Author: Andre Coleman

What are the defining characteristics of a capitalist society? Which characteristics have held constant, and which been transformed, in the period since the 1970s?

In this essay I am going to examine the six main characteristics of capitalism, as outlined by Adam Smith in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). To aid me in this I shall include references from a broad range of Sociologists in order to elaborate on Smith’s points and provide elucidated examples. I then plan to discuss how these characteristics have been transformed since the end of the rapid economic growth post World War Two in the 1970’s and the catalysts for these transformations. Prior to this I am going to give an overview of the definition and inception of capitalism.

Edmund Burke (1795) defines a capitalist society as one in which even labour is seen as a commodity; the means of production are privately owned by the bourgeoisie whom pay the proletariat a wage in exchange for their labour. Good are produced in accordance with what will make the greatest profit for the bourgeoisie rather than to comply with the needs of the consumer base. The history of capitalism can be traced back as early as the 8th century, in his book Capitalism in Medieval Islam, The Journal of Economic History Sabhi Labib refers to this as, ‘Islamic Capitalism’; the stability and relatively high value of the dinar currency led to the establishment of one of the first economies were money was traded in exchange for goods or services. However capitalism didn’t become dominant in the ‘West’ until the 18th century, the catalyst for this was the French revolution of 1789.

During this time social stress built due partially to an excessive population, which led to food shortages and disease epidemics. Despite the recent growth of capitalism due to increases in overseas trade and thus the continued growth of the economy the majority of French citizens (especially in rural areas) continued to live at or below the poverty level. Furthermore the stratification system of dividing the population into a hierarchy of social orders at birth caused social unrest. People wanted social change but were unwilling to act, until the fall of Bastille. The storming of the French prison by a group of middle class demonstrators protesting the dismissal of Jacques Necker effectively acted as a catalyst for the revolution; people began to realise that drastic action could bring about social change.

Violence dominated the French Revolution; King Louis XVI was dethroned and beheaded and in 1793/1794 thousands more also met this fate, executed because they were thought to be anti-revolution. The French Revolutionary government, who had seized power during the political instability that followed the abolishment of the monarchy, entered war with most of the major powers in Europe, a war that outlasted the revolution. Throughout the bloodshed a number of important changes took place, the most radical of these being the abolition of feudalism and the establishment of a new order. A massive shifting of power from the Roman Catholic Church to the state took place; property was taken from the Church and members of the clergy were forced to sign an oath swearing loyalty to the state.

The French revolution was swiftly followed by the Industrial Revolution in Britain, which in turn led to the spread of revolution across Europe. The Industrial Revolution brought an end to feudal society in Britain and a capitalist economic system began to develop through the growth of free labour which liberated industries such as the textile industry. E.A Wrigley wrote that industrialisation was the product of a steady increase in per capita income (1972). Though it should be noted that the economic changes were not the only factors to contribute to the rise in capitalism, the process also involves a wider set of social changes (Kumar 1978) for example Max Weber believed the Protestant ethic was a driving force in the development of capitalism.

Now I have given an overview in to the development of capitalist societies I am going to discuss the characteristics associated with them. As previously stated Adam Smith outlined six characteristics of the capitalist society, the foundation of these characteristics was the notion of freedom; Smith believed that capitalism was characterised by individuals having both freedom of enterprise, that is the freedom and right to own property and/or a business and the freedom to dictate their own labour and consumer habits (freedom of economic choice). This freedom is however restricted by human need for sustenance and the means of production,

‘He is not forced to live according to the plan of a planning authority enforcing its unique plan by the police, i.e., the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion. What restricts the individual’s freedom is not other people’s violence or threat of violence, but the physiological structure of his body and the inescapable nature-given scarcity of the factors of production.’ (Mises, L. The Anti-capitalistic Mentality, 1956 CH.1)

A further characteristic put forward by Smith was the division of labour; for humans to carry out this production of materials they have to form what are known as, ‘relations of production,’ and divisions of labour must be made which are determined by the means of production at the time and whom owns them. According to Geoff Pilling (1980) for these relations of production take on the form of classes, as they have done present day, the productive forces must reach a certain level of growth (he further noted that if productive forces continued to increase to a higher level society may return to being class-less). .

To illustrate Adam Smith’s theory that within in a capitalist society there are high levels of self interest it is useful to look at the work of Marx. Marx used the model of a modern capitalist society as an example of how we can look at how the unequal distribution of the means of production leads to class development and thus class conflict. The bourgeoisie (ruling class) own the means of production, which means that for the proletariat (working class) to gain the materials they need to sustain life they must exchange their labour for a wage. According to Marx, capitalism is driven by an innate greed, especially within the ruling class; capitalists try to find ways to increase workers efficiency and force them to work longer hours. Caporaso and Levine (1992) noted, .

‘As a result profit increases, real wage (subsistence) remains the same the worker works harder, and longer whilst his share of the product declines.’ .

This sets the interests of the two classes in opposition each acting in accordance with their own desires, as the working class are trying to limit the amount of exploitation they suffer.

In order to control excesses of both individual and collective self interest capitalist societies require a competitive market,

‘As it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labour, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power, or, in other words, by the extent of the market.’ (Smith, A The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter III, 1845)

To ensure this competitive market there must be a large population of buyers and sellers, this is to ensure that no one person or group of peoples can dictate the price of a good or service by manipulating the supply or demand. One recent example of a company attempting to manipulate the supply/demand chain is that of Apple. The corporation is one of the main buyers of NAND flash memory chips, they are accused of indicating to their suppliers that they require larger volumes of stock than they actually intend to purchase. In order to meet this demand the suppliers increase production and as a result are left with a surplus amount of stock which they are forced to sell at a reduced rate. Moreover a competitive market must allow everyone free entrance and exit from the marketplace and must not restrict knowledge; both buyers and sellers must be aware of the markets that exist and the range of prices.

The final characteristic of a capitalist society given by Adam Smith is that of limited government or laissez-faire, however it is a theory that only works if the aforementioned five characteristics are fulfilling their role. Smith believed that the government should not intervene in the marketplace as that would ruin its chances of operating efficiently and to its full potential. He saw it as the government’s role to police the marketplace by creating and enforcing laws to ensure fair practice as well as helping to settle disputes.

Now I have provided insight in to the characteristics of a capitalist society I am going to discuss how economic events, including two global recessions, over the past forty years have affected the characteristics and policies of the capitalist system.

World War Two was the catalyst for the beginning of mass production of goods, this was known as Fordism. The process was named after Henry Ford, whom helped develop the first car that was economically viable for the working class through the use of assembly lines. Not only did this method of mass production lower the price of the end product, it also enabled Ford to hire unskilled workers which helped reduce unemployment at the time. Wages in his factory were high, at five dollars a day which enabled his employees to become consumers – through this Ford managed to boost the economy. The practice of Fordism helped overcome the economic depression that occurred during the 1930’s as it decreased the numbers of unemployed and increased the efficiency of workers meaning that profits rose. However the Fordist work structure was abandoned in the 1970’s when economic crisis put an end to the post-war boom. The causes of this economic downturn were the oil crisis of 1973, the 1973-74 stock market crash, a period of slow economic growth (stagnation) and inflation. Gamble and Walton (1976) used statistics to show that it was no longer realistic for ‘Western’ societies to practice Fordism; they found that by 1975 3.5% of the UK was unemployed (which went against the Fordist ideal of full employment) and that inflation had increased by 27%. The aforementioned factors combined led to a massive decrease in consumerism.

This economic crisis caused dramatic changes within the capitalist system and the development of a new system of economic production post-1970 that is often called Post-Fordism. It should however be noted that although the economic downturn was the main driving force for the introduction of Post-Fordism, globalisation and advances in technology also aided the transformation. Flexible production defines Post-Fordism; producers began to look more closely at the individual needs of their consumer base and produce small amounts of specialised goods rather than mass producing standardised products. One example of this is that of ‘Third Italy,’ this was the name given to regions of Italy such as Tuscany and Veneto that were encouraged by the Italian government to produce small quantities of high quality products. The goods were produced in small workshops with a workforce of fewer than fifty people and workshops from different regions often pooled their resources in order to purchase machinery.

Despite the fact that these unique products were highly desirable to consumers and thus enabled these small companies to charge more advances in technology during the 1990’s led to many corporations once again succumbing to mass production. Writing of Benetton, whom started as a small family business in Veneto (Third Italy) before becoming a large corporation, Castells stated,

‘New technologies allow for the transformation of assembly lines characteristic of the large corporation into easy-to-program production units that can be sensitive to variations in the market (product flexibility) and in the changes of technological inputs (process flexibility).’ (2000: 167)

This product and process flexibility has enabled Benetton to maintain their individuality and the exclusive feel of their products regardless of their current status as a global fashion brand with over 6,000 retail outlets.

Another such change is the deregulation of markets. Reich (2007) wrote that post Second World War capitalist society was dominated by ogliopolies whom controlled the industry; they were aided by government regulation that allowed them to keep out competition. Changes in the seventies however reduced the power of these large conglomerates as the government simplified laws regarding the market place, this led to a massive increase in competition as it became easier to start up businesses. Competition was further increased by the globalisation of the capitalist economy as corporations began increasing their consumer base by seeking larger international markets.

The deregulation of markets is a product of the theory of Neoliberalism, which aims to increase the efficiency of governments and improve economies by transferring some economic control from the public sector to the private sector (Cohen 2007). This policy complies with Smith’s theory of laissez-faire as it reduces government intervention. Margret Thatcher, whom served as prime minister of the UK for eleven years was an advocate of this policy; between 1979 and 1990 she oversaw the privatisation most of the United Kingdom’s utilities including British Telecom, British Railways and bus services throughout London. And although the current government has yet to privatise any public services there does not appear to be any intention of reversing the work done by Thatcher in reforming the economy.

There is no doubt that the capitalist system has undergone many transformations over the last few decades; the changes to economic policy caused by the current global recession serve to reinforce this. However the foundation of capitalism and the core values of the system remain intact; the essence of capitalism is still profit. The proletariat are still exploited by the bourgeoisie and the rich-poor divide increases each passing year (particularly in less economically developed countries – for example in 2007 the amount of billionaires in India almost doubled). Adam Smith’s vision of a competitive market that could not be dictated by any one corporation now seems too idealistic; the ‘free’ market is controlled by those who own large conglomerates, their wealth ensuring that nothing stands in their way.

References
Books

Burke, E. Thoughts and Details on Scarcity, Edition 3, 1800, Oxford University: F. and C. Rivington and J. Hatchard.

Caporaso, J. A and Levine, D.P Theories of Political Economy; 1992, Cambridge University Press

Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I; 2000, Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Cohen, Joseph Nathan The Impact of Neoliberalism, Political Institutions and Financial Autonomy on Economic Development, 1980-2003; 2007, Dissertation, Department of Sociology, Princeton University. Defended June 2007

Gamble, A and Walton, P. Capitalism in Crisis; 1976, Macmillan

Kumar, K. Prophecy and Progress The Sociology of Industrial and Post-Industrial Society; 1978, Viking

Labib, S. Capitalism in Medieval Islam, The Journal of Economic History; 1969 pp. 79-96

Mises, L. The Anti-capitalistic Mentality; 1956, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006.

Pilling, G. Marx’s Capital, Philosophy and Political Economy; 1980, Routledge & Keagan Paul

Reich, R B. Supercapitalism. The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life; 2007 Knopf; illustrated edition

Smith, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1845, Nelson

Wrigley, E.A The Process of Modernization and the Industrial Revolution in England, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 3, No. 2, Economics, Society, and History 1972, pp. 225-259 1972, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal of Interdisciplinary History.

Websites

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/index.htm

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1889&chapter=109993&layout=html&Itemid=27

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/apple-using-dodgy-tactics-to-get-better-nand-flash-prices.ars

Eagelton’s essay, Capitalism, Modernism and Postmodernism, was first published in the New Left Review in 1983 in which his post Marxist analysis of literature is exposed. He accounts for capitalism influence on art and its role. The capitalist and late capitalist areas have seen two new forms of literature appear: modern and postmodern. The modern, Eagleton explains, “In bracketing off the real social world, establish[es] a critical, negating distance between itself and the ruling social order”^[1], while postmodern works accepts the fact that it is a commodity and thus conflicts between its material reality and its aesthetic structure. Capitalism has turned art into a commodity, and after analysing this claim, the characteristics of modern and postmodern genres will be analysed, so as to understand literature’s role.

Eagleton explains how “High modernity […] was born at a stroke with mass commodity culture.”^[2] Capitalism, as defined by Marx is the bourgeois doctrine by which they are in possession of the modes of production and manufacture goods, sold for a profit. According to most Marxist thinkers, including Eagleton, art became one of the goods that the bourgeoisie wants to monopolise, produce and sell. Art has become a commodity, dissolved into social life. Eagleton denounces the effects of late capitalism on art: “if the artefact is a commodity, the commodity can always be an artefact. “Art” and “life” indeed interbreed”^[3]. Eagleton points out that that the “performative principle”, which he redefines as the deliverance of goods, also applies to the capitalist conception of art. The use of “best seller” as criteria of advertisement for literature proves that literature has become a mass commodity good.

Art and literature have been influenced by some characteristics of late capitalism, such as virtual reality based on mass consumerism. Our society focuses on commodities sold to and ideologically integrated by the consumer: “The commodity is less an image in the sense of a “reflection” than an image of itself, its entire material being devoted to its own self-presentation”^[4]. Art has become centred on its own image, role and place within society, because it has somehow lost its utopian role of mirroring the world, as if capitalism has perverted its function: “If the unreality of the artistic image mirrors the unreality of its society as a whole, then it is to say that it mirrors nothing real and so does not really mirror at all.”^[5]

Modernism and postmodernism are genres that emerged in the capitalist and late capitalist stages. They seem to have a common point: to focus on their role and concentrate on self identity. Eagleton uses de Man’s deconstructivist theory to define modernism: “Literature defines and pre-empts its own cultural institutionalisation by textually introjecting it, hugging the very chains which bind it, discovering its own negative form of transcendence in its power of literally naming, and thus partially distancing, its own failure to engage in the real.”^[6] Modernism attempts at representing the real, but cannot do so and raises a paradox: it “resists commodification”^[7] but is nonetheless part of it, thus part of the social and cultural superstructure of society, which it denies. Denying being part of the capitalist mass commodity is the very core of modern failure to represent the real.

Postmodernism appears as a more cynical genre. Some of its features are the blurring of boundaries, pastiche and grotesque. It does not attempt to represent the world, since it is virtual, and would thus fail to describe it. Postmodernism seems to be very different from modernism on the ground that: “If the work of art really is a commodity, it might as well admit it”^[8] and “become aesthetically what it is economically”^[9]. Eagleton also suggests that postmodersism aims at parodying the commodity production, without adding any meaning in it; if meaning was added in the pastiche, making it parody, it would serve to alienate the self from reality, and according to postmodern thought, there is no reality it can be alienated from. All these features aim at empting the social content of art.

Eagleton assessed the features of literature genres characteristic of capitalist stages, in order to draw a critical and theoretical approach of literature. He seems to focus on its ideological role, which is, more than its representational value, its only role left. Modernism deconstructs the “unified subject of bourgeois humanism, draws upon key negative aspects of the actual experience of such subject in late bourgeois society, which often enough does not at all correspond to the official ideological version.”^[10] Indeed, literature acts as an ideology denouncing ideology. Capitalist ideology professes that mass consumption finally fulfils libidinal desires, when in fact, as modernism exposes, takes us away from our self and reality, from the “unified subject”—a harmonious society—that late bourgeoisie claims to have reached. Postmodernism, despite not embracing the reality of society, draws upon ideological inconsistencies of the bourgeois discourse, thus rendering itself ideological. It shows the incapacity of complying with the capitalist ideology: “the subject of late capitalism is neither simply the self-regulating synthetic agent posited by classical humanist ideology, nor merely a decentred network of desire, but a contrary amalgam of the two.”^[11] The impossibility for the self to comply with all its obligations—familial, consumering, working—in the late capitalist society is denounced by postmodernism. It seems that Eagleton places literature at the centre of ideology, as a resistance to bourgeois ideology. De man explains that “the bases for historical knowledge are not empirical facts but written texts, even if these texts masquerade in the guise of wars and revolution”^[12]; literature is at the heart of our knowledge, ideologically built, and seems to remain so, decades after the end of ideology was proclaimed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Modern Criticism and Theory, a Reader. Ed. D. Lodge. Eagleton, “Capitalism, Modernism and Postmodernism”. Longman: London and New York, 1988.

1

Problems in society, often termed social problems/issues affect every type of community whether big, small, rich or poor. A social problem can be seen as a condition resulting in negative consequences for both an individual and their society as well as threatening our social institutions. However it does not need to be experienced by every individual. An issue considered as a social problem comes from the objective reality of realising that the problem is in fact a social condition that exists, for example you do not need to be poor to recognise that some people live in poverty. Sociology enables individuals to gain a sense of consciousness and awareness that structural or social forces are the causation of our own personal experiences. This enables us to have a systematic and objective approach to understanding cause of social problems and potential aid in finding solutions for these problems. It is vital that there is an understanding that sociology does not offer exact solutions for each problem, it can be used to define and discover problems, their trends and the potential driving forces behind these problems to aid institutions when creating solutions. A problem must be effectively defined before it can be effectively solved, sociology offers this vital definition. This essay will discuss what the discipline of sociology is, offer a sociological perspective on social problems and show two clear examples of completely different social problems and how sociology has given insight into these problems ?Y rubbish! And aided in the process of finding solutions.

Sociology is the systematic study of social structures and individuals. Many think of sociology as a continuous activity with a growing concern, constant adding to already developed knowledge and new experiences. The study of sociology adds to knowledge enabling us to think beyond the obvious and ask more questions. For example when asked to pass a phone we immediately know what the phone is due to the link between the word ( referring to objects) and the object however this answer does not give knowledge about the object. Sociology prompts us to ask more questions, where does this phone come from? How does it work? The study of sociology concentrates on current actions or on actions with qualities that do not change over time. Sociologists view humans actions as elements of wider figurations. Individuals are seen as actors locked together by a system of mutual dependency, that mutual dependency being the state. The central question to sociology is how and in what sense are people and actions dependant on other members/actors in society, therefore why exist in a society with cohesive communications, competition and coordination with other people. Sociology is “a way of thinking about the human world: which can be thought of in different ways”. In sociological studies the material for social findings is the experience of ordinary people living their daily life therefore in theory everyone has access to this and it has been lived by someone else previous to sociological study when actions were viewed as common sense. However, there are many different perspectives and a number of alternative ways of both collecting and analysing data. Each perspective will have a different assumption about society and will therefore as a result of this ask different questions about social problems. For example the Functional Marco level of analysis sees society as held together by social institutions which have specific functions in society and is mainly focused on order therefore one of the questions that will be asked is “How does this problem originate from the social structure?” In comparison to this, the Conflict/Feminist Macro level of analysis sees conflict as the main focus; therefore these sociologist will see society as held together by power and intimidation resulting in asking questions such as “how does the problem originate from the competition between groups and from the social structure itself?” C Wright Mills promoted the perspective that problems and their solutions are not just involving individual but social structures of society. In his essay “The Promise of the Sociological Imagination” 1959. Mills argued that the sociological imagination can help us differentiate between public issues and personal troubles, creating links with our personal lives and experiences and with our social world. Mills argued that personal troubles occur within an individual and their character and relationship with those around them, whereas public issues when values held by society are threatened. Mills does however recognise that personal issues can be transformed into public issues. For example unemployment is an individual’s own personal trouble but when there are high levels of unemployment in your society, a personal issue has become a public issue as unemployment threatens our sense of economic security. This leads to challenging the general belief that everyone can work hard to succeed. The Promise helps to detect the structural bases of social problems enabling us to be aware of the political, economic and social structures that may be influencing these problems.

The subjective reality of a social problem deals with how a problem becomes defined as a problem to begin with. This is driven from the concept of social construction of reality created by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1996). This theory sees our world as a social creation, originating and evolving through society’s actions and thoughts on a daily basis. Our experiences do not just happen to us predetermined and out of our control, therefore our social problems are also not predetermined, they become problems when we view them as problems and acknowledge that they are there. Denise Loseke (2003) says ” conditions might exist, people might be hurt by them, but conditions are not social problems until humans categorize them, as troublesome and in need of repair”.Social Constructionist perspective focuses on how a problem is originally defined and how groups with power such as politicians and the media can influence our opinions of what a social problem is.

What would you choose, eat or be eaten? Will you save your life or save others? It’s a very hard decision, to cannibalize your fellow humans. It’s a matter of choice. Many of us are not convinced with this kind of matter, it’s very hard to accept that cannibalism sometimes use for survival. It’s because the practice of cannibalism can also be considered as a crime. (Adams, 2004)

“aˆ¦ Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed aˆ¦”

– New Testament, John 6:53-55

Cannibalism is also called anthropophagy, eating of human flesh by another human. There are some reasons for cannibalism, in some tribes; it is a part of their culture, so the act of cannibalism is being practiced. Another reason is that cannibalism is a form of survival. The hungry people for instance trapped in a wild place, the tendency of it is for them to find a food source, and if they can’t find any food it can lead to Cannibalism or what we called the survival cannibalism. And the most common reason for cannibalism is the insanity of people. (Adams, 2004)

“It was considered a great triumph among the Marquesans to eat the body of a dead man. They treated their captives with great cruelty. They broke their legs to prevent them from attempting to escape before being eaten, but kept them alive so that they could brood over their impending fate. … With this tribe, as with many others, the bodies of women were in great demand. … “

– Rubinstein, W. D. (2004)

The anthropologist Tim White suggests that cannibalism was common in human societies before the beginning of the upper Palaeolithic period. He based his theory on the “butchered human” bones that found in Neanderthal and another low/middle Palaeolithic sites. (White, 2006) Cannibalism lower and in middle Palaeolithic may have occurred because of food scarcity. (Owen, 2006)

In early history cannibalism is mentioned many times. In bible (2 kings 6:25-30) wherein two women decided to eat their children (aˆ¦) the same story that was told by Flavius Josephus during the invasion of Jerusalem by Rome, cannibalism is also documented during the starvation in Egypt that caused by the failure of Nile river to flood for eight years (1073-1064 BC). (Against Jovanius-Book II, 1893)

As in modern times, (modern era) there are many cases of cannibalism especially during World War II, the brutality of Japanese is spread, due to lack of food sources. Even soldiers probably killed and ate during and after the battle. During starvation, soldiers are forced to eat the diseased prisoner even though it is disgusting, but they have no choice because that is the only way for them to survive. It is an example of survival cannibalism. (Ang, 2005)

“Anthropologists have made no serious attempt to disabuse the public of the widespread notion of the ubiquity of anthropophagists. … in the deft hands and fertile imaginations of anthropologists, former or contemporary anthropophagists have multiplied with the advance of civilization and fieldwork in formerly unstudied culture areas. …The existence of man-eating peoples just beyond the pale of civilization is a common ethnographic suggestion.”

– Arens, 1981

“The manners of the Androphagi are more savage than those of any other race. They neither observe justice, nor are governed, by any laws. They are nomads, and their dress is Scythian; but the language which they speak is peculiar to themselves. Unlike any other nation in these parts, they are cannibals.”

Rawlinson, 1858-1860

The Anthropophagi, whom we have previously mentioned as dwelling ten days’ journey beyond the Borysthenes, according to the account of Isigonus of Nic?a, were in the habit of drinking out of human skulls, and placing the scalps, with the hair attached, upon their breasts, like so many napkins.

– Bostock and Riley 1855

“I believe that when man evolves a civilization higher than the mechanized but still primitive one he has now, the eating of human flesh will be sanctioned. For then man will have thrown off all of his superstitions and irrational taboos.”

-Diego Rivera

When humans eat the flesh of other humans in able for them to survive this is what we called survival cannibalism. This is the only generally accepted form of cannibalism but still it is punishable by the law. Some people think that all people have the capacity to eat other people if you put them in right circumstances. As mentioned a while ago regarding the cannibalism during World War II, it is considered as survival cannibalism because of famine. (http://www.trutv.com/)

“… Eating someone who has died in order to survive is incorporating their substance, and it is quite possible to compare this with a graft. Flesh survives when assimilated by someone in extreme need, just as it does when an eye or heart of a dead man is grafted onto a living man…” (Auxiliary Bishop of Montevideo. Read, pp.1974. Alive. Avon, New York)

In early 1942 an Indian soldier Hatam Ali was a witness of

cannibalism during World War II. He tried to escape from the hand of the Japanese but before he leaves, he witnessed the brutality of Japanese among the prisoners as well as the soldiers because they are lack of food sources, they ate the diseased prisoner sometimes they draw lots. Whoever was picked was the one who will be killed and cooked. Could you imagine you are eating human flesh everyday? (Armando, 2005)

“Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own.” – Steevenson 1850

Ritualistic and Epicurean Cannibalism, the modern forms of this type of cannibalism is very similar and can be seen in some other tribes. The only difference is that this type of cannibalism is associated with satanic and cult group rituals. Epicurean and nutritional cannibalism is the rarer and is usually considered as a sub-motivation of other forms of cannibalism, such as the survival cannibalism and the sexual cannibalism.

(http://www.trutv.com/)

The ritual cannibalism is more complicated type of cannibalism compare to other types, because human flesh are sold as a medicine in various human diseases. This is something exotic, because the medicines are came from human flesh, some American food cultist studied about the use of human placenta as a remedy in any human diseases. (Janzen, 1980)

In Helsinki, Finland in 1999, there two men and a teen-aged girl arrested because of the torture, murder and cannibalism of a twenty-three year old man. They claimed that they are satanic and they perform a ritualistic killing. (http://www.trutv.com/)

The cannibalistic practice among criminals is increasing over the last century particularly in the western hemisphere. The law makers around the world are forced to establish or to update the law regarding cannibalism. Because many crime including criminal cannibalism has been reported and well documented. In some cultures the act of criminal cannibalism maybe an acceptable element for another culture.

(http://www.trutv.com/)

There are many people who refuse to believe that cannibalism is being practiced in this modern civilized age. Somehow there is much proof suggesting that it does occurred and with some frequency. There are so may documented cases of cannibalism particularly during the last 100 years.

(http://www.trutv.com/)

Self cannibalism is a practice of eating oneself. The other term for self cannibalism is auto cannibalism or auto sarcophagi. (http://meish.org) Some people are engaged in self cannibalism because of body modification for example eating your own skin because of body modification or by drinking your own blood. This practice is called auto vampirism. But sucking blood from wounds is not considered as cannibalism. (Anonymous) On January 13, 2007 the Chilean artist Marco Evaristti was a host in a dinner party for his friends. The main meal is agnolotti pasta which was topped with a meatball made from artist own fat. (http://www.news.com.au/ )

Self-cannibalism sometimes used in brutality as a torture method. Like Erzebet Bathor, she tortured her servants by forcing them to eat their own flesh. (Adams, 1986)

In 16th century, during the time of Spaniards, they forced the native people to eat their own testicles as a capital punishment. (De La Torre, 1986)

The Chijon family were a gang of cannibals in South Korea. This group of cannibals was founded by Kim Ki Hwan, a former convict and six other prisoners joined the gang. The Chijon family is composed of 7 criminals, the objective of this gang is to kidnap rich people and extort money from their families, Because of the anger of this gang to the rich people, forced them to kill the best customers in one of the most exclusive department store in Seoul, South Korea. After the crime the six members of chijon family were found guilty in murdering five people in 1994. After the crime, one member of chijon family confessed in front of many people that he ate the flesh of one of the victims and saying that he wanted to renounce his humanity. The gang realized that they need more tactical and more effective way to kidnap a wealthy old men. The gang was able to get the list from renegade personnel. The list contained the name of the big time customers. With the use of that list they choose who the next victim is. On November 1, 1994 the chijon family was sentenced to death because of the five people they killed. (http://www.imaeil.com/)

Another case of cannibalism has been reported in South Korea. A self-confessed cannibal named Yoo Young-chul that was born in 1970 in South Korea admitted that he killed 21 people; most of them are prostitutes and rich old men. The Seoul central district court accused him of 20 murders (one case dismissed on a technicality). He burned three of his victims and chopped the body of at least 11 of them and after that he confessed that he ate the livers of some of his victims. This crime was happened between September 2003 and July 2004. When Yoo was arrested, in front of media he explains his motive, Yoo said that: “aˆ¦ women shouldn’t be sluts and the rich should know what they’ve done aˆ¦” On July 19, 2005 he was sentenced by death by the Supreme Court. Because of that case, the South Koreans open their minds about the capital punishment in South Korea. (http://trutv.com)

Cannibalism exists because of the hungry people, due to lack of food sources, many people are forced to cannibalize their fellow human because that is the only thing that they can do in able for them to survive. There are many cases of cannibalism in different countries like in China, Korea and Japan. Some people are practicing the act of cannibalism because it’s a part of their culture, but some other people are practicing the act of cannibalism because of insanity. The most generally accepted form of cannibalism is the survival cannibalism but it’s still punishable by the law. If you put yourself in a situation wherein you’re going to choose, to eat or be eaten, it’s a very hard decision, as a matter of fact many people choose to eat human flesh rather than to die because of hunger. Based on my study, I found out that there are three things why cannibalism has been practiced in some other countries. First, the insanity of People, second, as sanctioned by a cultural norm and lastly, for survival.

Butch and femme roles were extremely important to the community in the forties and fifties; it was the butch role that was the most visible, and therefore the most likely to cause public scorn (Weissman and Fernie). The two sources, The Reproduction of Butch – Femme Roles by Madeline Davis and Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy and Forbidden Love by Aerlyn Weisman and Lynne Fernie focus particularly on the function of the butch role among working class lesbians in Buffalo. These sources draw on articles, oral histories and interviews of lesbians from the early twentieth century. Both the resources state that, although “gender-appropriate” styles and behaviors were rigidly enforced in order to maintain a clear distinction between the sexes, butch women’s choice to not only reject traditional femininity but to also actively adopt masculinity was perceived as a threat to the very order of society and a prelude to social chaos. Despite the fear, and likelihood of harassment by police and other straight men, the courage of butches to claim their identities in many ways prepared the way for later generations of lesbians to break free from the narrow conventions of socially constructed womanhood and claim access to a kind of power traditionally held only by men (Weisman and Fernie). As a result, male representations of lesbian sexuality have had the most influence in shaping attitudes towards butch and femme identities throughout the twentieth century. Such representations have almost always assumed the lesbian role -playing is an imitation of heterosexuality.

The main theory underlying the feminist disregard of role – playing is that roles depend on sexual difference, which is naturally hierarchical, polarizing, and oppressive. Sexual difference is the grounds on which heterosexual roles are built, and thus contains within it an inherently unequal distribution of power. In the relationship of a butch and femme, since the identities of both are built on popular cultural stereotypes of male and female behavior, they tend to reinforce the inequality in power inherent in this dichotomy. In addition, in most cases one of the partners is active, strong, dominant, and initiating whereas the other partner is passive, weak, submissive, and enduring. The partner who is dominant in this equation mimics the role of a male in a heterosexual relationship, whereas the passive, weak and submissive characteristics belong to that of the female. Thus, because the butch- femme roles have the potential for being just as sexist as heterosexual roles, they imitate the latter, especially when talking about power relations between two partners. (Weisman and Fernie)

According to Judith Roof’s article, “The Match in the Crocus: Representations of Lesbian Sexuality,” the representations of lesbian sexuality in the dominant discourse often evoke the phallus by calling attention to its absence or substitution in sexual relations between women, so that it appears and seems necessary, at least symbolically, because of the inconceivability of sexuality without a phallus present. Therefore, lesbians are often depicted as having appropriated the penis, masquerading as though they really had it, and thereby assuming male privilege and acting upon it. This evokes the stereotypical image of the lesbians by phallocentric discourse and is seemingly embraced by the lesbian community in the form of butch roles. What Roof’s analysis makes possible is an understanding of the ways in which the dominant ideology has a vested interest in making the butch – femme role playing appear to be a mere replica of heterosexuality, as a way of calming male anxiety over the threat of female appropriation of male dominance. Thus, because the absence of the phallus requires them to achieve the balance through role playing, they merely are merely imitating the heterosexual norms.

Butch – femme roles were particularly prominent in the working-class lesbian bar culture of the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s, where butch-femme relationships were the norm, while butch-butch and femme-femme were taboo (Kennedy and Davis 244/81). Most of the lesbian community existed primarily in bars, since these were the only places where people could gather publicly, break the isolation of lesbian life, and develop both friendships and lover relationships (Kennedy and Davis 243/80). Just as in straight bars, “picking up” another type in lesbian bars was often the reason for attending the party. Although there are a few exceptions (like Nairobi in Forbidden Love who sent a rose to her desired person), the butch was typically the one who made the first move towards the femme who just sat and looked pretty. This idea of the “male” butch having to make the first move, replicates the role of a heterosexual male who usually is the one to make the first move at a club.

The objective of a butch was to satisfy and keep his femme safe (Weisman and Fernie). This reiterates the notion of one of the partners being in control, strong, and dominant, whereas the other is weak, and needs the help of a “man” to keep her safe (Weisman and Fernie). This goes hand in hand with the notion of the society that perceives women to be inferior to men because they need a man to look after them. It was always the butch who put up with the discrimination, and bashing to keep their “woman” safe. Further, “the butch is never attracted to another like herself. Rather, she is always attracted to a more feminine type of person” (Kennedy and Davis 251/84). This can be paralleled to the idea that heterosexual males are not supposed to be attracted to the same type of person, but of the opposite sex. Therefore, though they are trying to show a discourse to heterosexual relationships, the fact that society is predominantly heterosexual subjected them to the widely known heterosexual structure.

The role playing in the bedroom does not strictly and always follow pleasure being received only by one partner. Just like the sex life of heterosexual couples butch and femme complement each other in an erotic system in which the butch was expected to be both the giver and the doer (Kennedy and Davis 244/81), however not always. In simpler terms, as shown in “Forbidden Love” it was always the butch on top, and the femme on the bottom. Though this earned them a destruction of taboo around the sexuality of lesbians, it can be taken further by the notion that in the sex life of heterosexual couples, the female is the one on the bottom, and the male is the one who is taking charge, and dominant, and therefore on top.

In contrast to a butch, a stone butch is a woman who is strongly masculine in character and dress, tops her partners sexually (and sometimes emotionally), and who does not wish to be touched genitally. Not all stone butches identify in female terms; some are known to identify with male pronouns, while many stone butches do not even identify themselves with lesbian or within the lesbian community. A common partner for a stone butch is a stone femme; a femme who bottoms sexually or who wishes not to touch the genitals of her stone butch partner. Moreover, the characteristics of stone butches can be found in many men, who wish to pleasure, but do not expect anything in return; that is – to be total givers. These men get their “zing” from pleasuring their woman, identical to the role of a stone butch. (Weisman and Fernie)

By wearing the attire of a man, the butches earn privileges that a heterosexual man would have. The femme, or the woman, who wears feminine clothes, does not have the same privileges of that of the males. Wearing “manly” clothes gives a lot more mobility and freedom to the butches, which parallels the liberation that heterosexual males get and their females do not. Moreover, the only way for women to achieve independence in work and travel and to escape passivity was to “pass” as men (Kennedy and Davis 245/81). Wearing “manly” clothes therefore also permitted these “men” to earn higher salaries and get better jobs (Weissman and Fernie); similar to how getting a job was known to be a man’s responsibility in the heterosexual structure.

Though there have been ongoing debates on the roles of butch and femmes, there is no doubt that their role – playing imitates the functions which are evident in a heterosexual constitution. There are many reasons that have compelled these lesbians into taking up these heterosexual identities; one being the identification and visibility of the role of females in a society dominated by heterosexual notions of relationships, and another being that taking up the “male” characteristics, was the only way to let the society view their homosexual relationships as somewhat heterosexual. Thus, butches and femmes took on the notion of the heterosexuals by imitating their masculine style of clothing, sex habits, stratified positions and social behaviours.

Assessing the theory of “Broken Windows”

“Wicked people exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart from innocent people…We have trifled with the wicked, made sport of the innocent, and encouraged the calculators. Justice suffers, and so do we all”

– James Wilson

The basic idea for the Broken Windows theory is that any kind of urban blight – a broken window, graffitied walls, rubbish on the streets, etc. – does no harm to a neighbourhood if it is immediately remedied. However, if left untended, it signifies a lack of care in the community, the kind of environment in which it is acceptable for residents to relinquish any notions of concern. And while the initial damage and disrepair is physical, the next stage is psychological. That is, if it becomes acceptable for people to litter and vandalise at will, why not walk around drunk, or beg for money, or mug others for it? Why not even kill for it? Why follow any kind of rules at all? In sum, the Broken Windows theory postulates that the smallest symptoms can lead to the greatest crimes. This paper will examine the effectiveness of this idea.

The Broken Windows theory first became widely known in 1982, when James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling published an article in the Atlantic Monthly called “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.” The article articulated the reasons why minor neighbourhood slights should not be ignored:

“A piece of property is abandoned, weeds grow up, a window is smashed. Adults stop scolding rowdy children; the children, emboldened, become more rowdy. Families move out, unattached adults move in. Teenagers gather in front of the corner store. The merchant asks them to move; they refuse. Fights occur. Litter accumulates. People start drinking in front of the grocery; in time, an inebriate slumps to the sidewalk and is allowed to sleep it off. Pedestrians are approached by panhandlers” (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

On the surface, this idea, that small acts of antisocial behaviour can act as catalysts for others, and that a broken window “sends a signal” to criminals that it okay to break the law, seems perfectly reasonable and logical. The notion that once people begin disregarding the norms that keep order in a community, both order and community unravel, even follows the concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics (systems naturally progress from a state of order to disorder). And almost from its inception, the idea took hold.

While the Wilson/Kelling article did the most to publicise the theory, there were some precedents, namely Philip Zimbardo’s 1969 experiment, in which he left two identical 1959 Oldsmobiles in different neighbourhoods, one near the Bronx campus of New York University and one near the Stanford University campus in Palo Alto, California. “The license plates of both cars were removed and the hoods opened to provide the necessary releaser signals” (Zimbardo, 1969).

In the Bronx, within ten minutes, the car was vandalised, and by the end of the day was stripped bare. In Palo Alto, the car remained untouched for a week, until Zimbardo himself broke one of its windows with a sledgehammer, at which point others joined in. Within a few hours, the car was completely destroyed. (Gladwell, 1996).

Zimbardo’s focus was on the psychological aspects of authority and anonymity, and his experiment aimed to understand what factors and to what extent human behaviour was governed by environmental and physiological stimuli, a process known as deindividuation:

“…a series of antecedent social conditions lead to a change in perception of self and others, and thereby to a lowered threshold of normally restrained behavior” (Zimbardo, 1969).

Wilson and Kelling’s article, however, was more prescriptive, and was focused on applying the Broken Windows theory to law enforcement procedures. And it is in this way that politicians and police have regarded the theory over the past twenty-five years, paving the way for a slate of reforms aimed at promoting deterrence through arrests, imprisonment and harsh sentencing, with a heavy reliance on the criminal justice system to impart severe and swift penalties (Conklin, 1992).

Within the article, the authors discuss the historical function of police work, which they describe as maintaining public order:

“From the earliest days of the nation, the police function was seen primarily as that of a night watchman: to maintain order against the chief threats to order – fire, wild animals, and disreputable behavior. Solving crimes was viewed not as a police responsibility but as a private one” (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

However, this eventually changed, and detective work (solving crimes) took on a greater role, a shift that the authors feel should be reversed:

“A great deal was accomplished during this transition, as both police chiefs and outside experts emphasized the crime-fighting function in their plans, in the allocation of resources, and in deployment of personnel. The police may well have become better crime-fighters as a result. And doubtless they remained aware of their responsibility for order. But the link between order-maintenance and crime-prevention, so obvious to earlier generations, was forgotten” (ibid).

Another criticism felled by Wilson and Kelling was the lack of “community policing,” or the “beat officer” on foot, patrolling the neighbourhood. Instead, there had been a steady shift towards keeping the officers in their squad cards, in which case they were isolated, removed from the people of the neighbourhood and the life on the street, whereas “what foot-patrol officers did was to elevate, to the extent that they could, the level of public order in these neighborhoods” (ibid). In short, the officer on foot was not only more accessible, and thus a part of the community; he was better able to understand it and serve it.

The majority of the theory, however, has to do with a new focus on smaller crimes – beggars, drunks, teenagers, litter, etc. – rather than big ones. These so-called “gateway crimes” are where the real offenses take root; eliminate these, and the major crimes will be stopped before they have a chance to foster and spread:

“The citizen who fears the ill-smelling drunk, the rowdy teenager, or the importuning beggar is not merely expressing his distaste for unseemly behavior; he is also giving voice to a bit of folk wisdom that happens to be a correct generalization – namely that serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked. The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window” (ibid).

But does the theory work? As of yet, there has been no scientific evidence proving it does. Even Wilson himself a few years ago admitted: “People have not understood that this was a speculation” (Hurley, 2004).

It should be noted that on the very first page of the Atlantic Monthly article, where the authors were giving a history of community policing in Newark, NJ, they mentioned a study by the Police Foundation that discovered that while “foot patrol had not reduced crime rates, residents seemed to feel more secure than persons in other areas” (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

On the surface, this seems pretty straightforward – because foot patrols did not lead to a drop in crime rates, they didn’t do anything to make neighbourhoods safer. However, Wilson and Kelling use the residents’ testimony to argue that, in fact, the community is safer, because disorder itself is something to be feared:

“We understand what most often frightens people in public places. Many citizens, of course, are primarily frightened by crime, especially crime involving a sudden, violent attack by a stranger. This risk is very real, in Newark as in many large cities. But we tend to overlook another source of fear–the fear of being bothered by disorderly people” (ibid).

This is all very well and good, that people appreciate not having to deal with aggressive and disorderly people. But how then is safety being measured, if not by crime rates? The authors certainly aren’t implying that it can be measured by residents’ feelings of safety? Regardless, the rest of the article makes no mention of this issue, and concentrates primarily on perceived dangers (how to curb a community’s fears of being bothered by disorderly persons), rather than actual ones (curbing crime rates themselves).

The theory had its first test in the early 90s, when the Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, implemented his own version of it to target the city’s high crime rate. This didn’t happen simply by chance; George Kelling was a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute, and was one of Giuliani’s advisors (DePalma, 2002). The term that was used to describe the new initiative was the “no tolerance policy.” This phrase, along with another that soon followed (“quality of life”), acted as the cornerstones for Giuliani’s mayorship. He aimed to aggressively target even minor infractions (no tolerance) in order to clean up the city and make New York a safe place to live (improved quality of life).

Police were given powers that they never before had, and were encouraged to hand out tickets and arrests for anything and everything. “For the cops,” Chief of Police William Bratton commented, they were “a bonanza. Every arrest was like opening a box of Cracker Jacks. What kind of toy am I going to get? Got a gun? Got a knife? Got a warrant? Do we have a murderer here? Each cop wanted to be the one who came up with the big collar. It was exhilarating for the cops and demoralizing for the crooks” (Bratton, 1998).

In addition to the usual list of offenders – drunks, panhandlers, juvenile delinquents – were added jaywalkers and “squeegee men,” those homeless men and women who aggressively and without asking would clean a car’s windshield while the driver was stuck in traffic, and then demand payment. The effect of the new procedures was instant and irrevocable: crime dropped to its lowest figures in four decades, and stayed there. At the present moment, New York City is the safest big city in America. However, whether this decline can solely or even partially be attributed to Broken Windows is up for debate. At the same time the police were implementing harsh “no tolerance” crackdowns, the crack cocaine market bottomed out, which resulted in less drug deals, fewer addicts on the street and a reduction in violent turf wars, all of which at one time were responsible for numerous muggings and murders (Harcourt, 2002). In addition, over the same time period, there were dramatic improvements in emergency response capabilities and medical care, which ended up saving the lives of countless people who previously would have died (Lizza, 2002).

There were also important changes at the New York Police department during this time that could have explained the drop in crime, including a significant increase in the number of police officers. In 1992, Giuliani’s predecessor, David Dinkins, hired over two thousand new officers under the Safe Streets, Safe City project, and Giuliani himself hired another four thousand, and merged another six thousand Transit and Housing Authority officers into the ranks of the New York Police Department (Harcourt, 2002). Because of this, the department increased from 26,856 in 1991 to 39,779 in 2000, giving New York the largest police force in the country, with the highest ratio of officers to civilians of any major city (U.S. Department of Justice, 1992).

Another argument against the success of Broken Windows is that the 1990s were generally a “boom time.” The stock market, employment and wages were all at record highs throughout the United States, and crime rates are usually more prevalent when times are hard. For example, crime fell in many large cities – San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Houston, Boston and others – at exactly the same time, and in some cases in an even more dramatic fashion:

“One study found that New York City’s drop in homicides, though impressive, is neither unparalleled nor unprecedented. Houston’s drop in homicides of 59 percent between 1991 and 1996 outpaced New York City’s 51 percent decline over the same period. Another study looked at the rates of decline in homicides in the seventeen largest U.S. cities from 1976 to 1998 and found that New York City’s recent decline, though above average, was the fifth largest, behind San Diego, Washington, D.C., St. Louis, and Houston” (Joanes, 1999).

And many of these cities did not implement the kind of order-maintenance procedures that New York did. For example, the San Diego police department instilled a model based on community-police relations. Their strategy was one of sharing the responsibility of identifying and solving crimes with neighbourhood residents. Because of this, San Diego not saw a marked decrease in crime, but experienced a 15 percent drop in arrests, and an 8 percent drop in complaints of police misconduct (Greene, 1999).

In addition, San Francisco made community involvement a priority, and felony incarcerations dropped from 2,136 in 1993 to 703 in 1998, and rape, robbery, aggravated assault and total violent crime decreased more than the rate in New York over the same period (Khaled and Macallair, 2002).

Other cities, including Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, also experienced significant decreases in crime without adopting as coherent a policing strategy as New York or San Diego.

The fact is that there was a remarkable drop in crime in many major cities in the United States during the 1990s, many of which used a variety of different strategies. To attribute New York’s declining crime rates to merely their implementation of more aggressive initiatives is overly simplistic. However, New York’s success got the most publicity, and much of the country wanted to learn from Giuliani and to implement their own “no tolerance” policies. And its popularity in the U.S. was only matched by its appeal abroad. In 1998, representatives from over 150 police departments from around the world visited New York to learn about order-maintenance policing, and in 2000, another 235 police departments, the vast majority from overseas, followed suit (Gootman, 2000).

However, even if the Broken Windows theory is correct, it has still never been fully explained as to how it works. It could be argued that those who choose to commit crimes, denied the signals they would normally receive from low-grade disorder, move on to different locales. But where do they go? And if such places existed, couldn’t they implement their own Broken Windows initiatives? One possible answer comes from writer and social theorist Malcolm Gladwell, who suggests that crime actually does increase or decrease much like an epidemic, and at certain thresholds will turn, rather than rise and fall in a typical linear fashion (Gladwell, 1996).

Wilson and Kelling for their part fail to talk much about the specifics by which public disorder turns into crime. They simply say it does, as do most of the theory’s supporters. However, some seem to have taken the idea to illogical extremes, such as a Lancaster, Pennsylvania reporter commenting on the city’s new “quality of life” initiatives: “If you put a couch out in a backyard, somebody could get raped on that couch” (Van Nguyan, 2001).

Bernard Harcourt, who has written extensively on the issue, believes that the aggressive prosecution of disorderly behaviour has had little effect on crime rates dropping. His argument is that the increased number of arrests, searchers, surveillance, and police officers on the streets has had the fairly straightforward effect of bringing more small offenses to light, and that no provable connection has ever made between disorder and crime (Harcourt, 2002). His worry is that this sets a dangerous precedent, and that the unfounded power of the police will only lead to more drastic action against less drastic offenses, especially minorities:

“Incidents like the NYPD’s alleged torture of a Haitian naturally reinforce minority citizens’ distrust of the police. This mistrust has been boosted of late by numerous television videotapes showing police officers beating up unresisting citizens. In most cases, the cops were white and those on the receiving end of their clubs were black or Latino” (McNamara, 1997).

However, this is exactly in line with what Wilson and Kelling argue for, this “bygone era” of policing:

“The police in this earlier period assisted in that reassertion of authority by acting, sometimes violently, on behalf of the community. Young toughs were roughed up, people were arrested ‘on suspicion’ or for vagrancy, and prostitutes and petty thieves were routed. ‘Rights’ were something enjoyed by decent folk, and perhaps also by the serious professional criminal, who avoided violence and could afford a lawyer” (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

Kelling himself spent some time accompanying an officer (“Kelly”) on his beat, the experience of which again illustrates a strange tolerance for lawlessness on the part of the police:

“Sometimes what Kelly did could be described as enforcing the law, but just as often it involved taking informal or extralegal steps to help protect what the neighborhood had decided was the appropriate level of public order. Some of the things he did probably would not withstand a legal challenge” (ibid).

After all, what can “extralegal” possibly mean other than “illegal?” It seems odd that this is the sort of behaviour the authors advocate, one in which officers are allowed to take the law into their own hands, but anyone who commits even the smallest of trespasses – jaywalking, littering, urinating in public – needs to be several punished. It certainly doesn’t put much faith in the fairness of the model. And, in fact, the Broken Windows model is far from fair. One of its constant critiques is that the kinds of offenses it targets are primarily those carried out by the poor. There is no mention of embezzlement, crooked accountants, insurance scams, loan sharks or slumlords, crimes typical of the wealthy. And these offenses, certainly, can have just as detrimental effect on a community as a host of unsightly behaviours, if not more so.

The “broken windows” metaphor is interesting in that it is actually up to landlords to fix real-life broken windows, while it is often those who are not in a position to do so, the community, who are held responsible for the damage. Aside from more people being arrested and subsequently incarcerated, the theory doesn’t actually do much to aid a neighbourhood. If the aim is improved public order, couldn’t that be achieved with homeless shelters, urban renewal projects and social workers? (Harcourt, 2002). In many ways, the philosophy behind it is almost “out of sight, out of mind.” And, in fact, this seems to be the view expressed by Kelling and his wife Catherine Coles in Fixing Broken Windows, a book-length exploration of the policing strategies first advocated in 1982:

“Kelling and Coles take a tough-minded view of who the street denizens we frequently label ‘the homeless’ really are and what they are doing, sidestepping the politically constructed images of claimants like ‘the homeless’ that little resemble the aggressive, conniving, often drug-crazed schemers that Kelling and Coles see populating the streets” (Skogan, 1997).

Skogan, in fact, is so skeptical of the motives of the poor that he cannot even use the word “homeless” without quotation marks, as if they all have houses somewhere. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it leads to a dangerous “two worlds” model, where people are either decent and respectable or disingenuous and “no good.” And, naturally, all the problems in neighbourhoods arise from the actions of the latter. This kind of precedent was set down by Wilson as far back as 1968:

“The teenager hanging out on a street corner late at night, especially one dressed in an eccentric manner, a Negro wearing a ‘conk rag’ (a piece of cloth tied around the head to hold flat hair being ‘processed’ – that is, straightened), girls in short skirts and boys in long hair parked in a flashy car talking loudly to friends on the curb, or interracial couples – all of these are seen by many police officers as persons displaying unconventional and improper behavior” (Wilson, 1968).

If the police are allowed to restore public order according to their own beliefs and judgments, what is to stop them from carrying out whatever action they deem necessary against the “unconventional” and “improper,” including using “extralegal” measures?

Unfortunately, cultural hegemony is nothing new, and many neighbourhoods have enforced rules that govern the actions and abodes of its residents. In every community there is a house that doesn’t conform to the aesthetic principles of the rest, a lawn that is never tended or strewn with toys or trash, a derelict car that doesn’t meet environmental standards, all of which raise resident ire. But should these things be dealt with under the Broken Windows theory? For example, the town of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, adopted Broken Windows measures in the late 90s, and in 2002, the local newspaper received this letter:

“This being almost mid-April, shouldn’t homeowners have had sufficient time to remove their December holiday decorations? Icicle lights hung year round give the impression of a homeowner with an aversion to work and negatively impacts on neighborhoods” (Kelly, 2002).

While there are obvious differences between public drunks and icicle lights, in other cases the line is much finer, and the potential for abuse is obvious. Wilson and Kelling, for their part, are aware of the problem, and speak out against it:

“The concern about equity is more serious. We might agree that certain behavior makes one person more undesirable than another but how do we ensure that age or skin color or national origin or harmless mannerisms will not also become the basis for distinguishing the undesirable from the desirable? How do we ensure, in short, that the police do not become the agents of neighborhood bigotry? We can offer no wholly satisfactory answer to this important question. We are not confident that there is a satisfactory answer except to hope that by their selection, training, and supervision, the police will be inculcated with a clear sense of the outer limit of their discretionary authority. That limit, roughly, is this – the police exist to help regulate behavior, not to maintain the racial or ethnic purity of a neighborhood” (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

Unfortunately, their only solution is to again have the community put its faith in the integrity and judgment of the law enforcement officer, a notion that does little to quell the doubts of those who might be wrongly typecast as “criminal” because of their race, age or class. In such a subjective atmosphere, with so much at stake, it seems dubious to give one party the last word, or the ability to render judgment (especially if that party is the one with the gun). By taking the focus off the community, and putting it on the individual, a dangerous precedent is being set.

However, not everyone agrees with this line of thinking. In fact, many people, including police officers, understand that the only way for Broken Windows or any other community enforcement project to succeed is by people working together:

“Without the full cooperation of the community, local government and the courts community policing will not work” (police officer Daniel Jenkins, 2002).

Unfortunately, the authors themselves don’t focus too much on this notion of “working together,” and, if anything, since the Atlantic Monthly article, have gone even further to highlight the vast differences between people. For example, in 1985, Wilson co-authored with Richard Herrnstein a book called Crime and Human Nature, which describes the various traits by which to classify and identify criminals. The book deals not only with age, class and race but body types, painstakingly sorting and measuring these and other attributes into definable composites of law-abiders and law-breakers. The authors’ conclusions are fairly predictable, describing those prone to commit crimes as an:

“Unattached, young, most often racialized ‘other.’ The youth or young adult, threatening, defiant, suspicious, often black, wearing distinctive designer-label clothes. Or the down-and-out street person in a dirty oversized coat. Or the squeegee man, the panhandler, the homeless person, the turnstile jumper, the public drunk” (Harcourt, 2002).

In stark opposition to this are the ideas of Felton Earls and his colleagues, who conducted a large-scale study of street crime in Chicago in 1997. The study’s main focus was on “collective efficacy,” which was defined as “social cohesion among neighbors and their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good” (Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls, 1997). The concept, according to the study, is the greatest predictor of street crime, and not Broken Windows or any form of disorder:

“Testing ‘broken windows’ was not the point of the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, the study planned and conducted by Dr. Earls and colleagues to unravel the social, familial, educational and personal threads that weave together into lives of crime and violence…Nonetheless the data gathered for it, with a precision rarely seen in social science, directly contradicted Dr. Wilson’s notions” (Hurley, 2004).

Thus, the seemingly obvious and incontestable connection between crime and disorder may, in fact, not exist at all. Community presence and action may actually be what ultimately fells crime. According to Earls:

“It’s not so much that broken glass or disarray in neighborhoods is the source or root of crime, it’s really in the social relationships that exist among neighbors, among people who work in neighborhoods, among services and so forth, that the social conditions are there to engage or not to engage citizens, neighbors in watching out for crime or crime-related activity in the neighborhoods” (Earls, 2004).

And in another no less extensive study two years later, Sampson and Raudenbush found that disorder and predatory crime were moderately related, but that, when antecedent characteristics were added (such as poverty and neighbourhood trust), the connection between the two “vanished in four out of five tests – including homicide, arguably our best measure of violence” (Sampson and Raudenbush, 1999). In addition, they discovered that while disorder may have indirect effects on crime by influencing “migration patterns, investment by businesses, and overall neighborhood viability…attacking public order through tough police tactics was politically popular but an analytically weak strategy to reduce crime” (ibid).

In short, the central tenets of Broken Windows – that disorder leads to crime, and that said crimes are generally carried out by individuals belonging to a “criminal class” – are questionable. This is not to say that the entire theory is at fault; certainly the notion that a safe neighbourhood is one in which the residents feel secure enough to participate in its defense still holds water. In addition, Wilson and Kelling are correct in urging the community to work with police, and for police to become a part of the community. What they seem to have missed is that the focus of this kind of relationship should rest on there being a real and active presence in the community, and not on crime and disorder.

One related irony is that, in the use of Broken Windows policing in New York, “for all their effectiveness in cracking down on a wide range of antisocial behaviors, the New York City police never repaired a single broken window, fixed up a single house, or cleaned one vacant lot” (Grogan and Proscio, 2000). Furthermore, because of the new aggressive tactics, the city experienced illegal strip searches, extensive sums lost to police misconduct charges, clogged courts and countless traumatic encounters for innocent, ordinary individuals (Harcourt, 2002). In addition, the implementation of a “policy of arrest” may have had unintended consequences:

“Someone arrested for turnstile jumping may be fired for missing work; and strained police-civilian relations can create friction between the community and the police force that may be detrimental to solving crimes” (ibid).

However, this has not stopped cities across the world from emulating Broken Windows procedures, or, for that matter, Giuliani and the Manhattan Institute from exporting their policing philosophies to places like Latin America (despite reservations that what worked in an economic boom in the U.S. may not do as well in extremely poor cities undergoing violent crime and corrupt police) (Village Voice, 2002).

The truth of the matter is that Broken Windows is not applicable everywhere, and even within the theory itself there are vagaries, namely the categories of “disorder” and “the disorderly.” The concepts are not well-defined; while we identify certain acts as disorderly – panhandling, public drunkenness, litter, prostitution – others – police brutality, tax evasion, accounting fraud – we do not. In addition, the acts themselves are sometimes ambiguous. For example, while people loitering on a building’s front steps or the presence graffiti may signify that a community is disorderly, it is only if they are seen as such. In some neighbourhoods, people loitering may represent strong community bonds, and graffiti may be seen as an art form, or as political or social commentary. The darker truth about Broken Windows is that it attempts to enforce an aesthetically sterile and “safe” environment, in which one community looks like the next looks like the next. While no one can argue that panhandlers, prostitutes and homeless people, along with litter, dirt and broken windows themselves are not eyesores, their removal is not necessarily a sign of “progress.” And for those subject to countless and unnecessary searches, acts of intimidation, arrests, imprisonments and the like, it is anything but.

Bibliography

Bratton, William J. Turnaround: How America’s Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic. New York: Random House, 1998.

Conklin, John E. Criminology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992.

DePalma, Anthony. “The Americas Court: a Group That Changed New York.” The New York Times, Nov. 11, 2002.

Felton, Earls. National Public Radio, Weekend Edition. Jan. 17, 2004.

Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Tipping Point.” The New Yorker, June 3, 1996.

Gootman, Elissa. “A Police Department’s Growing Allure: Crime Fighters From Around World Visit for Tips.” The New York Times, Oct. 24, 2000.

Greene, Judith A. “Zero-Tolerance: A Case Study of Police Policies and Practices in New York City.” Crime and Delinquency 45, 1999.

Grogan, Paul, and Proscio, Tony. Comeback Cities: A Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revival. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.

Harcourt, Bernard. “Policing Disorder: Can We Reduce Serious Crime by Punishing Petty Offenses?” Boston Review, April/May, 2002.

Hurley, Dan. “Scientist at Work – Felton Earls: On Crime as Science (A Neighbor at a Time).” The New York Times, Jan. 6, 2004.

Jenkins, Daniel. “Community Policing Problems: Most People Don’t Want to Become Involved.” The Sunday News, June 30, 2002.

Joanes, Ana. “Does the New York City Police Department Deserve Credit for the Decline in New York City’s Homicide Rates? A Cross-City Comparison of Policing Strategies and Homicide Rates.” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 33, 1999.

Kelling, George L. and Coles, Catherine M. Fixing Broken Windows. New York: The Free Press, 199

The aim of this assignment is to evaluate the claim that Britishness is based on shared values, ideas or ways of life. I will do this with particular focus on a range of short pieces of writing from a variety of different sources such as that at government and independent levels. Britishness is not entirely about symbols and a flag, to be British implies sharing a place of residence.

Although these residents of Britain will exhibit an array of different identities according to their background, Britishness can also be used to refer to the characteristics that bind and distinguish British people and forms the basis of a national identity or explains British culture.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the correct name for the country, whereas Great Britain alone does not strictly include Northern Ireland, the adjective ‘British’ usually includes everybody. Britishness does not have a singular meaning and it has been created through a numerous ideas. For some people, Britishness refers to the relationship between people and places, other people will make historical connections such as that of the Monarchy or see the political influences that shape the country. Many people believe the term directly relates to a shared culture, shared values, ideas or ways of life. People in the United Kingdom share a national identity, though this for many is not something they are predominantly at ease with. A person may wish not to be associated with a stereotypical view like English people drink excessive amounts of alcohol, though have no problems with the view that British people are polite. Being British, as mentioned, suggests that people share a place of residence, though it is also sometimes treated as a racial category, that means being part of the ‘British race’ or being Caucasian. At other times it has been treated as an ethnic identity and such ideas of

race, termed by scholars as ‘racial thinking’, have made it possible to see how white people were able to dominate other groups and places because they were deemed the superior race. Due to the fact that racial thought focuses on the biological questions of skin colour and so on, it always constructs connections between race, place and culture and often the imagined connections between these blur national, racial and ethnic identities. Shared belief in ‘common descent’ is what makes ethnicity a social category, because ethnic groups are expected to describe themselves and this may change over time or depending on the social context. Therefore to identify ourselves as British can sometimes create both negative and positive feelings, such “uncertain results from the many potential meanings of this identity” (Clarke, 2009, P.214).

Culture, a rather vague term with various meanings can be connected to ‘high

culture’, the artistic or aesthetic cultural products that shape culture at a national level through music, art and literature as examples. Another meaning of culture “involves treating culture as everyday life – the habits, practices and values of a ‘way of life’”, (Clarke, 2009,P.219).

There are many aspects of literature associated in the identification of British

Culture. William Shakespeare used literature and theatrical plays to demonstrate the British culture by providing powerful imagery that reflected British attitudes during the sixteenth century. Although these images continue to be powerful today, which suggests such values remain relevant when thinking about Britain, it is uncertain whether or not these values are continued in the modern United Kingdom. This view of British culture is created and cultural theorist and historian Raymond Williams (1958) describes this as a selective tradition, where the work of some individuals is remembered and others, excluded. The dominance of, for example, English writers and musicians throughout the country is the cause of many a clash. This biasness results in the exclusion of cultural influences from other countries of the United Kingdom or scattering populations like migrants, though cultural products are apparently common to all British people. Britishness in the terms of values and practices, discussed in a statement by David Blunkett as contribution towards a debate about a ‘diverse society’, explains that Britishness is not defined on exclusive backgrounds. Instead he claims it can be defined “through our shared values”, ([BLUNKETT, 2005, P.4] Clarke, 2009, P221) and represented through public organisations such as the NHS and the BBC that are open to all citizens. Trevor Phillips, who was Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality also highlighted how Britishness can be easily adopted by people of all backgrounds, though he believes that these values are expressed more so in our actions towards one another as a form of social order that control the way people behave, “the way we behave towards each other is the outward appearance of our values” ([Phillips, 2007, P.42] Clarke, 2009, P.233) Both insist that Britishness is open to everyone and that it is not exclusive, though, despite Blunkett and Phillips trying to define a common Britishness using the matter of shared values, both views can be challenged if one looks into other aspects of British life and the experiences of different members of society that contradict such claims. Contradictions include the evidence of inequality even though there are claims of social equality or supposed tolerance that can be set alongside evidence of persistent judgement or the increased numbers of ‘hate crimes’ towards minority groups. The relationship between national identity and diversity were heavily debated matters during the early 21st century. A mixture of individuals and parties suggest that diversity has overstepped the mark and that it undermines the national identity resulting in types of social solidarity. Portraying diversity in such a way conflicts with other arguments that claim Britain has become a multi-cultural society that must work towards developing a more multiple and complex national identity by acknowledging all cultures and identities as playing their part in contemporary Britain. A focal point over recent years has been to establish the relationship between national

Identity and diversity. David Goodhart, the editor of a magazine called ‘Prospect’ believes that decades of peace, increased wealth and mobility have allowed for greater diversity in our lifestyles and values, he uses the term ‘value diversity’ to refer to cultural diversity and implies that ethnic diversity produces stranger citizens. In contemporary British society people live amongst stranger citizens and regularly share things with them, whether that be

public services or parts of their income in the welfare state. Also implied is that if we live by a limited set of common values and assumptions, that this process will be best managed. Though as diversity continues to rise and common cultures fade, Goodhart focuses on social solidarity and argues that problems will occur because sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. Sociologist Bhikhu Parekh looks at different obstacles that British society is faced with, such as racial discrimination and a racially orientated moral and

Political culture. In contrast to Goodhart, Parekh writes about the importance of valuing all citizens and communities and identifies social fragmentation and racism as a cause for concern because these could amplify the differences between social groups. ‘Imagined communities’ as described by the anthropologist Benedict Anderson (1983) are nations that rely on construction through a variety of symbolic forms, such as every day ceremonies and flags. Britain is imagined in relation to America, Europe and Empire. These have significantly contributed to the key conditions of Britishness and the construction of national identity. Britain’s relations with these other nations have shaped Britishness materialistically and culturally in a number of different ways. For instance there is a strong sense of antagonism towards Europe due to previous conflicts, the ‘Empire’ has shaped the country’s economic, political and cultural life and the relationship with America is focused on fantasies of power and living a life of luxury. Throughout the construction of imagined

communities the word ‘we’ is used, this implies the sharing of something in common and gives a clear distinction between those who are members of the community and of those who are not.

To conclude, one can see that Britishness is not a simple matter, the nation is not fixed or permanent and things are constantly changing. There are a number of influences that contribute towards Britishness and this can be defined through relationships between people and place, imagined communities, diverse societies and shared cultures that form a national identity as described in the essay. Culture it is claimed by some people to be the habits, practices and values of a way of life, whereas William’s claims that there are selective traditions that cause some aspects to be excluded, despite the view that cultural products are common to all residents. It is clear that there are a lot of sources from which to gain information about the portrayals of Britishness, though one should also take into account the writers or speakers interest or role in the matter, because they can often manipulate the wording to give or enhance particular significance.

Word count_1475

Evaluate depictions of Britishness in the songs of the Beatles and 1990’s Brit pop groups and discuss the relation between politics and music.

A feature that is evident in the music of the Beatles from 1966 on wards is the way in which they use representations of everyday British cultural life. Such representations are not contained to the latter of the Beatles work but do take on a much more important role in the way the music is formed and words are written. Tracks like Eleanor Rigby, A Day in the Life, Penny Lane and Polythene Pam are all connected by their distinctive British sound and context. The Small Faces and the Kinks were also bands that had a keen eye for writing about different aspects of the lower to middle-class British people’s lives in the 1960’s. A resurgence of this type of writing appeared in the 1990’s with such Brit pop groups as Blur, Pulp and Oasis portraying an ever-changing view of Britain. I will begin my discussion by briefly looking at what it means to be British and discuss the connections between music and national identity. I will then analyse how the Beatles developed a distinctly British sound by looking at their influences and then give examples of this sound by referencing the bands music.

National Identity in music and what it means to be British
What does it mean to be British? Freedom? Democracy? Trial by jury? Freedom of speech? Acceptance? Tolerance? White?

It would seem that politicians were unaware of what it meant until it started to fall away from us and deteriorate. The national flag, the ‘Union Jack’ or ‘Union Flag’, is not a proud flag that we as one nation unite under as the Americans do with the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’. A regulation was previously in place across government that meant the Union Jack could only be flown 18 fixed days a year on government buildings (The governance of Britain green paper 2007). A regulation now waved. The government for specific forms of the military reserves the flag. It is used by the Royal Navy and as a way to display the rank of admiral of the fleet, which is the reason why it is still illegal for a civilian ship to fly it. In war time Britain we were defined by our one nation joining together to fight for a common purpose. The common man was out fighting against an evil dictatorship. We had one of the most advanced Naval forces in the world bringing technology in Britain to the forefront and an outstanding air force, which repelled an overwhelming German attack at the Battle of Britain. But in the 64 years since the end of world war two Britain has seen many changes in its cultural make up. America has had a very powerful influence over the music we listen to, the way we dress and eat and we seek to replicate their dominant cultural traditions (Mundy 1999). We have seen an influx in the number of immigrants coming to Britain to live and work. Injecting a little of their culture into our own. Furthermore, the industries such as the ship building in Glasgow and Liverpool, the shoe factories in Northampton and the steal works in Scunthorpe and Sheffield have all but disappeared. The traditions that shaped the country and gave it international acclaim and recognition have been lost to overseas countries that have the technology to produce it cheaper. I will revise the sociological aspects of our changing culture later and analyse whether British society has changed over the years and if this has made Brit Pop differ from music of the 1960’s. For now I will touch upon music and national identity and the reasons for national patriotism.

Music has long been a fundamental tool in the study and assembly of national identities. Its intricate framework has been studied in great depth. Possibly one of the most obvious ways in which music is amalgamated with national identity is the national anthem. It provides an opportunity for people to obtain a state of deep heart felt emotion towards their country and is used in Britain before various sporting events, before the Queen’s Christmas Message and in the event of a royal announcement or death. Perhaps the oldest form of national pride is found in ‘folk music’, commonly described as an accurate look at a way of life as it was or a life about to fade away. Richard Middleton explains the real meaning of folk music well.

‘The Romantics, who originated the concept, often thought of ‘the people’ in the sense of a national essence. Or ‘ and this later became more common ‘ they thought of a particular part of the people, a lower layer, or even class.’

Middleton’s thoughts therefore could be applied to Brit Pop. With the eighties at an end, Margaret Thatcher’s government leaving record unemployment rates of 3 million unemployed, factories closed and there were cuts in spending. Things looked bleak and it was hard for young people to get a job. In the nineties Brit Pop, backed by this 60’s inspired form of pop/rock with the qualities of folk music, exploded onto the scene. Artists such as Damon Albarn from Blur were writing songs that echoed issues regarding the lower classes and once again music was recognizable as being British. It is vital to understand what this British sound consists of and more importantly where it came from and who pioneered it. I will now go on to discuss the Beatles development as British artists and their everlasting footprint on music.

The Beatles developing a British sound

The Beatles were the first of a selection of bands from the 1960’s to start a movement called the ‘British Invasion’. The name ‘British Invasion’ was invented by the press to describe British bands that travelled to America and made a name for themselves. This all began in 1964 with the appearance of the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show but was continually used to describe many British bands who made a huge impact on the American music market. Namely the Rolling Stones, The Who, The Small Faces, The Yardbirds and The Kinks with the Beatles making the largest impact.

The Beatles cannot be so neatly categorised as the archetypal British band, as their style is so eclectic and borrows from many different cultures. Early on in their career, the band had been mainly focused on writing songs about love and the loss of a love with not much indication of Britishness in the lyrics but there were a few facts that made their style stand out from their American competitors. One such fact is the accent the group sang with. In the early 1960’s, radio was populated with simple two-minute pop songs from American artists like Elvis Presley and British artists who sounded American like Cliff Richard and the Shadows. However, Lennon and McCartney were singing songs like ‘I Wanna Hold Your Hand’ with a British accent. The Beatles were different, fusing exciting melodies with classical harmonies and a guitar sound that was full bodied and dominant. This brand new sound was one that defined the British sound of the sixties. When one says ‘sound of the sixties’ it really means the period from 1963-1970, the Beatles era. Between 1955 and 1963 would be described as the sound of the fifties (Zarecki 2007). The Beatles changed music to a point that a child growing up in the 60’s would call the records of the 50’s ‘oldies’, a word still used today to describe the same records (Wald 2009).

The musical education the Beatles received can be traced back as far as the mid 1930’s when Robert Johnson, kindly named the ‘Grandfather of Rock n’ Roll’, was recording the blues/rock tracks which would be an inspiration for artists like the Memphis born B.B. King who in turn was greatly admired by another king, Elvis Presley. Elvis forged the rock n’ roll sound of the fifties that the Beatles loved. They covered many songs by Chuck Berry and Little Richard during their time in Hamburg in the early 1960’s. John Lennon is famously quoted as saying,

‘Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn’t been Elvis, there would not have been The Beatles’

But there was more to the Beatles sound. Although most of their influences came from America, they were not a band trying to replicate the American sound. Harmonies that the band integrated into songs were reminiscent of early Motown records and the Everly Brothers provided a strong influence when it came to producing close harmonies, a technique where the notes of a chord are sang within a narrow range.

Influences of the Beatles were not confined to what had come before them. Throughout their career they continued to remain open to new influences. Paul McCartney sites one of his favourite albums as the 1966 album ‘Pet Sounds’ by the Beach Boys and talks about it’s importance over the idea for creating the Beatles 1967 album ‘Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band’.

‘It was Pet Sounds that blew me out of the water. I love the album so much’that, I think, was probably the big influence that set me thinking when we recorded Pepper’

The Beatles were at the vanguard from 1966 onwards when music began to progress from the pop/rock love songs into something altogether more experimental and risky. Looking at the memoirs of Kate Paul (2000) makes it clear the significance art school training had on new artists, fashion and music. It was becoming more common for teenagers to attend Art School and this training is said to have shifted the thinking behind the writing of many bands and change British music forever. As musical ideas were changing so was the way people were thinking about art. Music and art were becoming more abstract and new and radical thinking was being poured into both. In 1961, a group of artists graduated from the Royal College of Art including David Hockey and Patrick Caulfield. This pair along with other young artists put the Pop Art style on the map. The style quickly became very popular and the artists involved in it’s production became fashionable celebrities receiving much notification in the press. By 1968 for the very first time in the Twentieth Century, London had risen to become the world focus in art and Britain the focus for new and innovative art and music. Pop Art was not solely the reason for the popularity of the art scene in London. It was very diverse, and more artists were turning their hand to abstraction, which involved more gestural marks, block colours and interesting shapes. Sculpture also went through a great transformation in the sixties with sculptors such as Anthony Caro, whose interest in shape and colour came straight from America. Gone were the days of bronzed statues on plinths, now it was all about sheet metal and plastic arranged on the floor in amazing shapes. This environment of such an eclectic mix of artists and so much competition would have forced students to think in an original way. Just as artists were using new materials to create their work, musicians like the Beatles were using new instruments such as the Indian Sitar and using new techniques like playing tape recordings in reverse to create never before heard sounds. George Martin often said that John Lennon would enter the studio every morning with the intent of sounding different to yesterday. John Lennon attended Liverpool Art College with friend and short term ‘fifth’ Beatle Stuart Sutcliffe. John was always a disruptive pupil and continued to be through art school. Although John failed an annual exam and eventually dropped out of art school before his final year the impact it made would stay with him, encouraging him to push the boundaries and keep his music inspirational and contemporary. John always had a devoted interest in the art world, even deep into the Beatles experimental career. Their use of orchestral scores accompanied only by voice, three part harmonies and psychedelic arrangements would stand to become a major influence to Brit Pop bands. This entwined with the shifting context of the Beatles lyrics would shape the music of the late 60’s and prove to be the very essence of what Brit Pop came to embody.

The most noticeable example of this experimental and contemporary writing is found in the album ‘Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band’. Released in June 1967 ‘Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band’ was a groundbreaking album that combined revolutionary engineering and musical techniques. It is believed to be the first ‘concept’ album and also the first album to print the lyrics to the songs on the sleeve. All the songs on the album except possibly George Harrisons experimental ‘Within you without you’ either lyrically or musically express a sense of British culture. Sgt Peppers is steeped in images of brass bands playing in bandstands, Punch and Judy, cream teas, donkey rides and naughty postcards. In ‘When I’m Sixty four’, Paul McCartney gives us a description of what life can be like growing old in Britain. He talks of going for a drive on a Sunday, doing some gardening and renting a cottage in the Isle of Wight, ‘If it’s not too dear’. ‘Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite’ arouses clear images of the great British past time of the circus and also creates a joyous atmosphere with the merry go round sound playing along with the main organ melody. This effect was created when producer George Martin told engineer Geoff Emerick to splice up old Victorian tapes of organ music and throw them into the air. He was then ordered to piece the tapes back together in a completely random order to create an energetic looping sound (Martin 2008).

The images Lennon and McCartney present in a lot of their songs make it hard for the listener to fully understand the content. Their writing would often stumble into the surreal, and perplexing words would be used to compliment the music. Some of their music however, seems to be more clear in the way it comments and often ridicules observations of ordinary British cultural life. In the final track on the Sgt Pepper album, ‘A Day in the Life’, this trait seems to be evident. The lyrics were inspired by two newspaper articles and contain many haunting but also some quite comical images. Within the song Lennon mentions three distinct British places, The House of Commons, Blackburn in Lancashire and the Royal Albert Hall. In the first verse John talks loosely about the death of Tara Browne the Guinness heir who died in a car crash. Lennon said, ‘I didn’t copy the accident. Tara didn’t blow his mind out, but it was in my mind when I was writing that verse’. The Line ‘They’d seen his face before/Nobody was really sure if he was from the House of Lords’ refers to the British public turning what should be a solemn moment into some cheap excitement. Some people in the crowd may know the individual involved in the car crash as a face on television or in a newspaper but he is no more than that. The second verse came from a newspaper article concerning the state of the roads in Blackburn which Lennon jokes could fill the Albert Hall. This type of ironic and sarcastic view of Britain was commonly found in John Lennon’s writing. Andy Bennett writes,

‘Tracks like ‘A Day in the Life’, are clearly meant to be seen, in part at least, as satirical commentaries on aspects of British society. Lennon’s descriptions of the slavish counting of the holes in the streets of Blackburn, and’to the double life led by politicians’would appear not merely to poke fun at British society but also to criticize it.’

On the other hand, the song ‘Penny Lane’ doesn’t appear to criticize British culture but instead runs like a commentary of what can be seen. ‘Penny Lane’ was written by Paul McCartney and released alongside ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ as a double-A side single in 1967. It was common practice to release singles that were not on the album at the time. George Martin always believed it wasn’t fair to the public that singles should come from the album. The title ‘Penny Lane’ came from a street in the bands hometown of Liverpool. Lennon and McCartney would often meet at Penny Lane Junction to catch a bus into the centre of town and had met up with friends around the area as teenagers. Penny lane is a study of the humdrum lives of people, evoking feelings of blissful memories and describing the ordinary sights and sounds of a suburban British neighbourhood. ‘Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes/There beneath the blue suburban skies’. During this line a brass section plays a small musical fill coupled together with McCartney’s quaint English tone to create an altogether exultant sound. This song, different from ‘A Day in the Life’, has a strong feeling today of harking back to a happier and simpler Britain now lost and forgotten. The man who has popped into the barbers for a shave, the fireman who carries a picture of the queen in his pocket and the standard procedure of carrying an hourglass now seem long-gone. It’s a song that takes the listener on a ride and brings up various emotions ranging from nostalgia to a pride of Britain during the piccolo trumpet solo and to laughter at the sexual slang of the time ‘A four of fish and finger pie’. The qualities found in both these Beatles songs can also be found in songs from other British bands from the 1960’s. The Small Faces song ‘Rene’ tells the unpleasant tale of a woman parading the quayside every night to welcome sailors from Kuala Lumpur who have docked with plenty of ‘readies’ (ready money) to spend at the pub having a good time. While ‘Lazy Sunday’ rebels against the neighbours that complain when Steve Marriott and his friends play their music loud. The Small faces songs ‘Rene’ and ‘Lazy Sunday’ are both sung in ridiculously thick Cockney accents and seem almost to make fun of their London ancestry. The same examination can be made in the music of The Kinks who gave us their keenly observed satires ‘A Well Respected Man’ and ‘Dedicated Follower of Fashion’ (which lampooned the characters of Carnaby Street in swinging London).

The contrast of Britpop

In the early 1990’s Britpop emerged fusing new British ideals with the pop music of the 1960’s. The two main aims of Britpop were to drown out the electronic sound of the eighties and to react against the grunge sound of Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Britpop made British alternative rock mainstream and formed the foundations for a larger British cultural movement called ‘Cool Britannia’. This phrase, a pun on the patriotic song ‘Rule, Britannia’, was first used as a song title by the ‘Bonzo dog Doo Dah Band’ in 1967. It emerged in the 1990’s as the name of one of the company Ben and Jerry’s ice cream flavours. The name came about through a competition the company were running. An American lawyer living in London named Sarah Moynihan-Williams won with her suggestion and recipe for ‘Cool Britannia’, which was in relation to the New Labour era. The media quickly picked up on this term, and seeing a young Prime minister in power and the fashionable nature of London at the time gave the idea new scope.

Looking now at the representations of Britishness in the music of Britpop bands from the 1990’s presents a different argument. The Beatles and other bands from the same era such as The Kinks and The Small Faces heavily influenced Brit Pop. Musical pioneers of the nineties such as Blur, Pulp and Oasis completely dropped the synthesizers and the electric drums of the eighties and began creating music with full guitars and raw drumming. The orchestral and brass band instruments were introduced once again to achieve the complete British sound of the 1960’s. An example of this resurrection can be established through the Blur song ‘Sunday Sunday’. The song featured on the apt 1993 album ‘ Modern Life is Rubbish’, features a trumpet solo that could easily have been found on any later Beatles track. The lyrics in the first verse read much like a social commentary with lines such as ‘You read the colour supplement, the T.V. guide’ and ‘Together the family round the table’. Both bring to mind visions of a quiet ordinary Sunday at home with the family. The second verse however mentions a walk in the park where the writer meets a soldier who fought in both world wars and says, ‘The England he knew is no more’. Quite unlike the interpretation of a British Sunday morning the second verse takes a nostalgic look back with a conceivable chance of the soldier appearing as a metaphor for a Britain that used to be. Britpop resonated with a sound of the past. Singers and back up singers were producing exciting harmonies like the ones found on the Oasis record ‘Cast no shadow’. Artists were being commended for their song writing abilities and musical talent unlike the dry and dreary song-writing period of the eighties, which featured Duran Duran, Gary Newman and Depeche mode. The ‘mod’ subculture of the 60’s also became popular again. People began growing their hair with the Beatles various styles in mind. Jarvis Cocker from the band ‘Pulp’ used to wear suits which echoed the mod style. The Who’s manager Pete Meaden famously described modism saying,

“Modism, mod living, is an aphorism for clean living under difficult circumstances”

Not everyone believed that Britpop reminisced of a past idea of Britishness. Some suggested that bands crafted an entirely new image altogether, focusing on ‘an attitude based not on a nostalgic Carry On Mr Kipling Britain, but a Britain that you will recognise as the one you live in’ (Jones 1994). Undoubtedly the song ‘Girls and Boys’ which is performed in front of a club 18-30’s holiday backdrop with its subject matter of casual sex is one which is more contemporary rather than the wistful longing for old England found in Sunday Sunday. Also, Oasis’s accounts of throwing up on a Sunday and their wild views that cigarettes, alcohol and drugs are a remedy for a dull, ordinary life may have appealed to the young generation of the 1990’s but it was miles apart from the Beatles idealized and glamorized version of Britain. It appears that this type of topical writing is in the minority and more songs relate to similar representations conjured up by the Beatles in the 1960’s. There is another area that is imperative to study when analysing depictions of Britain and that is the view created through the music video.

The Beatles and the Birth of the Music Video

One main important difference in the way in which music is presented in the 1990’s is the availability of the music video, which further enhances depictions of Britishness. The Birth of the music video may to some be credited to the band ‘Queen’. In November 1975 due to tour commitments they could not appear on Top of The Pops and so produced a video to promote their new single ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’. But as much as a decade before, the Beatles were generating videos to be broadcast on television shows all over the world. In 1996, with the release of the Beatles Anthology film box set, George Harrison received an interview and in relation to the promotional video made for the song ‘Rain’ he made the statement:

‘So I suppose, in a way, we invented MTV’

Now that the music video is fast becoming an art form in itself it is interesting to analyze how Lennon and McCartney’s influence on the British social commentary style of writing transposed into video format. I will begin by analysing the reflection of Britain the Beatles achieved through their use of video and the reasons for them depicting society in this way, then I will compare this to the music video’s in the 1990’s. The first Beatles film was released in 1964 entitled ‘A Hard Day’s Night’. With prospects of an accompanying soundtrack album, the film was released as a way to make more money from the bands growing success. As Bob Neaverson said:

‘The project was initially envisaged by the American-owned company as little more than another low budget exploitation picture which would capitalize on the group’s fleeting success with the teenage market’

No matter which way it is looked at, the decision to release a Beatles film came about because of a money making business deal. Although it turned out much more was achieved than simply money. Director Richard Lester broke rules that had been associated with the pop music format since the 1950’s. To begin, one of the opening scenes is filmed in an unconventional train carriage, a setting with no musical connection. His use of free hand documentary filming not only added excitement and energy but also made the viewer feel as if he or she were in the film closely interacting with the band. This made the Beatles able to be shown as the ‘guys next-door’, seemingly unaffected by fame, instead of fictional characters. Whereas realism had already been established in British films through the working class genre known as ‘kitchen sink’ drama with films like ‘The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner’ (1962) and ‘A Taste of Honey’ (1961), A Hard Days Night was the first music video to incorporate this into it’s style and content. This working class image was an important factor that shone through the films of the Beatles. In a time when all well-known artists were predominantly imported, any British act doing significantly well was a joy. The bands natural working class attitudes coupled together with their down to earth, oblivious out look on fame only endeared them to the British public who Neaverson says, ‘upheld them as symbols of the new social mobility and ‘classlessness’ of sixties Britain’. In this sense, this approach broke down barriers and was vital to the modernization of British national identity in the 1960’s. Having looked at how the Beatles became symbols for a cultural shift I will now investigate how music videos in the 1990’s adapted the skills that Richard Lester put into practice and decide if the substance of the video is similar to that of Lennon and McCartney’s writing.

One such video that involves strong British connotations is ‘Park Life’ by Blur. It is a song that lyrically documents parts of British life with examples including being wakened by the dustmen, cups of tea and feeding the pigeons. Although these are very banal actions the visuals found in the video take on a different, more contemporary feel. In the video actor Phil Daniels plays a creepy door-to-door double-glazing salesman driving around in his Ford Granada Coupe Mk1. It seems at times that the video is not related to the song until the rapid images of British life ‘ the row of terraced houses, the red post boxes, the arrival of the ice cream van and the playful nature of the band meeting up with friends in 90’s style attire spinning each other in a trolley crop up. In many ways the video resonates with a feeling not to dissimilar from Penny Lane, which I mentioned earlier. This parallel is continued through the use of characters in the video – the man with the four King Charles dogs, the fat man in the shirt and braces, the jogger and the couple sprawled across their sports car with their names printed above the driver’s and passenger’s window. These are visually very interesting characters and like McCartney’s fireman; banker and nurse could easily be fantastic characters in a book of British cultural life. The Park Life music video is obviously based around actual everyday encounters experienced by Damon Albarn that have been tweaked to appear more surreal much the same format as the lyrics take on in the song.

Using Pop Music to Promote Political Interests

Popular music has long been associated with showing dissatisfaction or opposition with the government and the government has always shown an interest in securing for itself a stake in the management of powerful bands. Conversely, today in China, leader Hu Jintao has spoken out frequently about building a ‘harmonious society’. He has great power and influence over the media, mainly monitoring everything that is broadcast on the radio. The government’s ideas to create harmony are through censorship of the media. All music heard on Chinese radio consists of love songs or upbeat ballads. These gentle songs are not damaging to China’s image of a stable and harmonious country. Pop and Pop/Rock songs where politics, rebellion and casual sex are the themes are disregarded for fear of a revolution. The state cannot completely censor music they find harmful, although they do have complete ownership of all broadcasting media giving them a loophole through which they can have the majority rule. Chinese people believe the popular music they hear on the radio all sounds the same and if you’ve heard one song you know them all. Even musicians asked to submit songs for the Olympic games in Beijing were too worried to write anything with fear of going against the state policies. In this example the state is controlling the music. They are keeping a lid on the pot of society to prevent the revolution inside over spilling. In addition something that is so carefully prohibited may incite curiosity within youths of any culture and a notion to rebel will ensue. An example of this use of music to revolt was apparent in Germany during world war two.

If music can be said to be associated with nationalism and national identity then it can also be criticized for supposed destabilization of the nations culture. During world war two, young German music fans sought after the British and American way of life and defined themselves through the music of Swing. Although they were not an organised political opposition group, they refused the culture of National Socialism. The group made such an impact in 1941 that the Gestapo violently repressed them and police ordered anyone under the age of 21 to stay out of dance bars (Whiteley, Bennett and Hawkins 2005). Whether a connection is made as a shared goal for public popularity or a way to manipulate or even to revolt, music and politics have a bond.

Throughout the 1960’s and again in the 1990’s political groups created a connection with pop stars of the time. In 1965, current Prime Minister Harold Wilson showed he was ‘in touch’ with the younger generation by awarding the Beatles with the honour of an MBE. It proved a popular move with young people. This move did however spark some controversy. Protestors and picketers who had received the award for military service showed their displeasure towards Harold Wilson but there were too few of them to make any real impact. Attackers thought it a clever and crafty plan to solicit votes for the next year’s general election but defenders argued the fan base of the Beatles were generally under the age of 21, too young to vote at the time. In any case, bestowing an MBE on the Beatles showed that Harold Wilson was a modern leader willing to embrace new ideas and be part of a contemporary Britain that culturally, the Beatles were helping to shape. A year later George Harrison would write the song ‘Taxman’ as a retort to the 95% super taxes introduced by Harold Wilson and even included a harmony within the song incorporating his name. John Blacking argues that,

‘Cultural politics, the use of culture and the arts to promote political interests, invariably exploits and contains the power of music ‘to restrict political argument. It diverts attention from the real political issues or simply asserts the hegemony of its promoters’ (Blacking)

On the other hand, not all people would agree with John Blacking’s statement. Some believe that in the right hands music can open up avenues and make people pay attention to various issues. Khaver Siddiqi would argue that,

‘In an era where politics uses as many avenues it can to reach the people, it is ultimately the words of song and rhyme that will attract the attention more, than speeches ever will.’ (Siddiqi 2009)

This thought can be put into practice if we look at the issues of race in the 1960’s. In 1968 James Brown wrote a song called ‘Say it Loud (I’m Black and I’m Proud)’ that become a very successful ‘black power’ anthem. It was a racially chaotic period during the 1960’s and this song filled black Americans with pride. This elevated Brown to the status of icon and also made him the face for a movement that shaped the 1960’s.

In 1997, after a period of predominantly conservative power in Britain, a new Prime Minister was elected, Tony Bl

The Latin name ” Britannia” was found around 320 BC in the travel diaries of the ancient Greek Pytheas , and was used to refer to the name of some numerous islands in the North Atlantic, while the inhabitants of those places were called “Priteni or Pretani”. The modification of the name came around with the reign of Julius Cesar and by 1st century BC, Britannia was being used to refer to Great Britain specifically. But the name that this nation holds today, has its origins in the Acts of Union 1707 signed on 1 May 1707 under the reign of Queen Anne. In that time took place the political union between the kingdoms of England and Scotland, and later on between 1801 and 1921 the whole Ireland was added. And the nation received the title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, there might not seem to be much that links France with Britishness. After all, France is a state in the Western Europe, while UK is an island situated to the northwest of the Continental Europe. Indeed, but if we add a surprise element, like the war between UK and France, the sense of Britishness becomes stronger and prominent in the eye of the enemy. In contrast in an interviw with Matthew Reisz about her paper entitled “Britishness”, the leading British historian Linda Colley argues that Britain is “an invented nation, heavily dependent for its raison d’etre on a brutally Protestant culture, on the threat and tonic of recurrent war, particularly war with France, and on the triumphs, profits and Oherness represented by a massive overseas empire, Britain is bound now to be under immense pressure… The Other in the shape of militant Catholicism, or a hostile European power, or an exotic overseas empire is no longer available to make Britons feel that – by contrast – they have an identity in common”. ( Reisz)

1. Debates on Britishness and National Identity

1.1 The implications of National Identity

A. Brah’s favorite definitions of identity were written by Erikson in 1968 and Berger and Luckman in 1971: for Erikson, the process of identity formation is for the most part unconscious except where inner conditions and outer circumstances combine to aggravate a painful or elated’ identity-consciousness’. He insists that identity is never ‘established’ as an ‘achievement’ in the sense of a personality armour, or of anything static and unchangeable (20).

These themes are echoed in the formulations of Berger and Luckman. The key premise underlying their thesis is that reality is socially constructed. They argue that, during the course of everyday life, a person is conscious of the world as consisting of ‘multiple realities’, but among them ‘there is one that presents itself as the reality par excellence. This is the reality of everyday life’ (20).

This approaches suggest that the national identity can be experienced different depending on the social characteristics that every individual has. Undoubtedly, a person has a past, this means that he/she has an ethnic identity, but is also living in the present, concluding that his/her national identity is put to a test by the forces of modernity, according to Anthony D. Smith.

Fallowing the studies of the same author, the national identity is divided in: civic, referring to residence, shared political values, common civic institutions and language, while the other division, called ethnic deals with ancestry, national customs and traditions. The result of this division is that the sense of national quality of an individual is related with the prosperity of the society, inducing the idea of “regime of truth”, concept used by Michel Foucault. And Foucault further explains ” Each society has its own regime of truth, ‘its general politics’ of truth- that is the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true ” (Higgins, Smith and Storey 20).

In his resignation speech Tony Blair declared that Britain is a society that prospers: “I have been very lucky and very blessed. This country is a blessed nation. The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth”. But today the “regime of truth” of this nation lies in the eyes of the Scottish, the English or Welsh, who have this separate identity and declare that the British identity comes second.

1.2 A Phenomenal called Britishness

” In ‘A Union of Multiple Identities: The British Isles c. 1750-c.1850’, Lawrence Brockliss et al. argued that Britishness was a perceptive and ‘composite’ national identity that reached a point of development after 1800 and which made limited demands upon its subjects”

(Cruse).

As I said in the first paragraph of this paper and adding the testimony of Linda Colley I can state that Britishness was first of all an historical phenomenal. But as a cultural, social, political phenomenal this national identity has eight parameters: geography, national symbols, people, values and attitudes, cultural habits and behavior, citizenship, language and achievements.

1.2.1 Geography

Britain is an island nation, having only one land border and four water boders: the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel, and the Irish Sea. Being cut off from the rest of the continent by the English Channel, this unitary state developed different ideas, wits and today plays a leading role in the world.. And we find another element, the topography. This element is divers and unique: rugged coastline, moors (Scottish moor lands), mountains (Cambrian Mountains, Mourne Mountains, Pennine Range, Mount Snowdon), lakes (Loch Lomond, Lough Neagh), bays, hills (Cheviot Hills) and rivers (The Severn and Thames, while Tay, Clyde, and Forth are river valleys).

1.2.2 National symbols

” British examples might include Trooping the Colours, Changing the Guards, the Grand National, the FA Cup Final, certain rivers and mountains, particular monuments, the Union Jack, the BBC, the House of Parliament, fish and cheaps, the Highland Games, the Notting Hill Festival, the Edinburgh Festival, the Eisteddfod, drinking warm beer. These are just some of the many rituals and symbols that seems to articulate Britishness” (Higgins, Smith and Storey 21).

1.2.3 People

“People are products of their biology and environment ( Natura and Nurture)” (Storry and Childs 29). The authors explain this conflict of pride, of being different, for example the fact that a person is living in a certain region. For example Lancashire and Yorkshire have a known rivality, despite that the red rose symbolises the end of this war and is now the national flower of England. Furthermore the people from the country side do not feel they have much in common with the economic heart of the nation, while the Londoners think as themself as authentic Englishmen. But let’s not forget that Britain is a multinational nation. The September 11 terrorist attack and the 7/7 in London, are events that put a dark vale on the minorities and people have a brutal reaction towards the emigrants, because some are of Islam religion and in the perception of many Britons this links them with the tragic events.

1.2.4 Values and attitudes

1. Positive values and attitudes

In general, it can be said that the greatest values and attitudes of a person are involved with his success in the contemporary world, in which the individual is an important element. This affirmation can be possible based on his previous understanding of the world with the help of culture. The people of Britain have a significant culture, that with the introduction of democracy, values like freedom, the understanding of law, and also fairness, tolerance were born. This set of values also brought a sense of difference, in comparison to the European set of values. The Britons attitude of being reserved and polite in a way that it does not affect other’s feelings, has both sides. One is positive and illustrates the courteous and educated side of a British and the other is negative and is more developed in the sub-part of this section heading.

Another set of values are pride and work ethic. There is something in history that makes the white English proud, and they are entitled to do so. Every nation has the right to be proud of their ancestors and their achievements. The second value is about the word “hard-working” that is defined by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in the United Kingdom, as they announced on their official site on August 2010 that the ” full-time workers average around 37.0 hours per week, part-time workers average around 15.5 hours per week and just over a fifth of people in employment work more than 45 hours a week”. But today Brits do not work the longest hours in Europe, but the Czech. They do not even appear in the top three; Britain is taken by Greece and Bulgaria. So in our modern times, this notion of “hard-working” can be a legend; and today seems a myth.

But I end this section with some important values and attitudes like community spirit, mutual help, stoicism and compassion. Values that are planted firmly in today’s society.

2. Negative values and attitudes

The negative side of reservation is recognized by other people that are not in direct contact with the British culture, like other Europeans. But as a surprise, an unacceptable attitude about this matter comes from the Scottish and Welsh, and also from the immigrants. They see this reservation like a mask, that helps the real identity to be disguise, and the real thoughts to be buried. Discussing more about this negative values, pride is another key element. This values is negative, because it becomes another issue in the life of the Scottish, Welsh and immigrants.

The final negative point of view, is not regarding the groups mentioned above, but was percepted by the entire world. Probably because they are huge fans of sports and they spread more outside their borders values like drunkenness, hooliganism and yobbishness. The football hooliganism dates back in 1880s, the drunkenness issue is confirmed by the BBC : “Drunkenness in the UK is the highest among 24 OECD countries, measured in terms of the proportion of 13 and 15-year-olds having been drunk at least twice.”( UK teenage girls ‘worst drunks’), and all these attitudes are called a yobbish behaviour.

1.2.5 Cultural habits and behaviour

The perspective presented here, however, is rather different. It has not ups and downs, but only a progressive position of the British identity. When the British stand in queues (as they have been doing at least since 1837) is a sign of civilization. Sports like football, cricket and rugby are symbols of the Brits and their traditional food and drink is a ritual for the members of this nation.

1.2.6 Citizenship

Nick Stevenson describes citizenship being part of the social system, more precisly “it belong to the a specifically differentiated sub-system of society ( the administrative-political sub-system) ” (35). And another social writer Paul Whiteley describes it as “a set of

norms, values and practices which bind society together, makes democratic government

possible and helps individuals to solve collective action problems” (Cruse). But citizenship is not only about a social role, but also can be described in terms of legislation. The British

Nationality Act 1981 introduced the UK citizen, meaning that a child that is born in the UK would be granted British citizenship and passport if either its mother or its father are British citizen or are settled in the UK.

1.2.7 Language

When you are a UK citizen, it is obvious that you speak English. It does not matter if you are Scottish ,Welsh, as long you have a British passport. Even immigrants can hold one in time, but the first thing for them is to learn the language. So the second thing in common beside a passport is the language. From the geographical perspective they are regions where they use different accents, but it doesn’t matter as long as this element has the sense of Britishness and makes the puzzle complete.

1.2.8 Achievements

Britishness is part of the past and present. There is a nucleus of fully achieved political and historical achievements, in which Britishness is balanced and which shows a strong nation. The technological achievements like Fleming and penicillin, Bell and the telephone, Dypson and the new vacuum cleaner, are the best ways of preserving a cultural and social heritage. In this respect, sport is a source of innovativity that was been exported in other European countries. Another successful export was the British music, that ranked high in the charts and made the Mother Country proud. Bands like The Beatles, singers like Robbie Williams and today celebrities born within the “X factor” tv-show, are symbols of Britishness and make the “cool Britannia”.

2. The Decline of Britishness exists?

The layers of British identity and the fact that the structure of the empire is made out of separated nation-states that have their own culture, makes it harder for the notion of Britishness to be around.

2.1 The causes

The multicultural Britain made possible the rising number of ethnic minorities and for the Britons to refuse the bounding with the minorities. In our modern times, we can read about the cultural differences and the highlights of the non-existent shared values. This episode of immigration is still a problem of today for the citizens of the United Kingdom, introducing some hard words towards the immigrants and their culture, words like ” islamophobia”. This battle is taken at higher stages, like the immigrants are accused of unfair claims on the welfare state. In many news reports, we can see that this people don’t have the same rights and the same chances to live a normal life, and their human demands are perceived as a violation of the Britons rights. Because institution try to make a possible integration of the ethnic minorities, the people attack was called “political correctness”. They still think that because institutions don’t take into account their perception, there is a lack of freedom of speech. But the biggest intrusion toward Britishness, was the implication of Europe in the British politics. Their rights are not negociable in the European court and the arrival of asylum seekers in the UK proposed by Europe, was a reverse.

2.2 The consequences

The difficulties of establishing effective mutual communication and harmony between white Britons and ethnic minorities was already being identified as a decline of Britishness. The institutions attempt to solve the problems, create a deeper hole in this matter. The victimization was not only among British Muslim, but as a boomerang came to be a problem for the white Britons. The surprise elements of this society was the tolerance of other ethnic minorities that are seen as “Ok” or “like us”, in contrast with the British Muslim, that are the “others”. This impact on the UK is called “social unrest” and it is a serious problem, that emerges frustration and anger towards ethnic minorities groups.

3. Britishness in the future

In the debate of House of Lords on 19th June 2006, the future perspective of the historian, Linda Colley was took in account, regarding the common themes that can make Britishness available in the future :

There has to be a way of linking past, present and future. And one of the ways

we could do this is surely with a document. We don’t necessarily want a

codification of British values, but there is a case for a new bill of rights, or a bill of

rights and responsibilities, which would include values. One of the things we

need to do too is improve the history curriculum in schools. It is right that

Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland should have their distinctive

histories taught. But there could be common history lessons too, which would

recognize all kinds of diversity but which would also hammer out something of a

common story. This would be partly an invention; all histories are. But it might be

a useful invention. (Cruse).

In the same report Gordon Brown thinks that a new British patriotism should allow people to have shared values: “aˆ¦a common view of challenges and what needs to be done forge a unified and shared sense of purpose about the long term sacrifices they are prepared to make and the priorities they think important for national success” (Cruse). He argues that this new Britishness should be formed of “a rich agenda for change” with “a new constitutional settlement, an explicit definition of citizenship, a renewal of civic society, a rebuilding of our local government and a better balance between diversity and integration” (Cruse).

Nonetheless, the financial crisis attacked also Britain, and althought it has some strong sectors like pharmaceuticals, aerospace, defense, cars, high technology, research and design, pointed out by David Cameron, the prime-minister in his first economical speech, it needs at least 10 years to renaissance over. So this is only the beginning of a new delicated process of reinforcing the nation and the society, that will necessarily take time.

4. Concluding statement

One major conclusion that can be drawn from this paper is the old attitudes towards Britishness has not yet provoked a seismic wave in the new mentality of some people and Britain has to make sacrifices and introduce new terminology of citizenship and civic society in the educational system. Although the multicultural Britain has created new forms for the expression of some sub-state identities, this has not helped Britishness winning over civic loyalties and government. In some cases about minorities the ‘meaning of citizenship will be lost under the laws of the country that the individual comes from ‘(Cruse). A study “Young People and British” ‘found that amongst young people, Britishness “did not feature on the list of traits which helps define personal identity” and was seen “as an unchanging static attribute” ‘(Cruse). In addition, present debates about the future of Britishness highlight uncertainty on all sides as to what constitutes this concept and how it will be preserved in the future by the generation of “cool Britannia”. Or it will be only about the decline of Britishness?

The concept of identity has both personal and social perspectives but, irrespective of focus, each is concerned with categorisation and assumptions of similarity and difference. Social identity relates to the links that exist between people and places, the ideas and practices that align individuals to one social group as opposed to another and the feeling of acceptance and belonging which comes from such allegiance.

Great Britain consists of a group of individual countries: England, Wales and Scotland, each of which joined the union at different points in a turbulent history. Northern Ireland, whilst part of the United Kingdom, is not part of Great Britain despite its population being included in the British political process. In spite of these confusing, apparently all-encompassing titles, each individual nation retains a separate identity in addition to the collective ones conferred by the UK and GB acronyms.

Historically, English dominance of the union has been a source of contention and in recent years the individual identities of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have become more officially recognised by the adoption of a partially devolved political process for the former two and a power sharing agreement with the Irish Republic for the latter. The merits or shortcomings of devolution fall outside the scope of this essay, nevertheless, it could be argued that at a time when the very notion of Britishness is up for debate, separating the union, even if only for political purposes, will do nothing to strengthen a collective sense of national identity if, in fact, one ever truly existed.

Diversity amongst the individual nations of the United Kingdom is only one part of the story and despite being an island and thus having an easily recognisable border, the reach of Britain extends well beyond geographical limits. Great Britain’s empire building past has left a web of connections that span the world. The British Empire at its height covered a quarter of the globe, and whilst many former colonies, dependencies and protectorates have since regained independence, the history of a British presence in parts of South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean left a postcolonial legacy of citizenship rights which has contributed to the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society that exists in Britain today.

Whether because of commerce or conquest, as an escape from poverty or persecution, Britain’s population comprises a diverse collection of people, some of whom may have connections to and, therefore, identify with places other than the British Isles. Who we are and who others think we are has a lot to do with where we live and our origins, but it takes much more than territorial borders to define national identity.

It is almost impossible to say exactly what British identity is or should be in the 21st century and as a result the very idea of Britishness “has been the source of much anxiety, uncertainty and political debate in recent years” (Clarke, 2009, P. 210). From politicians to social commentators, newspaper editors to academics, all have suggested ways in which the meaning of Britishness could be constructed and fixed.

Amongst other things, Clarke suggests that British national identity may mean having a sense of place, a shared way of life, a common history and a recognised image of race or ethnicity (2009, p. 219), but in light of the diverse nature of Britain’s population some of his suggestions seem more plausible than others. A sense of place can only come from a feeling of acceptance and belonging, hard to achieve when even after three generations of British citizenship your community is still viewed with suspicion and resentment. The idea of a common history may not sit well with everyone, especially those whose ancestors were the subject of domination, oppression and exploitation. A recognised image of race or ethnicity implies a singular recognition, fine if your skin is the ‘right’ colour, but at risk from discrimination if it is not, legislation can protect but it cannot change attitudes. Even though a shared way of life seems to be a reasonable suggestion, cultural differences make this equally difficult to imagine.

Culture, according to Clarke, has at least two meanings (2009, p. 219). The first suggested interpretation is what he calls ‘high culture’; this includes art, literature, theatre and music. Writers such as Shakespeare, Austen and Dickens, artists such as Turner and Constable and composers such as Elgar all supposedly provide an “apparently shared set of reference points” with which all British people can identify (2009, p. 221). However, Clarke also notes that the stressed importance of English names in the list of preferred cultural icons excludes not only those members of British society whose origins, whether real or imagined, lie outside its geographical limits, but those from other parts of the UK too. Raymond Williams (1958, cited in Clarke, 2009, p. 219) calls this a ‘selective tradition’. Therefore, to suggest the use of British high culture as a unifying tool is to exclude a large section of society to whom it is probably irrelevant and perhaps even unintelligible.

Clarke’s suggestion of a shared way of life also falls under the cultural banner. Normal everyday practices of living such as dress, food, customs and religious observance are all important in defining the meaning of culture. Common forms of behaviour, values, morals and ethics are important in a shared way of life but immediately this highlights some problems. Religious and cultural differences, for example, may make behaviour considered acceptable to people in one community completely unacceptable to those of another. Not all diversity is necessarily ethnic or religious, however, and age, gender, social background and political differences can all divide as well as unite.

Having established the difficulty in accepting shared culture as a means of defining British identity, the idea of shared values has been suggested by both David Blunkett and Trevor Phillips. Mr. Blunkett, former UK Home Secretary, suggested that “Britishness is defined aˆ¦ through our shared values, our history of tolerance, of openness” (2005, cited in Clarke, 2009, P. 221). Trevor Phillips, former Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, also suggested that “Britishness aˆ¦ lies in a way of living aˆ¦ In a diverse society, the shared values are the fundamental glue that holds us together; and the way we behave towards each other is the outward manifestation of our values.” (2007, cited in Clarke, 2009, PP. 222-223). Both these statements, whilst obviously well meant, do not stand up to scrutiny. To suggest that the British people are tolerant and open is to deny history. Perhaps Blunkett and Phillips are simply stating how they would like people to think and act, in which case their argument will likely fall on many deaf ears!

For Blunkett and Phillips diversity is a positive thing, something to embrace and celebrate. They suggest that only through tolerance and openness to diversity can Britain gain a unifying sense of identity. Their views have been contested, however, and statements denouncing the acceptance and encouragement of diversity have been equally prominent. David Goodhart, a magazine editor, has suggested that increasing diversity in Britain has caused us to become a nation of strangers. He also suggests, “As Britain becomes more diverse that common culture is being eroded” (2004, cited in Clarke, 2009, pp225-226). Whatever ‘common culture’ he happens to be referring to; he suggests that its loss is leading to a lack of solidarity and social cohesion. His opinion, unlike that of Blunkett and Phillips, however, does not carry the weight of authority since it is a personal opinion expressed in a magazine article.

In complete contrast to Goodhart, Bhikhu Parekh, in a report for the Runnymeade Trust, suggests that diversity and collective national identity need not be mutually exclusive. Whilst acknowledging the risk of social fragmentation and racism, Parekh suggests that if all members of society feel equally valued, have access to equal opportunities, lead fulfilling lives and shoulder the burden of societal responsibility that it may be possible to develop a “shared identity and common sense of belonging” (2000, cited in Clarke, 2009, pp. 226-227).

In a diverse society, therefore, the concept of national identity should be all-inclusive; clearly, this cannot depend on a shared culture. Moreover, simply telling people how to think or behave will not change attitudes nor make them feel united. Ultimately, perhaps economic and social equality will lead to a unified purpose and sense of collective identity – or perhaps not, this is clearly a complex question without a single answer.

(1500 words)