Boris Johnsonâs recent article in the Telegraph, âMy vision for a bold, thriving Britain enabled by Brexitâ, raises a host of troubling issues. Not least, Johnson accuses young people he encounters in Britain, who have the twelve stars of the European Union flag âlip-sticked on their facesâ, of âbeginning to have genuinely split allegiancesâ. He declares himself troubled that âa transnational sense of allegiance can weaken the tiesâ among UK citizens.
It may be worth pausing to reflect on Johnsonâs own split allegiances. The foreign secretary published his views on Britainâs future relations with the EU just days before Theresa Mayâs much-heralded Brexit speech in Florence. The Telegraph article wilfully ignores positions previously agreed by the Cabinet, of which Johnson is a senior member. This is in clear breach of settled constitutional principle. A 2016 House of Commons Library Briefing Paper on Collective Responsibility states that, â[d]ecisions made by the Cabinet are binding on all members of the Government. This means that if a minister disagrees with a government policy, he or she must still publicly support it.â As a former Conservative minister, Ken Clarke, remarked, such behaviour would normally result in the instant sacking of a minister.
Aside from flouting a key constitutional principle, Johnsonâs article, with its dismissive remark about young peopleâs divided or âtransnationalâ identities, is both ignorant and dangerous. Identity is rarely, if ever, a simple or straightforward matter that can be treated as coterminous with membership of a particular nation or state. And, as scholars including Eric Hobsbawm and Benedict Anderson, have pointed out, in historical terms both the ânationâ and ânation statesâ are comparatively recent constructs. Before their emergence, patterns of political identity emphasised religious affiliation or dynastic allegiance.
For most of us, identity is infinitely more subtle, fluid and multi-layered than Johnson suggests. Identity generally draws on diverse elements, including family, community and the country in which a person has spent his or her formative years, as well as moral, religious and political beliefs, gender, occupation and tastes. Johnson would do well to study the writings of the Princeton philosopher, Kwame Anthony Appiah. In an article teasingly entitled, âCosmopolitan Patriotsâ, Appiah sketches out the complex but essentially harmonious web of allegiances of his Ghanaian father:
Join our growing community newsletter!
"Social Europe publishes thought-provoking articles on the big political and economic issues of our time analysed from a European viewpoint. Indispensable reading!"
Columnist for The Guardian
My father was a Ghanaian patriot. He once published a column in the Pioneer, our local newspaper in Kumasi, under the headline “Is Ghana Worth Dying For?” and I know that his heart’s answer was yes. But he also loved Asante, the region of Ghana where he and I both grew up, a kingdom absorbed within a British colony and, then, a region of a new multiethnic republic: a once-kingdom that he and his father also both loved and served. And, like so many African nationalists of his class and generation, he always loved an enchanting abstraction they called Africa.
Multiple allegiances, as in the case of Appiahâs father, are neither unnatural nor invariably detrimental to the national interest. In reality, split or, more properly, cosmopolitan identities reflect the rich and increasingly complex reality of individual lives, particularly in an era of individualism and globalization. There is no reason why someone cannot be both British and Scottish, for example, as well as a convinced European, a proud Glaswegian, an Episcopalian, a pacifist and a vegan. As Amartya Sen argues, in Identity and Violence, efforts to construe individual identity in crude and narrow terms, such as membership of a nation or adherence to a specific creed, are misconceived and intellectually bogus. Johnsonâs assumption that UK citizenship must always be decisive, trumping or excluding other allegiances, is neither warranted nor desirable. British Catholics, for example, should not have to choose, as in the 17th Century, between a British or a Catholic identity. National and religious affiliations may be equally important to a personâs sense of self.
Of course, Johnsonâs bombastic efforts to promote an archaic and restrictive conception of personal identity are self-serving. He is evidently keen to flaunt his unwavering support for a âhardâ Brexit in the belief that such posturing will help him achieve his ambition of replacing May as Conservative Party leader and prime minister. However, Johnsonâs reductive and obsolete notion of political and cultural identity poses significant dangers, not only for cosmopolitan-minded dissenters from the Brexit project and âmeddlesomeâ judges but also for Britainâs ethnic and religious minorities. If loyalty to Britain is defined as the absence of any meaningful sense of a European, transnational or, by extension, foreign identity, then the patriotism of Britainâs ethnic and religious minorities may also be called into question. Applying Johnsonâs rigid and ill-conceived test, British citizens of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Jamaican, Ghanaian, Irish, Italian or Polish ancestry must also be considered potentially suspect. Like Remainers, they can be accused of harboring split allegiances that weaken the bonds that supposedly unite the UKâs citizens.
The rejection of mixed identities and the cultivation of an entirely mythic notion of British solidarity and common purpose is sociologically uninformed, divisive and hazardous. The UKâs departure from the EU will not alter the fact that Britain is an extraordinarily heterogeneous society with sizeable national, ethnic and religious minorities. Encouraging suspicion of split allegiances and of transnational identities is unlikely to foster a more inclusive and generous sense of British identity, which many experts on multiculturalism and race relations, such as Kenan Malik, consider imperative.
Rather than perceiving multiple identities, through Johnsonâs myopic eyes, as unnatural, threatening and enfeebling, we should try to recognize that diversity is both normal and enriching. It is precisely the range and scope of his enthusiasms and loyalties that makes Appiahâs father appear so human and appealing. Surrendering his Asante or pan-African allegiances would not have made him a better Ghanaian. Nor would it have helped to make a better or more attractive Ghana.
While advocating firmer ties among UK citizens, Johnsonâs jingoistic rhetoric may have exactly the opposite effect. Against a background of severe economic disruption (or worse) caused by a shambolic Brexit â for which he bears considerable responsibility – his unequivocal rejection of âsplit allegiancesâ and of transnational identities could all too easily lead to the scapegoating and progressive alienation of Britainâs minorities, with concomitant dangers for social cohesion, national security and the maintenance of a liberal political culture.
Support Social Europe
As you may know, Social Europe is an independent publisher. We aren't backed by a large publishing house, big advertising partners or a multi-million euro enterprise. For the longevity of Social Europe we depend on our loyal readers - we depend on you.