Unit 1: The British context

1. Historical growth
Britains constitutional title today is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or UK. The nation comprises large and smaller islands off the north-western European mainland, which at various points are touched by the North Sea, the English Channel, the Irish Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The biggest island, Great Britain, is divided into England, Scotland and Wales, and Northern Ireland shares the second-largest island with the Republic of Ireland, with which it has a land border. In prehistory, these areas were visited by Old, Middle and New Stone Age nomads. From about 600 BC-AD 1066, the islands experienced successive settlement and invasion patterns from peoples who originated in mainland Europe, such as so-called Celts, Belgic tribes, Romans, Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons), Scandinavians and Normans. The early settlers and invaders contributed between the 9th and 12th centuries AD to the building blocks on which were established the separate nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. They experienced very different internal situations, abrupt political changes and a degree of violence as well as external conflicts both with one another and other countries in their historical growth to nationhood. Later developments within the islands were expansionists, military aims of English monarchs and political unions. Ireland and Wales bad been effectively under English control since the 12th and 13th centuries respectively, while Scotland was joined dynastically to England in 1603. Movement towards a British state (with its Parliament power base in London) was achieved by political unions between England, Wales and Scotland in 1707 and between Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. In 1921, southern Ireland left the union to become the Republic or Ireland while Northern Ireland remained part of the UK. These historical developments involved political deals, manipulation and constitutional struggles and encouraged the gradual creation of a centralized British state. State structures such as the monarchy, government, Parliament and the law developed slowly and unevenly to provide an umbrella organization for the four component countries. But there were also periods of violent upheaval (agitacin) and ideological conflict. Despite a confused history full of unforeseen events, some historians have argued that the modern British state developed in an evolutionary and pragmatic manner. Some influences have come from abroad during the long historical process. However the absence of any successful external military invasion of the islands since the Norman Conquest of AD 1066 has allowed the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to develop internally in distinctive ways, despite frequent and violent struggles among and within them. The eventual structures and philosophies of British statehood have been imitated by other countries, or exported abroad through the creation of a global empire from the 16 th century and a commercial need to build world markets for British goods. The developed British Empire was an extension of earlier England monarchs internal military expansionism within the islands and in mainland Europe. This colonialism was aided

by increasing military might (achieved by later victories over European and other nations) into the 20th century. Successive agricultural revolutions in Britain added to the countrys wealth, exports, prestige and international trade. Britain developed an early manufacturing and financial base. It became an largely urban country from the late 18th century because of a series of industrial revolutions and inventions. The historical development of the British state and its empire was aided by increasing economic and military strength, so that by the 19th century the country had become a dominant industrial and political world power. It was a main player in developing Western ideas and principles of law, property, business, liberty, capitalism, parliamentary democracy and civil society. Political union within Britain had encouraged the idea of a British identity, in which all the component countries of the UK could share. But national identities in the four countries of the union persisted and became stronger as competing forces arose in the 20th century. Pressure for constitutional change eventually resulted first in the partition of Ireland in 1921 and second in devolution (transfer of some political power from the London Parliament to elected bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) by 1998-9. The British state has seen many other political reforms over time, such as the extension of the vote in the 19th and 20th centuries, the diminishing power of the aristocratic House of Lords, the increasing authority of the elected House of Commons and the decline of executive monarchy in the parliamentary structure. Britain underwent substantial collectivist social changes in the 20th century, such as nationalization and the creation of a welfare state. The country experienced significant change in the 20th century. Its social and economic strength was seriously reduced by the effects of two world was in the first half of the century and by the dismantling of its imperial global power in the second half. Since the Second World War (1939-45), Britain has had to adjust with difficulty to the results of a withdrawal (retirada) from empire, which was inevitable in the face of rising nationalism and self-determination in the colonies; a reduction in world political status; global economic recessions; a relative decline in economic power; increased foreign competition; internal social change; a geopolitical world order of superpower (the USA and Soviet Union); international fluctuations and new tensions after the break-up of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, with the USA becoming the dominant force; the emergence of Far Eastern powers such as China and India; and a changing Europe following the destruction wrought (los estragos) by two world wars. While maintaining many of its traditional worldwide commercial, cultural and political links, it has nevertheless moved from empire and the successor Commonwealth towards and avowed (declarado) economic and political commitment to Europe, mainly through membership of what is now the EU. Yet today the psychological and physical isolation from Europe is slowly changing. However, the relationship between Britain and Europe continues to be problematic and new associations have been forced by events and circumstances rather than whole-heartedly sought.

British politicians argue that isolationism is not a viable option in a globalized world. Britain has been involved in recent overseas military actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, two Iraq wars, Afghanistan and other trouble spots worldwide as a coalition partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and American-led military action. Britain has attracted terrorist threats itself culminating un suicide bombings against the London public transport system by British-born Islamists on 7July2005 and further failed attempts on 21 July. Britain has become intimately involved in the globalized debates of the 21th century, from which it cannot isolate itself as it did at periods in its earlier history.

2. Structural change
Historically, structural change has been conditioned by social, economic, legal, religious and political developments. The major formal features, such as Parliament, law and government, are concerned with state or public business and initiate policies in top-down form. Decisions are decided by centralized and multi-level bodies in the power hierarchy and imposed on lower levels. Some of these processes are criticized in Britain because they distance decision-makers from the general public. British people complain that they should be consulted more about institutional changes in society and have a greater say in local and national affairs. Elites and bureaucrats at various levels may lack competence, waste taxpayers money on dubious projects and inadequate policies. However, there are many other structures on both public and private levels of social activity, such as sports activities, families, leisure activities, neighbourhoods, youth culture, faith groups, local communities, interest groups, ethnic fellowships and habitual ways of life which have their own particular value systems and organizations. They often have a bottomup form in which policies and behavior are said to be linked closely to the concerns of societys grassroots. They may illustrate more localized, informal and democratic characteristics than the top-down model. But these communities can also be dominated by elites, which may be in conflict with other individuals who object to being controlled by the leadership. The British way of life and British identities are determined by how people function within and react to social structures. These are not remote abstractions but affect individuals directly and immediately in their daily lives. For example, government policies impinge upon (vulneran) citizens and their families. These structural features reflect a range of practices on both high and popular cultural levels in Britain. High cultural forms may often appeal (atraer) to a minority and be connected to wealth and class concerns, although the blurring of class barriers, expanded educations and a decline in deference have now opened these up to present in British society. They have become more numerous and diverse since the 1960s because of greater affluence. Such a mass popular culture (sport, TV, music and fashion) is now significant and influences social patterns, behavior, economic consumption and the adoption of very diverse lifestyles. The number and variety of top-down and bottom-up structures mean that there are many different and often conflicting ways of life in contemporary Britain, which contribute to the pluralistic nature of the society. Some critics are a healthy diversity, while others have led to social fragmentation. 3

It has historically been argued that national and local behavior in Britain has often reflected a strong individualistic streak in the British mentality, which views authority with suspicion and has often led to nonconformity in many areas of society. Such questioning is also linked to very varied arguments about how the country should be organized socially, politically and economically.

3. Contemporary conditions
The state of Britain debate and the anxieties of the British about the direction of the society have been widely discussed in recent years. Britain today is a complex society in which diversity and change have created problems as well as advantages. While the country may give an impression of homogeneous behavior, these are divisions caused by such factors as the influence of London on the rest of the country; the cultural distinctiveness of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, disparities between affluent and economically depressed areas throughout the country; alleged cultural and economic gaps between areas in the north and south; political variety; continuing debates on the positions of women; special interest groups and minority ethnic communities; campaigns or demands for a variety of individual and collective rights; a gulf (abismo) between rich and poor; tensions between the cities and the countryside; and increasing generational differences between young and old in all ethnic groups. They suggest a decline in the allegedly traditional deference to authority, consensus views and support for national institutions such as the monarchy, the professions, schools, churches and Parliament. Britons are now more nonconformist, multi-ethnic, secular and individualistic than in the past. The tolerant civic image of individual liberty, social cohesion, identity and community which foreigners and Britons often has suffered. This has been replaced by dysfunctional families, social fragmentation, instability, isolation and community disintegration. Critics, politicians and a majority of respondents in public opinion polls want a return to civic responsibility, consensus or inclusive politics and a caring society in which individuals feel that they have a place. Contemporary society is often measured against an assumed earlier history. However, research demonstrates that the past in Britain was not as idyllic as is sometimes imagined and there were periods when the levels of crime, aggression, violence, poverty and deprivation were far greater that they are now, both in the cities and countryside. Yet the myth of a golden age and older patterns of positive behavior still hold considerable romantic attraction for many British people. Nevertheless, despite major domestic social changes, international pressures and greater internal diversity, there is still a conservatism in British life which regards (considerer) change with suspicion. This may led to tension between the need for reform and nostalgia for an assumed ideal past, causing difficulties for progress, the evolution of social structures and the solving of the nations problems. It is argued that since the 1960s the country has been unwilling to face large-scale reassessment of its social, political, economic and institutional structures is now being overwhelmed by events beyond its control and its capacity to alleviate. A relative economic decline since the late 19th century was joined to a political system and national mentality unable 4

to cope with the reality or needs of the post-industrial and culturally diverse society that Britain had become. Britain has changed over the past 60 years, with most of its people now enjoying greater prosperity and opportunities than in the past, so that poverty today is a relative, rather than an absolute. Britain was seriously affected by the global economic downturn and recession of 2007-09, from which it is emerging more slowly than its competitors. Consumerism, increased ethnic diversity, feminism and an expanded role for women, greater individual freedom and increasing tolerance for alternative lifestyles, technological advances and new economic policies have done much to transform Britain, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Conservative governments under Margaret Thatcher (1979-90) tried to reform social structures and promote new economic attitudes. They attempted to reduce the states role in public affairs and replace it with market forces. The focus was upon economic growth; competition; privatization; the creation of choice and standards in public services such as education and health; and the reform of bodies such as the trade unions, some professions and local government. People were encouraged to be more responsible for their own affairs without automatic reliance on the state for support (the dependency culture) and to adopt more individual competitiveness and efficiency (the enterprise culture). While some people applauded the freedoms of an enterprise culture, others strongly wished for more intervention and funding in public social services. Nevertheless, free market or neoliberal economic programmes continued under the Conservative Prime Minister John Major (1990-7) and Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair (1997-2007) and Gordon Brown (2007-10). The Labour Party modernized its internal structures and policies and moved to the political centre in an attempt to change its public image and appeal to middle Britain. Since gaining power in 1997 (repeated in 2001 and 2005), the Labour government followed the Conservative economic approach, while initially pursuing cautious fiscal and monetary policies, in an appeal to the electoral middle ground. In its early years in government, it also attempted to modernize Britain by supposedly creating a new, young and inclusive society. Labour claimed it was addressing and economic realities, emphasizing personal initiative and responsibility while stressing that hard choices had to be made. But a majority of respondents to opinion polls felt they had not seen great improvements in public services under the Labour government and many lost their trust in the Labour leadership after 2007. The difficulties involved in balancing the free market and social welfare models of society continued. Prior to the general election of 2010, there was a growing disbelief by voters in the Labour governments ability to steer (dirigir) the country through the recession, to pay off the budget deficit, to avoid tax increases, to maintain public services and to avoid greater costs. Although additional forces grassroots movements protesting at some action or lack of action; rebellion by members of Parliament (MPs); campaigns by the media to promote reform or uncover scandals. However, central government initiatives in London are the single most important factors in determining structural change at national and local level as politicians implement policies or respond to events. The British traditionally allow their governments a great deal of power in the running of the country. However there is a limit to their tolerance, and their disquiet may be shown in 5

public opinion polls; demonstrations; and general election results (such as the 2010 election, when Labour lost 91 seats in the House of Commons). Most politicians have been traditionally sensitive to the views of the people since their hold upon political power is dependent upon the electorate. The British assume that they have an individual independence and liberty within the framework of social institutions and are quick to voice their disapproval if their interests are threatened. The British today are confronting different cultural and economic realities than in the past when they had a more clearly defined world role and a greater sense of national identity. They do not enjoy the benefits or earlier industrial revolutions, but have moved to a post-industrial economy in which the service sector and job flexibility dominate. The society has seen a decline in traditional certainties (certezas) and become more mobile, stressful and conflict-ridden. Critics argue that the old pragmatic methods of innovation are no longer sufficient for an era in which specialized education and training, high-technology competence and a need to international competition are the main determinants.

4. British attitudes to Britain

In recent years opinion polls indicate increasing dissatisfaction with politicians and authority figures; scepticism at the performance of institutions and their bureaucracies; disengagement (retirada) from formal political engagement reflected in low election turnout and reduced membership of political parties; but a trend towards political action represented but public protests; demonstrations. These attitudes partly reflect an individualism; independent and dissenting British tradition that has been historically cynical, irreverent and critical about state structures and powerful individuals. Institutions such as the monarchy, Parliament, law and the Church have had to earn the approval and support of the British people. In recent years, however, the powerful state has intruded further into peoples lives, micromanaging more and more of their work and leisure. Polls can be significant and accurate indications of how people are reacting to the state of British society. In spite of their denials, politicians do in fact seem to take the result of polls, surveys and focus groups seriously. The placing of these concerns have fluctuated over the past decade, but all have appeared consistently near the head of the list. Race relations (including immigration and asylum seekers) have varied in importance as have defence, foreign affairs and international terrorism after 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York, the Islamist bombing of the London transport infrastructure on 7 July 2005, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continuing threat of terrorism in Britain. The issues of pensions and social security have advanced because of the crisis facing pension provision in Britain, peoples fears about their finances in old age and concern about an ageing population. However, previous primary concerns such as the euro, the European Union, devolution, trade unions and Northern Ireland had lost their immediacy. Many worries are bread and butter economic issues such as housing, wages and prices, while others, such as morality and individual behavior, drug abuse, environmental concerns and pollution, reflect the inner state of the nation. 6

In the event, the 2010 election had an inconclusive result; no one party was regarded as the winner or had a majority of the votes, resulting in a hung Parliament led to a coalition government.