Polite, eccentric, aloof, patriotic free spirits

(Filed: 15/11/2004)

A Royal Society-sponsored worldwide survey has attempted to capture the essential characteristics of the British. Philip Johnston examines its findings.

Ten years ago John Major, the Conservative former prime minister, was derided for his vision of Britain in the new millennium. ''Fifty years from now,'' he said, ''Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pool fillers and – as George Orwell said – 'old maids cycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist' . "

There was much jollity at Mr Major's expense. He was, said critics, really talking about England, not Britain, and, in any case, these sepia-tinted characteristics no longer existed. But his final sentence is rarely quoted: "Britain will survive unamendable in all essentials."

Has the concept of Britishness been redefined?

There has been debate over what those ''essentials'' are. But research conducted by Mori for the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) suggests that there are quintessential British characteristics – readily identified both abroad and in this country – that have survived despite the huge cultural and political changes of the past 50 years.

If the British are wondering how they are seen abroad, they should rest assured that it is not as a weird collection of oddballs depicted on BBC's Little Britain or drunken yobs trashing a foreign resort but as a tolerant, polite, slightly reserved and proud people.

The research – conducted in Bombay, Chicago and Milan together with interviews among a focus group in King's Lynn, Norfolk – paints a picture of a surprisingly contented country that is admired overseas. Respondents, who also included foreign journalists working in Britain, held generally positive views of the United Kingdom and British people; in particular, most overseas participants in the research emphasised British humour as a defining characteristic.

Politeness was also agreed upon as typically British, though this was also considered by some to be a front for reserve and an ''uptight'' approach to social situations. There was a widely-held perception of the British as strongly individualistic and politically independent, a trait especially noticeable in the country's somewhat ambivalent relationship with the rest of the European Union, its unwillingness to join the euro and its stubborn insistence on continuing to drive on the left.

On the downside are the legacies of empire – notable among Indian respondents – particularly a patriotic ''arrogance'' that conveys a feeling of superiority in the eyes of those looking in.

Given that Britain – or the UK – is not a single nation, overseas respondents were well aware of its constituent parts, though few were able to say how Northern Ireland fitted into the mosaic, even if they were fully informed of its troubled history.

''England was generally seen as urban and Scotland was simply seen as countryside, with 'nice' people,'' say the researchers. ''There was little knowledge of Wales, though some pointed out that Catherine Zeta-Jones grew up there."

But despite these stereotypes, there was a general awareness of Britain's cultural diversity that tends to militate against broad generalisations. Where 50 years ago, there were certain shared characteristics that could typify the British, these have become less all-encompassing as a consequence of post-war immigration.

Nevertheless, politeness and tolerance remain touchstones of Britishness, even if they can be misconstrued. "British politeness may be taken a step too far, to the point that it becomes off-putting," say the researchers. One American correspondent said: ''It is especially noticeable among men, both physical – no hugging – but also a reluctance to express preference or emotion in normal discourse … They are a little more formal and a little slower to make friends.''

Another said: ''Sometimes there is an aloofness … and a sense of superiority which is hard to distinguish from pride.''

Some foreign correspondents living in London said they found it difficult to socialise with British people outside the workplace "as there could be a perception of 'old school ties' binding groups together''. However, since a similar suspicion was apparent among the British respondents themselves, this seems to be less a national characteristic than a reflection of the difficulties outsiders have fitting in anywhere.

The British sense of nationality and pride in political and cultural tradition were also seen as distinguishing features, though the Americans tended to see them as positive and patriotic, while those in Italy and India were less impressed, regarding such characteristics as haughty or isolationist. On the other hand, the British focus group did not consider themselves to be excessively patriotic when compared to the Americans – or at least, were less likely to be demonstrative about it other than at sporting occasions or during a crisis.

Indeed, the British rarely see themselves as British, judging by the views of respondents in King's Lynn. Perhaps unsurprisingly among an English group, they found it difficult to articulate what Britishness meant to them. ''This may reflect the complex nature of being British, and the contradictory nature of some of the values that underpin the British way of life, but it may also reflect the fact that many overseas views of Britain are likely to be based on stereotypes.''

So, in Britain itself has the concept of Britishness disappeared or simply been redefined?

There remains a Britain that prides itself on a history of continuous freedom, self-government and the rule of law; these are some of the ''unamendable essentials'' to which Mr Major referred and are among the strongest attractions to people wanting to settle here.

But much of the country familiar to Orwell has gone. It is both more European and American than 50 years ago. Warm beer is less likely to be ordered in the pub than continental lager. Coffee shops are everywhere, at least in London – though this is less an innovation than a return to the 18th century, when they were the meeting places for City traders. British food is no longer the joke of Europe and there is a more eclectic cuisine in London than in any other city in the world.

Yet the multi-culturalism that has brought this about is also a threat to the homogeneity of the British, if such a thing still exists. This feeds into the concerns of the ''traditional'' British, who now regularly identify immigration as the political issue that most worries them. This was true of the King's Lynn groups, whose members thought immigration, especially from eastern Europe, was the root cause of many of the country's social and economic problems.

Paul Crake, the programme director of the RSA, who has analysed the research, said the issue was less one of "nation-based xenophobia" than of a perception of being taken advantage of by people who abused the system. The respondents, for instance, had no problem with the large Chinese community in the area because they were ''hard-working''.

On the other hand, the tolerance that outsiders identified was particularly noticeable when it came to homosexuality, with most respondents saying people should be allowed to live their lives in their own way, an attitude more liberal than would have been apparent even 20 years ago.

One thing that emerges from this research is that if the British lacked self-confidence for much of the post-war period, labouring under the burden of being the "sick man" of Europe, that sense of inferiority is far less in evidence today. Market-orientated economic reforms, greater affluence and the cultural reach of the English language have also helped transform Britain's image abroad.

In Europe, there is grudging admiration for the way the British have sought to turn the EU away from its integrationist tendencies, even if the old Franco-German core remains intact and Britain is seen as too close to the Americans.

We may think our public services do not work properly; that there is too much crime and anti-social behaviour; that Britain is too diverse and complex to give expression to a common culture; and that some of the old certainties have gone. As Raymond Seitz, a former American ambassador in London, said, the British "seem to know mainly what they used to be".

But there are some ineradicable elements, well articulated by Bernard Crick, the head of the Government unit established to draw up a test of Britishness for new citizens. To him it represents ''an allegiance to institutions of parliamentary government and law, symbolised in the crown, that binds four national cultures together on partly historical and partly pragmatic grounds''.

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004. Terms & Conditions of reading.