sharply national" qualities (p. 12), but intellectu‐ reason and emotion were joined, creating a gen‐ als did not outline a frm notion of English charac‐ uinely balanced people (pp. 66-67). ter, with the nation as a centerpiece of analysis, In contrast to the "mongrel nation idea," until the Enlightenment. In the mid-eighteenth based more on environment than race, racial ex‐ century thinkers such as Baron de Montesquieu planations of English character gained popularity posited the idea that geography and climate might during the 1850s and 1860s. If the English were defne a people's characteristics. Soon intellectu‐ superior, as their burgeoning empire suggested to als such as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Ed‐ contemporaries, then it was necessary to fully ex‐ mund Burke started to apply similar ideas to the plain why. Further, the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and English. According to Mandler, Burke's contribu‐ the Morant Bay Rebellion of 1865 both "stirred up tion to this burgeoning dialogue was especially English anger against the 'ingratitude' of fractious important. The Dublin-born philosopher and colonial subjects and English doubts about their politician wrote about an English inheritance, ar‐ capacity for civilization" (p. 72). What made these guing that English history refected a continuity of people behave so poorly while the English be‐ character across time--a character that helped ex‐ haved so well? For many, race seemed an obvious plain the powerful democratic institutions that answer, but this response took various forms. defne political life in England. For Burke, institu‐ There were those such as J. C. Prichard who felt tions, English law and parliament in particular, that humanity formed a single species and that along with the governing classes, exemplifed En‐ diferences were superfcial. Meanwhile, poly‐ glishness. England was the pinnacle of civiliza‐ genist thinkers held that each race represented a tion, its people the creators of something great distinct species. In contrast to both, Lamarckian who enjoyed an obligation to encourage others to thinkers argued that the races started out closely follow them. related and subsequently, due to environmental Once an initial conception of English national factors, diverged. character was introduced, it gradually emerged as Here again, the idea of English national char‐ a popular mode of analysis yet it was never fxed acter remained far from fxed. Even as racialist and there was seldom, if ever, consensus about its thought sought to produce a more scientifc expla‐ parameters. At frst, the idea remained close to nation of diference, Charles Darwin's Origin of the civilizational model suggested by Burke and the Species (1859) problematized racial explana‐ the environmental explanation posited by Mon‐ tions by dramatically expanding the historical tesquieu. National character was about the prima‐ timeline that most racialists used. For Darwin,
2 H-Net Reviews species evolved over thousands of years, yet Eng‐ ics necessarily disliked the Little Man, but rather land was settled and had evolved quite recently. that this "quintessentially English" characteristic How could racial divergence explain changes that caused people to be absorbed in home life and must have occurred in hundreds rather than kept them "pottering in the garden" when they thousands of years? As a result, many became ob‐ should have been tuned into world events. As A. J. sessed with Teutonic explanations for English Cummings wrote of his countrymen: "they were character. Between the rise of Napoleon III and prepared to present half the world to Herr Hitler his defeat by the Germans in 1870, English hostili‐ on a silver salver if only he would leave them to ty toward France and afection for Germany their own agreeable and prosperous devices, to reached its peak. In the context of the time, it their motor cars, their cinemas, their bungalows, made sense to celebrate England's Anglo-Saxon their holidays at the seaside, their multiple shops, origins and to point toward popular ideas about to all the congenial paraphernalia of a thriving an ancient "Saxon constitution" which bordered and developing trade" (p. 185). Even during on proto-democracy (p. 87). Teutonic strength pro‐ Britain's darkest hour, however, not everybody duced England's great institutions and empire. could begrudge the English national character. Like its antecedents, Teutonism could not last. Yes, they were asleep at the wheel during the German unifcation and the subsequent develop‐ 1930s, but once the crisis was on, the English rose ment of German imperialism made it difcult to to the occasion. This ability to face adversity was celebrate Germanic roots. Likewise, the traumatic soon integrated into the national character. impact of the Boer War made celebrating imperi‐ After the war, the English celebrated their alist exploits equally troubling. By the early twen‐ character at the Festival of Britain and looked for‐ tieth century, the new view of England was a ward to a return to normalcy--but normalcy did "'Merrie England' of lords and peasants, cakes and not last. The splintering of popular culture during ale, folk song and pageantry" (p. 139). England the 1960s, the economic troubles of the 1970s, and was no longer a place of bluster, but a place of Margaret Thatcher's failure to reignite belief in peace. The English increasingly celebrated their the national character all served to undermine ability to "muddle through" crises (p. 138), while the idea. For many, England was best exemplifed returning to their peaceful ways immediately af‐ by the past. Heritage centers and museums terward. By the end of the First World War, the sprung up everywhere, prompting some to won‐ old racialist conception of England was popular der whether England was about to become little only among a small minority, while the English more than a heritage museum. English national were increasingly seen in terms of a character character seemed quaint, hardly indicative of a type: the "Little Man"--complete with a bowler people who were more diverse than ever before. hat, bow tie, and tightly furled umbrella. The Lit‐ While too recent for inclusion in Mandler's tle Man was "small, kindly, bewildered, modest, book, Gordon Brown's efort to develop a "'state‐ obstinate and very lovable" (p. 163). While previ‐ ment of values' defning what it means to be ously considered dower, in the wake of World British" represents only the latest stage in this War I, the English imagined themselves to have a long-running dialogue. In an age of "England after sense of humor and to be especially kind to ani‐ Character," (pp. 196-242) Mandler's readers mals. should be little surprised that the government Yet national character remained far from faces a difcult road toward fnding such a state‐ fxed. During the Second World War, the Little ment. In an age of speedy communication and Man view came under attack. It was not that crit‐ transportation, emigration and diversity, the con‐
3 H-Net Reviews cept of English national character today inspires ry, this book is primarily concerned with the ideas little more than cynicism. For example, Times of of a narrow elite. While the debates outlined here London readers replied to a motto-writing contest are fascinating and important, it is highly unlikely with phrases such as "Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Asbo, that handloom weavers, a group whose fortunes Tesco," "Once Mighty Empire, Slightly Used," "We were dramatically and adversely efected by in‐ Apologize for the Inconvenience," and, most pop‐ dustrialization during the early nineteenth centu‐ ular of all, "No Motto Please, We're British." Evi‐ ry, sung the praises of parliament or discussed the dently the latest debate about national character particulars of John Stuart Mill's efort to found a is whether it is desirable to attempt any defnition science of national character as they rested in of that character at all. As one motto-writer put it, their hovels at the end of a fourteen-hour day. At "this idea of a statement of Britishness; I cannot a time when most historians agree that national‐ think of anything less British than that."[2] If ism and national identity was on the ascent, is it Mandler's book suggests anything about what to reasonable to assume that ordinary workers had expect in the future, however, it is that the debate no perception of an English national character? about character will continue, even if cynicism Where they completely excluded from the discus‐ about character represents the new character. sion? The English National Character is an excel‐ Finally, Mandler's efort to create a more com‐ lent book, full of gradations, anecdote, and in‐ plex language with which to explore questions of triguing arguments. Ideally it will inspire a new identity is an extremely valuable one, but it cer‐ wave of scholarship about national character that tainly does not simplify the underlying chal‐ will, in turn, reinvigorate debate about national lenges. If anything, his book complicates matters identity more generally. Yet, as important as this tremendously by showing just how transient iden‐ book is likely to be, Mandler does not solve the tities are. Sense of self and community shifts al‐ chicken or the egg questions that opened this re‐ most constantly. Demonstrating this is no bad view for at least three reasons. First, Mandler thing. Indeed, it is refreshing in a feld of study makes clear that English national character is a where identity is often viewed as a simple top- modern idea. He will undoubtedly fnd disagree‐ down construction. Yet we are still left with more ment among both early modernists and medieval‐ questions than answers. ists. Sociologist Liah Greenfeld, for example, cites Despite these points, Mandler's book is nu‐ John Milton's belief that liberty was "the distin‐ anced and complex, readable and engaging. guishing characteristic of Englishness,"[3] a view Prompting us to consider "character," in addition not terribly diferent from that of Burke, Smith, to "national consciousness" or "national identity," and Hume some 150 years later. Was Milton may well open new avenues of study and new un‐ ahead of his time or was he responding to a larger derstandings. Mandler does a beautiful job, not dialogue about what marked the English as difer‐ only of demonstrating the contested nature of ent from their continental neighbors? identity, but of showing how identity-related de‐ Second, The English National Character is bate is closely wedded to historical context. Each likely to prompt objections from scholars con‐ new defnition of and explanation for English na‐ cerned with ordinary people as opposed to social tional character was closely tied to specifc histor‐ and political elites. Although Mandler does briefy ical moments whether the French Revolution, the discuss the popular reception of ideas on several expansion of empire, the various colonial wars, occasions and while his study increasingly crosses the inevitable domestic crises and political de‐ class barriers upon reaching the twentieth centu‐ bates. English national character was a contested
4 H-Net Reviews idea that was at once political and pseudo-scien‐ tifc, transient, yet imagined timeless. Illustrating this point represents perhaps Mandler's greatest achievement. Whereas most related scholarship fails to depict debate, suggesting that identities are somehow monolithic, Mandler shows just how messy identity is. His account should play a role not only in shaping the literatures about na‐ tions, nationalism, and national identity, but also the very discourse about English national charac‐ ter that is the subject of Mandler's book. Notes [1]. Susan Reynolds, "The Idea of the Nation as a Political Community," in Power and the Na‐ tion in European History, ed. Len Scales and Oliv‐ er Zimmer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 54-66. [2]. Sarah Lyall, "Britain Seeks Its Essence, and Finds Punch Lines," New York Times, January 26, 2008. [3]. Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity¬, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 77.
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-albion
Citation: Eric G. Zuelow. Review of Mandler, Peter. The English National Character: The History of an Idea from Edmund Burke to Tony Blair. H-Albion, H-Net Reviews. April, 2008.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=14361
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
5