Public spiritedness and amаteurism

In public life Britain has traditionally followed what might be called “the cult of the talented amateur”, in which being too professionally dedicated is looked at with suspicion. “Only doing your job” has never been accepted as a justification for action. There is a common assumption that society is best served by everybody “chipping in” – that is, by lots of people giving a little bit of their free time to help in a variety of ways. This can be seen in the structure of the civil service, in the circumstances under which Members of Parliament do their work in the use of unpaid non-lawyers to run much of the legal system, in some aspects of the education system, and in the fact that, until recently, many of the most popular sports in the country were officially amateur even at top level.

This characteristic, however, is on the decline. In all the areas mentioned above, “professionalism” has changed from having a negative connotation to having a positive one. Nevertheless, some new areas of amateur participation in public life have developed in the last decade, such as neighbourhood watch schemes. Moreover, tens of thousands of “amateurs” are still actively involved in charity work. As well as giving direct help to those in need, they raise money by organizing jumble sales, fetes and flag days (on which they stand in the street collecting money). This voluntary activity is a basic part of British life. It has often been so effective that whole countrywide networks have been set up without any government help at all. It is no accident that many of the world’s largest and most well-known charities (for example, Oxfam, Amnesty International and the Save the Children Fund) began in Britain. Note also that, each year, the country’s blood transfusion service collects over two million donations of blood from unpaid volunteers.

Uk plc: trapped in a time warp?

(abridged)

By M.Martin

The average Briton is perceived as dressing in Harris tweed and Church’s shoes, driving a Jaguar around the lanes of rural England and living in a manor house. Come early evening, he likes nothing better than to relax in a Laura Ashley printed armchair, knock back a Beefeater gin and wonder if it’s cook night off.

Laughable it may be, but it is an image that the British have been happy to peddle abroad for years – and one that might be about to explode in their faces. Britishness is not seen as likeable, approachable or vigorous by the rest of the world. It might be even smothering the kind of skills that could make it a dynamic commercial force in the twenty-first century.

Mythical Britain has persisted because it does help to make money for some companies. Jaguar, Rolls-Royce, Laura Ashley, among others, all do very nicely, helping to make the UK the fifth-largest exporting nation in the world.

The sad thing is that there are plenty of things at which the British excel, but which are swamped by nostalgia. Alternative Britishness is based in the “think-industries”, those industries where the value lies in conceptualising rather than manufacturing, such as design, advertising, music, media, architecture, computer software and so on. These rely on a future momentum, as surely as Laura Ashley relies on the past.

A land of bowler hats that can boast some of the world’s finest orchestras fostered punk in the 1970s. British financial and banking acumen is world-class; the British advertising and design companies are the first stop for many international advertisers. The UK dominate world media. Yet, few of these strengths are used to promote Britishness.

There has always been an implicit link between a country’s national identity and its commercial profile, with some of the most successful international businesses becoming synonymous with their countries of origin. Coca-Cola is the real thing because it seems to perpetuate the American dream of being young, free and feeling good.

The identity may be doing the British long-term harm culturally and commercially. Walk into “typically British” shops such as Liberty, Fortnum and Mason or Floris, and you walk into a world that eschews shopping as grubby. Fittings seem reminiscent of a country house. Product logos look like family crests. The customer becomes lord of the manor, with the implication that the bread-and-butter transactions take place at the tradesmen’s entrance.

It is an image that promotes the British as class-ridden, and fails to support British commerce as a “no-holds-barred” enterprise. It may be fine for promoting upmarket scents, fabrics and classic cars, but it is not so good for selling computers, hi-fis, etc.

Last year’s Time International survey of 2,500 European executives placed Britain at the top of nations perceived to be in “decline” which is a sign that business perceptions are in line with cultural signals.

Trading on an old-fashioned brand image only stores up problems for the future. The danger for Britain is that it is increasingly perceived as worthy but dated, passive and lacking aspiration. Britishness isn’t evolving. The more tradition is exported, the harder it will be to market anything else.

One respondent in France thought that the British were “good at courtesy and phlegm”, while another described them as “a nation of ugly people with bad taste”. Britain’s so-called special relationship with America seems to have done little to sugar American perceptions, either. “Antiquated and living in the past”, said one. “Britain is narrow, constrained, conventional, stuffy – but I guess quite picturesque”, volunteered another. One respondent in India said: “The British always look down their noses at you”.

Confronted with a list of adjectives, respondents summed up the British as proud, civilised, cultured, arrogant and cold. The five words which were thought to describe them least accurately were: emotional, temperamental, aggressive, adventurous and fun-loving.

Australia and New Zealand still don’t know whether to love or hate their Commonwealth alma mater. They admire Britain’s institutions and democracy, but see the people as intolerant, stuck in their ways and lacking progressive zeal.

The view from Asia has been equally coloured by Britain’s past colonial links. India’s associations tended to be the most generous, with a common respect for culture, class, tradition and history dating back to the relationship before independence. The Far East, on the other hand, showed little such sentiment. And a thriving commercial centre itself, it easily cast Britain as a “has been” nation, bad at business and lacking entrepreneurial zeal.

The most unrelentingly stereotyped view of Britishness came from America. Americans love the accents, countryside and pageantry, but the American view of British industry seemed to have been formed while browsing around a gift shop. Products such as bone china, crystal, knitwear and even scones were singled out as among national biggest assets. Britain stood accused of lacking vitality, excitement and can-do attitude.

Britain’s expertise in design, the arts, media and music certainly emerged alongside these negatives, but they were seen as very secondary. Britain’s cultural life, as well as its commercial brand is ossifying somewhere between 1870 and 1910.

The irony is that it does not have to be this way. Britain’s strengths have always lain in the tension between old and new, and the ability to marry both, even if it has not always turned those ideas into mass-market opportunities.

The British are eccentric and good at ideas, often brilliantly combining the old and the new, while others follow the lead. Westwood deconstructs styles and fabrics in a way that would terrify many French and Italian designers. Car manufacturers such as Jaguar and Range Rover revel in tradition styling while managing to hint at progressiveness.

“The best ideas come out of paradoxes, and it’s a peculiarly British thing built on our odd class system. We are historically quite relaxed, and that has promoted a unique sensibility that is good at things like music and design”, says Peter York who gave a lecture on the concept of Britishness as a dynamic between past and present. “Britishness thrives between two extremes. Britain is unquestionably at its best when it’s doing something paradoxical. That’s what comes of having a very old an sophisticated culture and a language crammed with synonyms, which allows great flexibility of thought.

Globalisation will demand maximum ideas with the minimum of hardware – an ideal combination for the British mentality. The scene is already set for the UK to become a cradle of invention as Europe’s most deregulated telecommunications marketplace.

“All our assumptions about mass production are out of the window. There is an increasing global phenomenon in business and industry of people falling back on ideas. The British have an immensely long and rich culture of ideas, and that’s going to have a greater economic value that turning out widgets. It’s something a lot of our competitors haven’t got. We may be totally useless at making computers, but we are outstandingly good at software”.

If there is a national identity that will equip the British for these challenges, it must be flexible, fast on its feet and enquiring. It does not sit back in an armchair and feel pleased with itself.