f4f3: (Default)
[personal profile] f4f3
Just read this piece of brilliance by Andrew O'Hagan in the Guardian. It's an edited version of his Orwell Memorial Lecture, and it has a great deal to say about the death of the Working Class in England, and the causes of death. It made interesting reading for me not just because it brings together a good many of my own interests - Orwell, the radical tradition in England, and the society we're living in, but because O'Hagan's voice is very close to my own - his upbringing was the same, and many of his views were shaped at the same time. It's also a Scottish voice, talking about England, and that's something I rarely do.

I don't talk about England because there's nothing I can do about it. I've said here before that I think of England like the partner in a dead marriage  - I wish Scotland could arrange a quiet separation from it, but I also see it through a mist of better times, and feel a perverse loyalty when it's criticised by anyone but me (I had something of the same feelings about Bush's America - hopefully I'll be able to start feeling proud of it again, soon).

O'Hagan's piece is powerful for me because he does make those criticisms, he does talk about what England was and what it is.

I have a lot of English friends on this list, and a lot of friends from outside the UK: what do you think?

Date: 2009-01-18 07:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] f4f3.livejournal.com
Thanks for that - there's much I agree with, and what I don't is pretty minor - so I'll hoover those points up first.

I think what you say about the piece's tone is inherent in it being a talk originally - I agree that there's some places I'd like to see more depth, and that his notion of class is not exclusively an academic one, but I still feel it's a powerful piece of writing (and power, especially when we're talking polemic, is rarely synonymous with rigour.

I think you agree, though, that the working class in England is dead (I got a little lost in your description of the lumpenproletariat, and I'm not sure if you're suggesting that they, or the working class, "were the people who aspired to escape the class hegemony of the bourgeoisie by creating their own political, educational, cultural and sporting institutions".

I wonder if my perceived view of the strength of the working class in Scotland is purely a matter of perspective, or if it is qualitatively different from the English experience. At least half of Scotland's five million lived in cities, and it's easy to think that's all that exists, or existed. But Burns came from the rural poor - none more rural nor poorer than an Ayrshire cotter, and his egalitarian views sprung from that agrarian soil. While Glasgow produced the firebrands, the Highlands produced the footsoldiers. And Highland regiments in the early 20th C were stationed outside Scotland, in case their revolutionary sympathies became manifest on the Clyde.

There is a sense, up here, that the working class has survived the death of heavy industry, but I'm not sure it can survive the death of unionisation, unless there is a party representing its interests more honestly than Labour can manage on a British stage.

Oh, and the jibe at Burns night - hmm, if the English dressed up in Errol Flynn garb and insisted that robbing from the rich to feed the poor was a good idea, they'd soon have Special Branch at their door. Burns' poetry is full of that dangerous socialist stuff. And can't you get past the tartan myth? I mean, nobody up in Scotland believes it anyway, we just like the look of it.

It's hard to argue with your view of an England senile and incapable of reinvention - harder still, since you've shown the courage of your conviction and left it behind. And, to be honest, it's as little to do with Scots nationalism as Beefeaters have to do with English nationalism - whatever that is.

I'm wondering if my own sense that changing Scotland is a manageable challenge, and that the UK is a lost cause, is pragmatic or a failure of nerve?

Date: 2009-01-18 08:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com
(I got a little lost in your description of the lumpenproletariat, and I'm not sure if you're suggesting that they, or the working class, "were the people who aspired to escape the class hegemony of the bourgeoisie by creating their own political, educational, cultural and sporting institutions".

The "respectable" working class

or if it is qualitatively different from the English experience.

I think you have hit upon a really important difference. The English rural proletariat was, at least by mid 19th century, passive and deferential; certainly not a natural ally to the industrial working class. Nobody had to station the Norfolk regiment overseas for fear of miltary rebellion!

Oh, and the jibe at Burns night

OK I was taking the piss but, on a more serious note, is there a well articulated Scottish nationalism that isn't just tartan flummery crossed with a kind of gut anti-Englishmness? I know people like Tom Nairn have tried to articulate one but does it have any resonance at a mass level?

Date: 2009-01-18 08:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] f4f3.livejournal.com
It's possible that the lesser degree of engagement in the English rural proletariat was a matter of geographical scale - although there's always the Levellers, the Diggers and the Ranters to consider, and, as O'Hagan quotes Christopher Hill: "Popular revolt was for many centuries an essential feature of the English tradition."

I think they key to this might be the "indifference" he talks about, and the very short list of things the English are not indifferent about, or, to be more direct, the lack of things they are passionate about.

To shade into your second point, the Scots have tons of things to be passionate about (probably since they're so crap at proper personal passion), and fairness, freedom and commonality are three of them.

It's very hard to seem pro-Scottish without looking anti-English, especially when viewed from south of the border, but the well-spring of nationalism in the last century wasn't about being anti anything, it was a growing realisation that the Union wasn't in Scotland's best interest.

One of the clearest wee books on the subject was Alisdair Gray's "Why Scots Should Rule Scotland" - the tone is pro-Scottish, not anti-English. He states in his first paragraph that it's a decision to be made by all who live in Scotland, no matter which wave of immigration they arrived on, and I think it's a fair representation of the mass gut belief, which isn't anti-English, but pro-independence.

Of course, it remains to be seen if Scottish nationalism will survive an SNP government, but they seem to be doing ok so far.

Date: 2009-01-18 09:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com
although there's always the Levellers, the Diggers and the Ranters to consider,

The 17th century radicals didn't come from the peasantry, as then was, but largely from the towns. They were tradesman and craftsmen for the most part. Revolt in the countryside has typically taken less politically coherent form (a common feature of peasants' revolts) like the Swing riots or, indeed, the revolt against Richard II's government. I can't thin kof a single instance of bottom up revolt in the English countryside that had a coherent political platform.

It will be interesting to see whether a genuinely progressive Scottish independence movement can thrive. I'd certainly give it a better chance than any hopes I might have for England. There is something really quite impressive about some of the 'ordinary' Scots that I've met in my travels, especially in the Highlands. Of course, I'd be much more optimistic about England if one could draw a line from Hull to Plymouth and ditch everything south of it. London has a lot to answer for.

Profile

f4f3: (Default)
f4f3

May 2024

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2025 07:56 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios