Discuss the following problematic issues with regard to American values and assumptions

1. Nobody’s going to hand you success on a silver platter.

2. “Equality of opportunity”. Can there ever really such a thing?

3. My father taught me to work, but not to love it. (Abraham Lincoln)

4. Why is it difficult to define an “average” American?

5. Explain the impact of immigration on American values and assumptions.

6. How do you explain the tremendous success in other countries of American programs such as Sesame Street, Dallas, or Dynasty?

7. Make a list of characteristics that you personally consider typical of Americans. Discuss your views in class.

8. There can be no freedom without discipline.

9. What would you consider the greatest contribution the US has made to
the civilized world?

10. “The end justifies the means”.

11. “When prosperity knocks at the door, communication flies out of
the window”.

Assignments

1. Enlarge upon the following abstract notions that you come across in the text: responsibility, privacy, informality, productivity, self-confidence, efficiency, equality, self-reliance, assertiveness, free enterprise, self-control, acquisitiveness, individualism, competitiveness, delayed gratifications.

2. Complete the right-hand column of the chart given below. Match the US values with their counterparts from a mere traditional country.

Personal Control over the environment/Responsibility

Change seen as Natural and Positive

Time and Control

Equality/Fairness

Individualism/Independence

Self-Help/Initiative

Competition

Future Orientation

Action/Work Orientation

Informality

Directness/Openness/Honesty

Practicality/Efficiency

Materialism/Acquisitiveness

3. Look through the following word-combinations and make sure that you can use them correctly.

to consider smth normal and right

to have control over smth

to look out for one’s self-interests

to lie beyond the power of humans

to be strongly linked to progress and growth

to achieve some accomplishments

to be concerned with getting things accomplished

to be late for an appointment

to keep busy every minute

to work toward specific goals

toтhaveтanтequalтopportunityтto succeed

to differ in opinion on (about) smth

to have an aversion to treating people in a deferential way

to be individualistic in one’s thoughts and actions

toтhaveтaтstronglyтnegative connotation

to vote for a party

toтtakeтprideтinтclaiming individualism

to pride oneself in doing smth

toтtakeтcreditтforтone’s accomplishments

to climb (move up) the difficult ladder of success

toтbringтoutт(theтbest/worst)тinт
an individual

to devise an economic system

to foster competition

to devalue the past

to be unconscious of the present

to direct energy toward doing smth

to culminate in smth worthwhile

toтscheduleтanтactiveтday-toтday dream

to be addicted to one’s work

toтidentifyтoneselfтwhollyтwith
a profession

to engage in physical labour

to be (dis)respectful of people

to call smb/ by his/her first name

to be honest in doing smth

to be shocked at American bluntness

to save (lose) face

to soften the blow of directness

to lose confidence in smb

toтhaveтaтreputationтforтbeing practical and efficient people

to be given highest priority in making a decision

to contribute inventions to the world

“trial-and-error” approach

to list solutions to any given problem

to result from hard work and serious intent

to collect material objects

to value newness and innovation

TEXT 3. THE UNITED KINGDOM

There is, perhaps, an excuse for people who use the word “England” when they mean “Britain”. It cannot be denied that the dominant culture of Britain today is specifically English. The system of politics that is used in all four nations today is of English origin, and English is the main language of all four nations. Many aspects of everyday life are organized according to English custom and practice. But the political unification of Britain was not achieved by mutual agreement. On the contrary, it happened because England was able to exert her economic and military power over the other three nations.

When you are talking to people from Britain, it is safest to use “Britain” when talking about where they live and “British” as the adjective to describe their nationality. This way you will be less likely to offend anyone. It is, of course, not wrong to talk about “people in England” if that is what you mean – people who live within the geographical boundaries of England. After all, most British people live there. But it should always be remembered that England does not make up the whole of the UK.

There are certain stereotypes of national character which are well known in Britain. For instance, the Irish are supposed to be great talkers, the Scots have a reputation for being careful with money, and the Welsh are renowned for their singing ability. These characteristics are, of course, only caricatures and are not reliable descriptions of individual people from these countries. Nevertheless, they indicate some slight differences in the value, attached to certain kinds of behaviour in the countries concerned.

People in modern Britain are very conscious of class differences. They regard it as difficult to become friends with somebody from a different class. This feeling has little to do with conscious loyalty, and nothing to do with
a positive belief in the class system itself. Most people say they do not approve of class divisions. Nor does it have very much to do with political or religious affiliations. It results from the fact that the different classes have different sets of attitudes and daily habits. Typically, they tend to eat different food at different times of day (and call the meals by different names they like to talk about different topics using different styles and accents of English, they enjoy different pastimes and sports, they have different values about what things in life are most important and different ideas about the correct way to behave. Stereotypically, they go to different kinds of school.

An interesting feature of the class structure in Britain is that it is not just, or even mainly, relative wealth or the appearance of it, which determines someone’s class. Of course, wealth is part of it – if you become wealthy, you can provide the conditions to enable your children to belong to a higher class than you do. But it is not always possible to guess reliably the class to which
a person belongs by looking at his or her clothes, car or bank balance. The most obvious and immediate sign comes when a person opens his or her mouth, giving the listener clues to the speaker’s attitudes and interests, both of which are indicative of class.

But even more indicative than what the speaker says is the way that he or she says it. The English grammar and vocabulary which is used in public speaking, radio and television news broadcasts, books and newspapers (and also – unless the lessons are run by Americans – as a model for learners of English as a foreign language) is known as “standard British English”. Most working-class people, however, use lots of words and grammatical forms in their everyday speech which are regarded as “non-standard”.

Nevertheless, nearly everybody in the country is capable of using standard English (or something very close to it) when they judge that
the situation demands it. They are taught to do so at school. Therefore,
the clearest indication of a person’s class is often his or her accent. Most people cannot change this convincingly to suit the situation. The most prestigious accent in Britain is known as “Received Pronunciation” (RP). It is
the combination of standard English spoken with an RP accent that is usually meant when people talk about “BBC English” or “Oxford English” or
“the Queen’s English”.

RP is not associated with any particular part of the country. The vast majority of people, however, speak with an accent which is geographically limited. In England and Wales, anyone who speaks with a strong regional accent is automatically assumed to be working class. Conversely, anyone with an RP accent is assumed to be upper or upper-middle class.

During the last quarter of the twentieth century, the way that people wish to identify themselves seems to have changed. In Britain, as anywhere else where there are recognised social classes, a certain amount of “social climbing” goes on; that is, people try to appear as if they belong to as high a class as possible. These days, however nobody wants to be thought of as snobbish.
The word “posh” illustrates this tendency. It is, used by people from all classes to mean “of a class higher than the one I (the speaker) belong to” and it is normally used with negative connotations. To accuse someone of being posh is to accuse them of being pretentious.

Working-class people in particular are traditionally proud of their class membership and would not usually wish to be thought of as belonging to any other class. Interestingly, a survey conducted in the early 1990s showed that
the proportion of people who describe themselves as working class is actually greater than the proportion whom sociologists would classify as such! This is one manifestation of a phenomenon known as “inverted snobbery”, whereby middle-class people try to adopt working-class values and habits. They do this in the belief that the working classes are in some way “better” (for example, more honest than the middle classes).

In this egalitarian climate, the unofficial segregation of the classes in Britain has become less rigid than it was. A person whose accent shows that he or she is working class is no longer prohibited from most high status jobs for that reason alone. Nobody takes elocution lessons any more in order to sound more upper class. It is now acceptable for radio and television presenters to speak with “an accent” (i.e. not to use strict RP). It is also notable that, at
the time of writing, none of the last five British Prime Ministers went to
an elitist school for upper-class children, while almost every previous Prime Minister in history did.

In general, the different classes mix more readily and easily with each other than they used to. There has been a great increase in the number of people from working-class origins who are house-owners and who do traditionally middle-class jobs. The lower and middle classes have drawn closer to each other in their attitudes.

Social and everyday contacts

British people give a relatively high value to the everyday personal contacts that they make. Some writers on Britain have talked about the British desire to “belong”, and it is certainly true that the pub, or the working man’s club, or the numerous other clubs devoted to various sports and pastimes play
a very important part in many people’s lives. In these places people forge contacts with other people who share some of the same interests and attitudes. For many people these contacts are an important part of their social identity. Another factor is work. Many people make their social contacts through work and, partly as a result of this, the profession or skill which they practise is also an important aspect of their sense of identity. However, since British people do not spend more of their free time out of the house than most other Europeans do, these means of self-identification should not be over-emphasized.

Perhaps because of the long tradition of a clear separation between
the individual and the state, British people, although many of them feel proud to be British, are not normally actively patriotic. They often feel uncomfortable if, in conversation with somebody from another country, that person refers to “you” where “you” means Britain or the British government. They are individualistic and do not like to feel that they are personally representing their country.

During the last quarter of the twentieth century there has been a dramatic and severe loss of confidence in British public institutions. Nearly one third of the people questioned in an opinion poll in the early 1990s said that they could think of nothing about Britain to be proud of. In addition, almost half said that they would emigrate if they could – suggesting a low degree of attachment to the country. This decrease in confidence has been accompanied by a change in the previous rather patronizing attitude to foreigners and foreign ways. In
the days of empire, foreigners were often considered amusing, even interesting, but not really to be taken seriously. These days, many foreign ways of doing things are admired (although perhaps a bit resentfully) and there is a greater openness to foreign influences.

Along with this openness, however, goes a sense of vulnerability, so that patriotism often takes a rather defensive form. For instance, there are worries about the loss of British identity in the European Union. This is perhaps why
the British cling so obstinately to certain distinctive ways of doing things, such as driving on the left and using different systems of measurement.

The modern British are not really chauvinistic. Open hostility to people from other countries is very rare. If there is any chauvinism at all, it expresses itself through ignorance. Most British people know remarkably little about Europe and who lives there. The popular image of Europe seems to be that it is something to do with the French.

The British continue to be very bad about learning other peoples’ languages. Fluency in any European language other than English is generally regarded as exotic. But there is nothing defensive or deliberate about this attitude. The British do not refuse to speak other languages. They are just lazy.

Stereotypes and change

Societies change over time while their reputations lag behind. Many things which are often regarded as typically British derive from books, songs or plays which were written a long time ago and which are no longer representative of modern life. One example of this is the popular belief that Britain is a “land of tradition”. This is what most tourist brochures claim.
The claim is based on what can be seen in public life and on centuries of political continuity. And at this level – the level of public life – it is undoubtedly true. The annual ceremony of the state opening of Parliament, for instance, carefully follows customs, which are centuries old.

However, in their private everyday lives, the British as individuals are probably less inclined to follow tradition that is the people of most other countries. There are very few ancient customs that are followed by the majority of families on special occasions. The country has fewer local parades or processions with genuine folk roots than most other countries have. The English language has fewer sayings or proverbs that are in common everyday use than many other languages do. The British are too individualistic for these things. In addition, it should be noted that they are the most enthusiastic video – watching people in the world – the very opposite of a traditional pastime!

There are many examples of supposedly typical British habits which are simply not typical any more. For example, the stereotyped image of the London “city gent” includes the wearing of a bowler hat. In fact, this type of hat has not been commonly worn for a long time. Food and drink provide other examples. The traditions “British” (or “English”) breakfast is a large “fry-up” preceded by cereal with milk and followed by toast, butter and marmalade, all washed down with lots of tea.

In fact, only about 10% of the people in Britain actually have this sort of breakfast. Two-thirds have cut out the fry-up and just have the cereal, tea and toast. The rest have even less. What the vast majority of British people have in the mornings is therefore much closer to what they call a “continental” (i.e. European) breakfast than it is to a “British” one. The image of the British as
a nation of tea-drinkers is another stereotype which is somewhat out of date. It is true that it is still prepared in a distinctive way (strong and with milk), but more coffee than tea is now bought in the country’s shops. As for the tradition of afternoon tea with biscuits, scones, sandwiches or cake, this is a minority activity, largely confined to retired people and the leisured upper-middle class (although preserved in teashops in tourist resorts).

Even when a British habit conforms to the stereotype, the wrong conclusions can sometimes be drawn from it. The supposed British love of queuing is an example. Yes, British people do form queues whenever they are waiting for something, but this does not mean that they enjoy it. In 1992,
a survey found that the average wait to pay in a British supermarket was three minutes and twenty-three seconds, and that the average wait to be served in
a bank was two minutes and thirty-three seconds. You might think that these times sound very reasonable. But The Sunday Times newspaper did not think so. It referred to these figures as a “problem”. Some banks now promise to serve their customers “within two minutes”. It would therefore seem wrong to conclude that their habit of queuing shows that the British are a patient people. Apparently, the British hate having to wait and have less patience than people in many other countries.

English versus British

Because English culture dominates the cultures of the other three nations of the British Isles, everyday habits, attitudes and values among the peoples of the four nations are very similar. However, they are not identical, and what is often regarded as typically British may in fact be only typically English. This is especially true with regard to one notable characteristic – anti-intellectualism.

Among many people in Britain, there exists a suspicion of intelligence, education and “high culture”. Teachers and academic staff, although respected, do not have as high a status as they do in most other countries. Nobody normally proclaims their academic qualifications or title to the world at large. No professor would expect, or want, to be addressed as “Professor” on any but the most formal occasion. There are large sections of both the upper and working class in Britain who, traditionally at least, have not encouraged their children to go to university. This lack of enthusiasm for education is certainly decreasing. Nevertheless, it is still unusual for parents to arrange extra private tuition for their children, even among those who can easily afford it.

Anti-intellectual attitudes are held consciously only by a small proportion of the population, but an indication of how deep they run in society is that they are reflected in the English language. To refer to a person as somebody who “gets all their ideas from books” is to speak of them negatively. The word “clever” often has negative connotations. It suggests someone who uses trickery, a person who cannot quite be trusted (as in the expression “too clever by half”).

Evidence of this attitude can be found in all four nations of the British Isles. However, it is probably better seen as a specifically English characteristic and not a British one. The Scottish have always placed a high value on education for all classes. The Irish of all classes place a high value on being quick, ready and able with words. The Welsh are famous for exporting teachers to other parts of Britain and beyond.

Conservatism

The British have few living folk traditions and are too individualistic to have the same everyday habits as each other. However, this does not mean that they like change. They don’t. They may not behave in traditional ways, but they like symbols of tradition and stability. For example, there are some very untraditional attitudes and habits with regard to the family in modern Britain. Nevertheless, politicians often cite their enthusiasm for “traditional family values” (both parents married and living together, parents as the main source of authority for children etc.) as a way of winning support.

In general, the British value continuity over modernity for its own sake. They do not consider it especially smart to live in a new house and, in fact, there is prestige in living in an obviously old one. They have a general sentimental attachment to older, supposedly safer, times. Their Christmas cards usually depict scenes from past centuries; they like their pubs to look old; they were reluctant to change their system of currency.

The British can be particularly and stubbornly conservative about anything which is perceived as a token of Britishness. In these matters, their conservatism can combine with their individualism; they are rather proud of being different. It is, for example, very difficult to imagine that they will ever agree to change from driving on the left-hand side of the road to driving on
the right. It doesn’t matter that nobody can think of any intrinsic advantage in driving on the left. Why should they change just to be like everyone else? Indeed, as far as they are concerned, not being like everyone else is a good reason not to change.

The love of animals

Rossendale Pet Cemetery in Lancashire is just one example of an animal graveyard in Britain. It was started by a local farmer who ran over his dog with
a tractor. He was so upset that he put up a headstone in memory of his dog. Now, Rossendale has thousands of graves and plots for caskets of ashes, with facilities for every kind of animal, from a budgie to a lioness. Many people are prepared to pay quite large sums of money to give their pets a decent burial
(a trait they share with many Americans). As this example shows, the British tend to have a sentimental attitude to animals. Nearly half of the households in Britain keep at least one domestic pet. Most of them do not bother with such grand arrangements when their pets die, but there are millions of informal graves in people’s back gardens. Moreover, the status of pets is taken seriously. It is, for example, illegal to run over a dog in your car and then keep on driving. You have to stop and inform the owner.

But the love of animals goes beyond sentimental attachment to domestic pets. Wild life programmes are by far the most popular kind of television documentary. Millions of families have “bird tables” in their gardens. These are raised platforms on which birds can feed, safe from local cats, during the winter months. There is even a special hospital which treats injured wild animals.

Perhaps this overall concern for animals is part of the British love of nature. Studies indicating that some wild species of bird or mammal is decreasing in numbers become prominent articles in the national press. Thousands of people are enthusiastic bird watchers. This peculiarly British pastime often involves spending hours lying in wet and cold undergrowth, trying to get a glimpse of some rare species.

Formality and informality

The tourist view of Britain involves lots of formal ceremonies. Some people have drawn the conclusion from this that the British are rather formal in their general behaviour. This is not true. There is a difference between observing formalities and being formal in everyday life. Attitudes towards clothes are a good indication of this difference. It all depends on whether
a person is playing a public role or a private role. When people are “on duty”, they have to obey some quite rigid rules. A male bank employee, for example, is expected to wear a suit with a tie, even if he cannot afford a very smart one. So are politicians. There was once a mild scandal during the 1980s because
the Leader of the Opposition wore clothes on a public occasion which were considered too informal.

On the other hand, when people are not playing a public role – when they are just being themselves – there seem to be no rules at all. The British are probably more tolerant of “strange” clothing than people in most other countries. You may find, for example, the same bank employee, on his lunch break in hot weather, walking through the streets with his tie round his waist and his collar unbuttoned. He is no longer “at work” and for his employers to criticize him for his appearance would be seen as a gross breach of privacy. Perhaps because of the clothing formalities that many people have to follow during the week, the British, unlike the people of many other countries, like to “dress down” on Sundays. They can’t wait to take off their respectable working clothes and slip into something really scruffy. Lots of men who wear suits during the week can then be seen in old sweaters and jeans, sometimes with holes in them. And male politicians are keen to get themselves photographed not wearing a tie when “officially” on holiday, to show that they are really ordinary people.

This difference between formalities and formality is the key to what people from other countries sometimes experience as a coldness among
the British. The key is this: being friendly in Britain often involves showing that you are not bothering with the formalities. This means not addressing someone by his or her title (Mr, Mrs, Professor etc.), not dressing smartly when entertaining guests, not shaking hands when meeting and not saying “please” when making a request. When they avoid doing these things with you, the British are not being unfriendly or disrespectful, they are implying that you are in the category “friend”, and so all the rules can be ignored. To address someone by his or her title or to say “please” is to observe formalities and therefore to put a distance between the people involved. The same is true of shaking hands. Although this sometimes has the reputation of being a very British thing to do, it is actually rather rare. Most people would do it only when being introduced to a stranger or when meeting an acquaintance (but not
a friend) after a long time. Similarly, most British people do not feel welcomed if, on being invited to somebody’s house, they find the hosts in smart clothes and a grand table set for them. They do not feel flattered by this, they feel intimidated. It makes them feel they can’t relax.

If it is probably true that the British, especially the English, are more reserved than the people of many other countries. They find it comparatively difficult to indicate friendship by open displays of affection. For example, it is not the convention to kiss when meeting a friend. Instead, friendship is symbolized by behaving as casually as possible. If you are in a British person’s house, and you are told to “help yourself” to something, your host is not being rude or suggesting that you are of no importance – he or she is showing that you are completely accepted and just like “one of the family”.

In the last decades of the twentieth century, the general amount of informality has been increasing. Buffet-type meals, at which people do not sit down at a table to eat, are a common form of hospitality. At the same time,
the traditional reserve has also been breaking down. More groups in society now kiss when meeting each other (women and women, and men and women, but still never men and men!).

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.

Reading Comprehension Check