Figure 1. The Independent, 22 June 1996.
The terms 'Europe' and 'European' commonly refer to a geographical area, to a certain culture, or to one or all of the post-war institutions of European cooperation. In Britain, however, these terms may denote yet another entity. There a statement like 'I'm going to Europe for my holi days' is perfectly acceptable, whereas it would be deemed illogical in, for instance, France or Germany. Europe in this case stands for an undifferentiated 'abroad' lying over there on the other side of the Channel. In the European Union debate, too, politicians and the media habitually refer to 'the Europeans' as a people totally distinct from the British. The Europeans have shorter working weeks, longer holidays, corrupt police, but a better cuisine. Outside Britain this lumping together of Dutch with Germans, Danes and South Tiroleans raises eyebrows. In Britain, how ever, statements about the collective characteristics of the European (but non-British) race al most always go unchallenged. This article seeks to index some of these presumed European characteristics and, with the help of electronic databases, to explore when Europe and the Euro peans first gained this special status in the British national discourse.
On 1 November 1990 The Sun's banner headline was 'Up Yours Delors'; clearly the editorial board had been unable to resist this golden rhyming opportunity. The event which sparked this off was the publication of the Delors Report, which anticipated a European Union with a single currency, issued by an independent European Central Bank. Lady Thatcher's government strongly opposed these plans. A European Central Bank would undermine British sovereignty and would moreover - though this fear was not publicly expressed - deprive the government (at present able to lower interest rates shortly before an election) of an important means of manipulation.
The Sun sympathised with Lady Thatcher's doubts, so the paper did its best to make Delors, as well as his French compatriots and Europeans in general, look ridiculous. As far as The Sun was concerned, 'the French' and 'the Europeans' were all tarred with the same brush. Jacques Delors was described as 'the 'Froggy Common Market Chief', but also as the 'Euro Chief' (Figure. 2).
Figure 2. On 1 November 1990 The Sun decided to lend Lady Thatcher a helping hand in her fight against
'Euro-chief' Delors.
That these accusations did not lead to diplomatic conflict is thanks to the fact that this was, of course, 'a bit of fun'. The Sun was clearly deliberately overdoing it. An article which claimed that the French surrendered to the Nazis while 'we' stood firm, and that the French were trying to conquer Europe when 'we' beat them at Waterloo, was attributed to The Sun's 'diplomatic staff'. Page three of the relevant issue was almost entirely devoted to jokes: 'What is the shortest book in the world? The book of French war heroes.'
Everyone knows, of course, that foreigners are fair game as far as the tabloids are concerned. No-one took any further notice of the incident. The comments made in the Daily Star of 24 March 1994 attracted almost no attention either:
Right now, Prime Minister John Major is fighting a desperate battle against a plan which would make it easier than ever for Europe to impose rules on us. Twopenny ha'penny countries who, until they joined the Euro gravy train, were dung-shovelling peasants with their backsides hanging out, will be able to crack the whip over us.
Remarks and jokes of this kind about other nationalities make use of stereotypes, otherwise they would not work. A joke about a clever Irishman or a spendthrift Scot would tend to create confusion. As a label for a socio-psychological phenomenon, the word 'stereotype' is a comparatively recent invention (it was first used in this context by Walter Lippman in 1922), but it refers to a general and timeless principle. The human brain categorises and generalises. Unlike machines, people find it difficult to remember details, tending instead to retain patterns. Stereotypes moreover enable individuals and groups to distinguish themselves from others. A stereotype provides security. Since you (as individuals or a group) are the same and do not change, I (or we) are also unchanging and therefore specific and real.[1];
The stereotype used by The Sun in its articles and jokes is based on the notion that the French, and indeed the Europeans in general, are not to be trusted. They are corrupt, dictatorial and undemocratic. The British, on the other hand, are unlike the Europeans; they are different. Whereas the individual excesses of certain British newspapers can safely be ignored, this is a stereotype that deserves some attention, for it is widespread in Britain. This article seeks to demonstrate just how widespread, and to explore the origin of the idea that 'the British' are somehow separate from 'the Europeans'.
Besides the gutter press, there are various organisations in Britain that vehemently oppose British membership of the European Union, and which habitually draw comparisons between Great Britain and Europe. Since the beginning of the sixties, when the Macmillan government first sought to join the European Community, numerous 'Euro-sceptic' organisations have raised their voices in protest. Some use economic or political arguments, others fear that Great Britain will be swallowed up by Europe and thus lose its 'identity'. In the spring of 1990, the periodical This England launched a campaign entitled 'Don't Let Europe Rule Britannia'. Its readers were urged to acquire an action pack consisting of stickers and a pamphlet claiming that the fight against Napoleon and Hitler had been in vain, now that Great Britain had sold out to Europe. Unless we wrest ourselves free from Europe, the editors warn, 'the glittering prospect of our brilliant and outspoken young Prince of Wales, reigning perhaps as King Charles III, with a lovely girl at his side as Queen Consort, will be lost to us and our grandchildren forever' (Figure. 3).
Figure 3. In 1990 the magazine This England started the campaign 'Don't Let Europe Rule Britannia'. Citing
Winston Churchill himself, the editors offered stickers to their readers as weapons in their fight against the
Euro-threat.
This, clearly, is mindless propaganda. Yet it would be erroneous to suppose that feelings such as these are only expressed by a handful of Jingoistic extremists. Similar opinions are voiced by leading figures. It is a public secret that Lady Thatcher was suspicious of foreigners in general and Europeans in particular. In 1993, in the BBC series The Downing Street Years, she stated:
There is a great strand of equity and fairness in the British people. This is our characteristic. There is no strand of equity and fairness in Europe. They are out to get as much as they can. This is one of those enormous differences.
Now it could be maintained that Lady Thatcher, though an influential individual, is in fact also merely a Jingoistic extremist. She, in common with other Eurosceptic Tories, has fiercely resisted the supposed threat posed by the European Union to the British nation. Even British socialists, however, have occasionally harboured similar ideas about British differentness and European perniciousness. In a speech made in 1962, the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell associated Europe with Hitler and Mussolini, subsequently declaring that a merger with Europe would mean the end of a thousand years of British history.
Gaitskell was speaking at a time when the Second World War was still a recent memory. Since that time, the Labour stance on Europe has become less heated, but a certain degree of aversion still persists. Tony Benn is waging a bitter campaign in the Commons against The Treaty on European Union, which was negotiated in Maastricht. As a Labour left-winger, one would not expect him to be motivated by the same reasons as Lady Thatcher. To a certain extent his arguments do indeed differ. Benn believes that the British parliament acted illegally by ratifying the treaty. He claims that the electorate must be consulted before parliament decides to relinquish part of its sovereignty. But from his speeches it appears that Tony Benn, too, believes that 'the British' can be contrasted with 'the Europeans', and that the latter are not strong on democracy. In a speech made on 23 July 1993, he compares Europe with the Holy Roman Empire and then causes this 'Europe' to address Great Britain in the following terms:
Once we destroy democracy in Britain, we shall pave the way for the federal Europe because, if there is no effective democracy in Britain, Europe will say, 'Look at the house of Commons! It didn't seem to care very much, so we'll run Britain.' Then we shall be back to the Holy Roman Empire and all that. (House of Commons Official Report, 23 July 1993).
Even in British academic circles the claim is made that the British are different and often better than the Europeans. Take Alan Sked, a historian attached to the London School of Economics and Political Science, some of whose books are required reading at schools and universities. Sked believes that Great Britain should leave the European Union, and to this end he first established the Anti Federalist League and then the UK Independence Party. In his electoral speeches he has listed various reasons why the European Union is bad for Britain. One of these is that the Europeans, in contrast to the British, share a detestable characteristic: they are all corrupt. In a speech in Newbury in 1993 he dwelt at some length on certain Greek and Italian corruption scandals, and an Aids scandal in France, in which government officials were implicated. 'These are the people', Alan Sked declared, 'who all over Europe are in favour of the Maastricht treaty.' In his 1994 Party Manifesto, the leader of the UK Independence Party concluded 'the people who best know how to run Britain are the British.'
Many a British historiographer has assumed that Great Britain is different to Europe. A prominent representative of this school of thought is G.M. Trevelyan. In his famous Shortened History of England, published in 1942, he explains English history by making repeated contrasts with exotic 'European history'. A much more recent example is The Origins of English Individualism by Alan Macfarlane. This work is so full of remarks such as 'England as a whole is different from the rest of Europe' (5), that some critics saw it as a product of English postwar uncertainty. The nation needed to have fresh heart put into it now that Great Britain was no longer a superpower, and was forced to seek membership of the European Community (Stone 1979). Don't worry, Macfarlane appears to be saying. Your differentness (the English are portrayed as much more individualistic and democratic than the Europeans, with their tendency towards corporatism and absolutism) has very deep roots and thus cannot be easily eradicated.
The British we-are-different-to-the-Europeans school of historiography has certainly come under sharp attack in recent decades by various revisionists, but it is far from moribund. In fact there even appears to be something of a contra-revisionist movement. Writers who claim that Great Britain's history and situation are not special are dismissed on the grounds that they merely seek to be politically correct. Let us tell it the way it is, some historians seem to preach. The British are simply different to the Europeans. In the conclusion to his recent book Britain and the Continent, Jeremy Black praises those politicians who defend 'British practices' and refuse to tell their electorate that they are now 'Europeans' (270).
It will be clear from the above that the idea that the British see themselves as different (and often superior) to the Europeans is not confined to the tabloids or a few Jingoistic Tories. It is a commonly held notion, as can be seen from, everyday articles in the British press. In February 1994, public life in Great Britain was disrupted by cold and snow. The Independent was able to explain this. British snow is different. On 15 February the newspaper reported that British snow is commonly wetter and clumpier than that of the European continent. On 9 September 1993 the same paper published a letter from a reader who claimed that schools in Europe were inferior to those in Great Britain. In Europe, aggression and vandalism were apparently rampant:
Tradition, ethos and identification with one's school play an important part in our education system. When one looks at European schools we find disorder, lack of respect and disregard of authority. Classrooms are sprayed with graffiti, pupils and teachers often look like tramps.
There is nothing special about the British tendency to regard the own nation as a special. All nations define their identity (or 'otherness') by referring to the 'alienness' of outsiders. What is remarkable, however, is that British otherness is not just measured against the perceived qualities of other nations, but against 'Europe', an undifferentiated entity of which Britain apparently does not form a part. A Frenchman may in general be prepared to refer to 'the Germans' or 'the Spanish' when emphasizing his own Frenchness, but he would find it impossible to make comparisons with 'the Europeans'.
In Great Britain, the tendency to see Europe as an undifferentiated 'abroad' is so strong that even the revisionists referred to above have difficulty freeing themselves from it. In the introduction to his impressive book English Nationalism (1987) Gerald Newman states his intention of exposing the common claim of English uniqueness as a myth. He will do so, he continues, by showing that England has in fact much in common with 'Continental society'. In other words, he attempts to counter the claim that England is different to Continental Europe by claiming that England in fact resembles such a Europe.
What is the origin of the special use of the term 'Europe' in English? And what qualities are ascribed to it? To answer the last question first: in the quotations given above, Europe is associated with concepts such as aggression, militarism, Catholicism and absolutism. It is not difficult to add more examples to this list. In April 1994 discord once again flared up in the European Union. The British government refused to endorse a plan to revise the voting system in the event that the Union was enlarged with extra members. John Major subsequently alleged that 'the Europeans' were being doctrinaire again. This idea was not in itself regarded as odd or controversial. The opposition confined itself to remarking that it was in fact the British government that was adopting a rigid stance.
Of course, the non-British aspects of Europe are also regarded in more neutral terms in Britain. Shortly after the British government first applied for membership of the European Community, W.H. Auden wrote:
If I shut my eyes and say the word Europe to myself, the various images which it conjures up have one thing in common; they could not be conjured up by the word England. Let me give a few of them as they occur to me (...):
However, Auden ended his reverie with the conclusion that the British public probably harbours dark thoughts about the people over there, across the Channel:
If the Common Market countries were to consist simply of Scandinavia, [the man-in-the-street] would probably be far less hostile to Britain's entry. I have the suspicion that he nourishes, though probably unconsciously, strong anti-popery feelings. He may not admit it but, in his heart of hearts, he thinks that Roman Catholics are idolaters, immoral and physically dirty, that only a Protestant can really be respectable.
No specific research has been conducted into this negative image of Europe, but it is referred to here and there in studies on English and British national identity by Hans Kohn ('The Origins of English Nationalism', 1940), Gerald Newman (English Nationalism, 1987), and Linda Colley ( Britons, 1992).
Newman and Colley focus largely on the latter half of the eighteenth century. Very briefly summarised, their view is as follows. It was during this period that the English, but also the British in general, began to regard their culture as different to that of the European Continent. A period of cosmopolitanism, in which Voltaire moved freely around Great Britain, was followed by one of constant war and comparative isolation. The enemy was France, and France lay over there, on the other side of the Channel, in Europe.
During times of war national identity is given shape by referring to the despicable otherness of the enemy. Hence, since France, on the European mainland, was ruled by absolutist Catholic monarchs, Great Britain, with its love of democracy and freedom, was different from Europe. (It was only much later, as of the Prussian victory over the French in 1870, that it became customary in Great Britain for Germany to be seen as synonymous with Europe.)
The notion that the French have absolutist tendencies, and that France and Europe are more or less the same thing, is commonly encountered today (Figure. 4). Although Auden claims that he is thinking about Europe, it is abundantly clear from his words that he is actually only thinking about Catholic France. Apparently they are one and the same to him. The Sun, as we learned earlier, sees nothing strange in representing monsieur Delors alternately as a dictatorial Frenchman and as a European. The extent to which, in Britain, 'Frenchness' is associated with 'Europeanness', can be seen from debates in the House of Commons. In April 1994, during the controversy about the redistribution of votes in an enlarged Union, John Major jeered at John Smith (then leader of the opposition), referring to him as: 'the man who likes to say yes in Europe; Monsieur Oui; the poodle of Brussels.'[2];
Figure 4. Since Britain's accession to Europe, the Anti-Common Market League has used cartoons to warn
against the consequences. Here, too, Europe is commonly seen to be synonymous with France.
In an attempt to trace the notion that the English or British are 'different', Hans Kohn goes back much further than the end of the eighteenth century. In his essay 'The Origins of English Nationalism' he claims that it was during the Commonwealth (1649-1660) that the idea arose, in certain Puritan circles, that the English were a special race. Some Puritans compared England with Israel, and saw their nation as God's Chosen People, who were destined to oppose the papists and other philistines of the European mainland.
Kohn's claims appear convincing, particularly on the subject of the English being seen as different, not only from the French, but from everything and everybody. An elected people is by definition different from other nations, and in the seventeenth century these other nations were primarily represented by the denizens of the Old World, or Europe.
Newman's and Colley's arguments are watertight, notably in their reference to the perceived contrasts between the English or the British on one hand, and the French on the other. But if 'Frenchness' and 'Europeanness' were so easily equated, it seems logical to suppose that a similar, metonymic way of reasoning dates back further than the period on which they focus. The same reservation ultimately applies to Kohn's thesis. Other nations have also identified with Israel, as Holland, for instance, did in the seventeenth century. But the Dutch have never made a habit of distinguishing themselves from 'the Europeans'. Other developments must therefore have contributed to the British feelings of differentness vis-a-vis Europe.
The results of an extensive search through a Middle English Dictionary, the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts and the CD-Rom version of The Oxford Dictionary (second edition) lead one to suspect that the idea that Eu rope is something to which England or Great Britain does not belong existed some time before the Common wealth. The numerous quotations to be found, notably in The Oxford Dictionary, provide the following information concerning the use of the term 'Europe' in English.[3];
Europe means much the same in English as it does in a host of other languages (Deroy, 1959 and Dombrowski, 1984). It is the name of the smallest continent but one. In Old English texts (whether or not translations from Latin) the word 'Europe' is only used in this geographical sense. King Alfred's Orosius (ca. 893), for instance, states: 'some men say there are but two parts. Asia is the one, the other is Europe.' In the writings of Geoffrey Chaucer (?1340-1400), Europe is only used as the name of a region.
Besides their geographical meaning, the terms 'Europe' and 'European' can also refer to certain morals and customs (Hay, 1957 and Roobol, 1988). Here, too, such use of these words is not confined to English, but extends to many other languages. In the fourteenth century, 'Europe' could be equated with 'the Christian world'. In Cursor Mundi, a work written at the start of that century, Europe is described as the region 'containing most Christian kingdoms'. Later the word acquired other connotations, such as freedom and democracy, but also unrest, aggression and imperialism. The word 'Europe', finally - and again this is not a usage peculiar to English - has been used since the 1950s as a global synonym for one, some or all European intergovernmental institutions or confederations.
What is peculiar to English, as has repeatedly been stated above, is the use of Europe as a name for something to which Great Britain does not belong. This applies to the cultural and institutional as well as to the geographical use of the word. The quotations provided by the CD-Rom version of The Oxford Dictionary seem to indicate that as of the end of the sixteenth century it became increasingly common to distinguish between England and Europe. A quotation from 1577 is still somewhat ambiguous: 'the fairs and markets of England are not inferior to the greatest markets of Europe.' Is England regarded here as part of Europe or not? In a text of slightly later date, the distinction is already much clearer. An early eulogy on Sir Francis Bacon, written in 1590, states: 'England and Europe shall admire his fame.' It may be that England and the rest of Europe is meant here, but one could assume that the writer would have added these words if that were the case.
The word 'continent', in the sense of 'continued land' or 'mainland', enters the English language around this time, at the end of the sixteenth century. The term was often used to refer to America, but it also referred (spelt either with or without a capital letter) to the countries on the other side of the Channel. A quotation from 1601 refers to a transport of English troops going 'into the continent' (in fact they went to Holland) and in 1610 it was stated that 'the sea coast of Britain is separated from the Continent of Europe by a streight.'
The question which naturally arises is: why should it have been precisely at this time - the end of the sixteenth century - that it became common for the British to contrast themselves with 'Europeans'? It is sometimes claimed that the British have an 'island mentality'. Since they live on an island, the British 'naturally' feel different to the others over there, across the water. Certainly some Britons uphold these sentiments, as evinced by that well-known nineteenth-century ditty:
Writing in 1992, the year the controversial Treaty on European Union was negotiated, Sir Norman Tebbit made a point of celebrating the British as an island race, claiming that 'different as our Continental neighbours are from each other, we are even more different from each of them.' The Oxford Dictionary contains a quotation dating from 1590, praising 'this microcosm of Britain, separate from the continent world.' Again, however, the question arises: why 1590, and not much earlier? If it was the case that living on an island went hand in hand with something of an isolationist mentality, it should also be possible to find references in Old and Middle English texts to 'the continent', 'Europe' or other names for 'over there, where we do not belong'. This does not, however, appear to be the case.[4];
Today's commonplace was yesterday's novel insight. The notion that Great Britain can be regarded as an island that has no connection with its surroundings is now a clichÇ, and was already voiced by outsiders in antiquity ('penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos' says Virgil in Eclogue I, 66). But it appears that as far as the inhabitants themselves were concerned, this was once a original thought.
The enthusiastic tone of certain famous passages from Shakespeare's Richard II (1597), in which England is lauded as a 'little world' and 'a fortress' protected by an enormous moat, or of parts of Andrew Marvell's Upon Appleton House, betray a degree of wonder. It is as if the speakers have only just realised that England is part of a free and independent island. It is a pearl in the sea, a paradise shut off from the world:
These passionate lines, and the fact that Europe came to be seen as distinct and separate only as of the end of the sixteenth century (in Shakespeare there are a couple of references to Europe as an entity disconnected from England), cause one to suspect that Great Britain is not so much inhabited by an 'island race', as by a nation that at a given moment in time more or less consciously distanced itself from something of which it had formerly felt part.
Thus the history of the word 'Europe' in the English language appears to confirm a familiar story about Anglo-Continental relations. After the invasion of 1066, England formed part of a large Anglo-Norman and Anglo-French empire; the elite spoke French and crossed the Channel freely. The English took part in the Crusades; the Englishman Nicholas Brakespear was Pope Adrian IV from 1154 to 1159. In 1453, however, at the end of the Hundred Years' War, the English king Henry IV was forced to cede his Continental possessions to the French monarch. As of that time, English (and later British) monarchs were beset by the problem of how to secure their possessions in the British Isles against invasions by Continental rivals. The English Channel was now lauded for its function as a moat. After Henry VIII, who had caused the English church to break away from Rome in 1534, had commissioned the building of a great fleet, Britain was moreover seen as guarded by 'a wall of oak'. As shown above, it was at this particular time that in the English language the various countries and nations on the other side of the water began to merge into 'the Continent of Europe', or 'the Continent', or 'Europe'.
Ideas about British otherness with regard to Europe, which are aired so regularly and so hysterically by the tabloid press, took root only relatively recently. They are, however, widespread. The belief that the British are not Europeans is by no means restricted to right-wing, extreme nationalist circles. It is common practice in English to refer to Europe as an entity entirely distinct from Britain. However, this distinction is not 'natural'; it was introduced into the English national discourse at the end of the sixteenth century, at a time when political and military events were forcing English rulers to entrench themselves on `their' side of the water.
The question as to whether the English or the British are really different to 'the Europeans' is unanswerable. What is certain is that feelings of differentness exist, and thus help to shape reality. 'I find many Europeans humourless or didactic, and my Presbyterian ancestry makes me deeply suspicious of all those Papists', said Alastair Buchan in 1963. At the time he was already head of the Institute for Strategic Studies, and was shortly afterwards to be appointed Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at Oxford .
