Anglosphere: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:43, 16 January 2006

Definitions of the Anglosphere vary: one definition (depicted, all in blue) includes two "node" countries – England and US – and five "outliers".

The term Anglosphere describes a certain group of Anglophone (English-speaking) states which share historical, political, and ethnocultural characteristics rooted in or attributed to the historical experience of the English people. The term is often used more broadly to describe the English Sprachraum.

The term is usually attributed to science fiction writer Neal Stephenson, who used it in his 1995 novel The Diamond Age (p. 373). It is used in several types of context, for utilitarian as well as political purposes. Its connotations may vary between specific usages; it should be treated with caution because of possible implicit content. Its first published use after Stephenson was in an article by James C. Bennett titled "Canada's World Advantage" for the Canadian newspaper, The National Post, in an article dated 4 January 2000, p. A16.

Definitions and membership

Definitions of the Anglosphere vary. Stephenson used the term to describe fictional Atlantans who, when immigrating to London, were "poor in equity but rich in expectations". John Ibbitson of the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail identified five core English-speaking countries with common sociopolitical heritage and goals: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. According to Bennett, founder of The Anglosphere Institute, the Anglosphere

... as a network civilization ... without a corresponding political form, has necessarily imprecise boundaries. Geographically, the densest nodes of the Anglosphere are found in the United States and the United Kingdom, while Anglophone regions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and South Africa are powerful and populous outliers. The educated English-speaking populations of the Caribbean, Oceania, Africa and India pertain to the Anglosphere to various degrees. [1]

Proponents and critics

The term was popularised in its current meaning by James C. Bennett and the historian Robert Conquest, during the opening years of the 21st century. Mark Steyn, a journalist for the London Daily Telegraph, started to write about it on 1 December 2001.

Its usage has been criticised, as an obvious and divisive application of ethnocentrism to diplomacy. Michael Ignatieff has written against the thoughtless use of the term. While it has certainly been used in a tendentious way, the coinage also fills a gap in the English vocabulary, corresponding closely to the French language phrase le monde anglo-saxon.

There is a clear connection with Atlanticism, a longer-recognised concept of international relations. Naturally, this is only a partial overlap, leaving out the Pacific position of Australia and New Zealand.

For more, see Critical views

Bonding qualities

In a political context, the Anglosphere is largely comprised of the United Kingdom and some of its former colonies, including prior and current members of the Commonwealth of Nations, all of which share a great deal more than a language:

Anglospherism is assuredly not the racialist Anglo-Saxonism dating from the era around 1900, nor the sentimental attachment of the Anglo-American Special Relationship of the decades before and after World War II.... Anglo-Saxonism relied on underlying assumptions of an Anglo-Saxon race, and sought to unite racial "cousins." ... Anglospherism is based on the intellectual understanding of the roots of both successful market economies and constitutional democracies in strong civil society. [2]

These territories have many common features, most of which come from their shared history. These include:

democratic, British-inspired political institutions (legislative houses, regular elections, strong executive branch, respect for the rule of law)
common law legal system (trial by judge and/or jury, etc)
capitalist, free market economies
predominantly Protestant Christian religious traditions, although there are also large Catholic populations and other significant religious minorities.
the entire English-language corpus of literature, philosophy, poetry, and theatre, though this complements native cultural counterparts and innovations (e.g. Hollywood, Bollywood, Celtic culture) rather than supplanting them.

Some exceptions obviously apply, for example the United States has a republican system of government while the others have constitutional monarchies, Scotland, Quebec, and Louisiana do not use Common Law, and so on.

The Anglosphere nations also share many other similarities, including high economic prosperity, firmly established civil rights and personal freedoms, and high levels of global cultural influence.

These reasons and others make the Anglosphere different from other English-speaking international groups, notably the Commonwealth of Nations.

Anglosphere co-operation and common ground

Anglosphere nations have a history of co-operation and close political ties. A network of varying military alliances as well as intelligence arrangements exists between all five nations, and some are in free trade areas with each other. The countries of the Anglosphere were military allies in major world conflicts in the 20th century, most importantly World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. The United States, the UK, and Australia co-operated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while other NATO allies of the United States did not participate.

On the other hand, the group is in no sense a bloc. During the 1950s and 1960s the Suez crisis and Vietnam War caused divisions on how to approach regional conflicts. Common ground has not always been attainable between the Anglosphere members. During the 1980s New Zealand adopted an anti-nuclear policy, and declared a nuclear-free zone around the country. Visiting United States warships that could not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear arms were thus banned from entering New Zealand ports. This led to a period of ostracism of New Zealand, an ally in previous conflicts.

Polls have shown that most citizens of Anglosphere nations regard other Anglosphere countries as their closest "friends and allies". The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are usually named as the United States' closest friends and allies, while the other nations routinely list the US and Britain at the top of their lists; in the UK, the popularity of the US has waned somewhat since the Iraq war, reflecting to some extent Western Europe's downward trend in the polled public standing of the US.

The Anglosphere nations freely interchange cultural materials. Certain actors, directors, movies, literature, and TV shows enjoy high levels of popularity across the Anglosphere nations. Of course the USA remains the largest global exporter in film, television and music; within the United States, many prominent actors and some musicians originate from other Anglosphere nations. Stars such as Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman often appear to transcend their birth nationalities, and instead adopt a cross-cultural identity that have earned them great popularity with fans of all five nations. The Anglosphere's main cultural divide continues to be over sports, which vary considerably from nation to nation, with different forms of 'football', cricket, rugby, ice hockey, and baseball having different popularities.

Anglosphere Institute on the role of civil society

The Anglosphere Institute thinktank has been a proponent of the idea that there is something intrinsic and distinctive about the Anglosphere countries as societies. It brings forward a definition of civil society:

A civil society is one that is built of a vast network of networks. These networks start with the individual and the families, community organizations, religious congregations, social organizations, and businesses created by individuals coming together voluntarily. Continuing up through the local, regional, national, and international networks, the tying together of local organizations creates civil societies, which in turn beget civic states. Such states are based on the notion that authority begins at the local and community level and is gradually built upwards to deal with wider-scale issues. [3]

It argues that, historically speaking,

The entrepreneurial cultures of the Quakers of Pennsylvania and northern England, the Methodists of northern and midland England and America, and the Calvinists of New England and Scotland seem to have fundamentally contributed to the emergence, development, and continuing dominance of the industrial and information revolutions.

and that

Democracy and free markets are effects of a strong civil society and strong civic state, not causes. [...] We know that a society containing strong networks of voluntary association also develops means of expressing the interests of those networks to the state.

Similar points have also been argued by Gertrude Himmelfarb in her recent book Roads to Modernity (2004).

Critical views

The Anglosphere is a minor factor in discussion of international relations, compared with some other current political trends; but it has attracted some debate. Critical views overlap, but there are a number of main schools of thought.

Regionalists

Some believe that the idea of cultural alliances is a distraction from regionally-based unions or partners, such as NAFTA and The Americas in United States, the European Union for the United Kingdom or greater Asia for Australia and New Zealand. In some countries (Canada, New Zealand) regionalism is however feared by some: the loss of economic and cultural ties with Britain and other nations is a force tending to a closer, and possibly more dependent and disadvantaged, relationship with their relatively larger neighbours (the United States and Australia respectively).

Regionalists tend to be on the left wing. In America they tend to favour immigration from South and Central America. In the UK, Australasia, and Canada, critics may see America as representing a type of cultural and economic conservatism, which they believe should be avoided. There is also unease that the argument towards cultural allegiances is a proxy for racism: that is to say, it encourages partnerships with white nations in geographically diverse, and often far-off locations rather than ones with closer, ethnically different neighbours.

Realists

Some of the most telling criticism of the Anglosphere has been from the realist side. The clash between realists and Anglospherists may be sharper than any clash with another school.

Realists argue that it is dangerous for one power to see itself as having a permanent alliance with another power whose interests in a few years may be at odds with their own.

The most notable clash between Anglospherists and realists came during the Suez crisis, when the United States and Canada refused to support the UK over the Anglo-French Suez Canal intervention (with Israel's collusion). A second spot of tension came during the Falklands War, during which some realists in the Administration of US President Ronald Reagan encouraged the US not to support the British side of the conflict. In the end the realists lost however, and America ultimately sided with the UK. Most recently since 2003, the Iraq War emphasised differences. Canada and New Zealand refused to support combat actvities conducted by the coalition with the other three countries (other than with small contingents engaged in ancillary activities).

Autonomists

Autonomists criticise the Anglosphere concept from the cultural side. They argue that the culture of a particular society is either largely home grown, or consists of many more factors than simple heritage from the "Anglosphere". The Anglosphere concept tends generally to underestimate the non-English cultures: such as the Scotch-Irish, Irish, German, Dutch and Québécois cultures. In all member states, there is wide variation from the supposed distinctive characteristics of the Anglosphere.

For example, it is an oversimplification to depict a typically "southern British" individualist outlook on society as generally true of "Anglo-Saxon" society. There is also a "northern Britain"; that is, a strand of thinking more in tune with Scandinavian political thinking. American culture, in part at least, has been divorced from Britain for too long to be regarded as congruent.

For example, Americans are more likely to be friendly to free enterprise, and the British to the mixed economy and welfare state. Since the American War of Independence American and British experiences have greatly diverged, Britain's experience of the Empire in India and Africa not being shared by Americans. Furthermore, the shared experiences of two World Wars were not at all the same experience, the particular British reaction being formative of much of the post-war culture.

In America autonomists tend to be natural cultural conservatives, while in Australasia they tend to the left. In Britain they fall across the political spectrum (see though Merry England).

Critics of Neo-Liberalism

Other critics treat the Anglosphere concept as political rhetoric, with aims they claim are identifiable. They ask who has introduced the term "Anglosphere," how it has been used, and in whose favour. This involves analysis of the contemporary political situation.

They argue that Thatcherite and Reaganite apologists have used it to try to consolidate the political position they achieved during the 1980s and first half of the 1990s. Proponents of the Anglosphere argue that a characteristic of Anglo-Saxon dominated societies is that civil society, individualism and voluntarism all play a larger role than in other "cultural spheres".

Critics of this position call this a post hoc justification. Margaret Thatcher's administration was anti-corporatist. It was also centralising, in certain ways, with local government less autonomous and financially more constrained. Just to call some gaps left by the withdrawal of the older corporate forces "civil society" is not an analysis. As well, some critics have argued that some of what has emerged as "civil society" are forces that still serve corporatist aims.

The core-and-satellite model

When considering for purpose of argument a six-country Anglospheric model (USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand), the Anglosphere is made up of three regions, each split into a core and satellite state. Namely

These in turn consist of pairs of countries: a larger dominant "core" and a smaller subsidary "satellite", as follows:

United States of America + Canada
United Kingdom + Republic of Ireland
Australia + New Zealand

The association of an entire cultural region with the dominant "core" nation state is typically resented by the smaller "satellite" state. Irish, Canadian, and New Zealand identity is to some extent defined by its otherness, in a sort of "sibling mentality". Compare the relationship between New Zealand and Australia to that of Canada and USA, and a number of parallels exist. Arguably the satellite states have developed a worldview and foreign policy that places a greater emphasis on multilateral rather than unilateral institutions. Certainly Ireland has been first a neutral nation, then oriented towards the EU. This tendency was illustrated during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq which saw the Anglosphere satellite states (Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand) refuse to involve themselves, in direct contrast to the three core states (USA, UK, and Australia).

Historical perspectives

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all former colonies of the United Kingdom, and were settled by migrants from the United Kingdom. The similarities of these countries, it is sometimes argued, manifest certain historical conditions which they have all faced.

Anglosphere nations have a history of co-operation and close political ties. A network of varying military alliances as well as intelligence arrangements exists between all five nations, and some are in free trade areas with each other. The countries of the Anglosphere were military allies in the majority of major world conflicts in the 20th century. The United States, the UK, and Australia continued in this vein in their cooperation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a venture in which other close military allies of the United States did not participate.

The United Kingdom and the European 'Continent'

Seeking to make a distinctions between the Anglosphere and other countries of Europe or European Union ("the continent", or "continental Europe", as it is sometimes referred to) comes down to identifying key differences between the United Kingdom and the other members of the European Union. Arguing that the Anglosphere is culturally different from "Continental Europe" assumes inter alia that there is a unified "continental" European culture, something which is not supported by historical perspective.

There are certainly key cultural differences between Britain and individual European states (e.g. France or Italy), but it would be difficult to sustain an argument that the culture of the UK is in some way unique in its distinctiveness when set against the massive diversity of "the continent" as a whole. It is possible to probe the continent's internal diversity by reflecting on the cultural similarities and differences of the following pairs of countries: Finland and Portugal, Lithuania and Italy, Bulgaria and Norway. However, if one is to generalise, the United Kingdom is perceived by most commentators to be more culturally similar to the near neighbour countries of northern and western Europe (e.g. Ireland, Netherland, Sweden) and less similar to those of southern and south-eastern Europe (e.g. Italy, Greece, Bulgaria).

Cultural differences: The example of the UK & France

Advocates of the view that British culture is distinct from 'European' culture, often draw on France as an example. Whilst it possible to gain important insights into both cultures by probing the culture differences between the two states, there are undoubtedly many more cultural similiarities than differences two countries that are geographically close (France is the UK's nearest neighbouring state) and whose history and language are deeply intertwined (reference the history of the two states since 1066, the date of the Norman invasion of 'England' and victory over the Saxons at the Battle of Hastings).

In the Middle Ages, England and France vied for dominance in Europe; following the Protestant Reformation, this conflict had a religious dimension. From the 17th century onward, as both countries conquered extensive empires, each country attempted to increase its colonial possessions and prevent the other from doing so. Although both countries have lost their empires and are now members of the European Union, it is certainly true that some traces of Anglo-French rivalry remain.

It is perceived by some that there is a clear and sharp distinction between Anglophone and Francophone cultures. As noted before, this distinction fails to recognise the profound influence that each of these cultural and linguistic spheres has had on the other. After the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, French remained the language of the English aristocracy for three hundred years. A large number of French words have entered the everyday vocabulary of the English language (e.g. agree, brave, carry, define, empire, etc.) More recently, the forces of Globalisation and technical innovation have also increased the number of words that are common to the two languages (e.g. bus, casting, fax, leader, missile, etc.).

The USA and continental European influence

Regardless of the distance separating America from Europe (unlike Britain's proximity), the country invited European immigration during the 19th and 20th centuries. The total number of immigrants from other European countries vastly outnumbered the original British settlers. Louisiana was originally a French colony with French settlers; and New York was originally a Dutch colony called New Amsterdam. There were numerous non-British influences in America. All manner of Continental European cultures are now fused in the United States.

About 70% of Americans have some English ancestry. On the other hand 8.7% of Americans claim to have Majority English ancestries, with other British groups such as the Scottish, Welsh and Scotch-Irish each making up less than 2% of the population. The top three ancestries in the United States are German (15.2%), Irish (10.8%), and African (8.8%). Italians making (5.6%), Polish (3.2%) and French (3%) were also named as major self-identified continental European ancestries. The Irish, although today predominantly English-speaking, were mostly Irish Gaelic speakers outside the Dublin and Belfast areas, until around the middle of the 19th century. They cannot clearly be considered culturally Anglospheric, for reasons of history, politics, and self-identification.

America has a history of direct contact with Europe, other than through Britain's affairs. When Italy was united, the Mafia left for the US and coordinated their rings back and forth between New York, Chicago and Sicily. IRA activists operated out of Boston and New York City. Slavic peoples fleeing Communism entered the United States and settled largely in the Midwest. New York is home to a large Ashkenazi Jewish population, as is London.

The United Kingdom and the 'continental' experience: political history

Proponents of the concept of Anglosphere argue that no English-speaking country ever was ruled by an absolute monarch. Hence none has ever seen the effectiveness and sheer dominance of such rulers as Peter the Great of Russia, Frederick the Great of Prussia, or King Louis XIV of France. No English-speaking country had to form political groups to struggle against an existing absolute rule.

On the other hand, the idea that English-speaking countries share a common culture because of something they didn't have appears to be based on a logical fallacy. One might as well say that their common culture is based on the fact that they didn't have the Chinese language. The English Civil War can be quite well be considered as a struggle against attempts by English kings to establish an absolute monarchy.

Those who argue for the superiority of English political culture over the French Republican tradition sometimes suggest that the French Revolution of 1789 did not constitute an advance in civilisation. More accurately, they point instead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

This belittles the lasting effect of the French Revolution on the global political landscape, for example through the concepts of manhood suffrage, and human rights. It also rejects the idea that philosophers could be serious constitutional theorists. Even restricting discussion to the United Kingdom and United States, it fails to recognise the immense influence of English philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill on the shape of politics. English political thought relates in a more complex way to the Enlightenment than this suggests, and that can be said both of conservative and liberal thinkers. Since the USA has a strong Enlightenment political tradition, none of this really supports the idea of commonality in the Anglosphere.

Democratic reforms started earlier in the UK, with Catholic Emancipation in 1829, propelled by the economic and social changes spoken of as the Industrial Revolution. The process took a century to complete, however, if universal suffrage is taken as the marker. Other European countries overlapped in particular reforms. The character of UK politics differed in several ways from those prevalent in continental Europe, with anti-clericalism largely absent and feeling against the monarchy rarely politicised, British socialism more closely allied with the Protestant religious tradition and British right-wing and nationalist thinking largely moderated by Disraeli's conservative thought (if one excepts the Irish Home Rule question, to 1922). As a result, Continental European politics appears to be more driven by partisan feeling.

Institutional history

In general Anglospheric countries did not suffer abrupt changes in institutions, caused by the end of the ancien regime. A certain residual chauvinism against the metric system is symptomatic in the USA and UK. Australia, Canada and New Zealand on the other hand, have fully embraced the metric system except for the occasional idiom.

English-speaking countries, except for the state of Louisiana, and parts of Canada, have not had legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. The case of Scotland is considered anomalous, since its system is an older system largely independent of common law.

No English-speaking country ever had a government installed by Napoleon, though there were some Bonapartists in England. The foreign princes (Dutch and German following the Glorious Revolution) ruling in England were in theory constitutional monarchs, on sufferance.

No English-speaking country (pace Ireland) had the secret police that existed throughout Europe in the late eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century, and which were brought to a higher level under Napoleon. (This ignores some facts about British government actions, in particular in the Jacobin scares of the 1790s; it might be defended as a broad description of policy, such as the non-recognition of a minister for the Interior).

Against this one can argue that the UK and USA have in fact fundamental divergences in a number of aspects of their institutions. These include separation of religion and politics, the constitutions and the monarchy. Analogies between the UK, largely run from Whitehall, and the USA, which is a federal political system, are treacherous.

Legacy of the twentieth century

The consequences of the World War I did not result in fascism or communism being adopted in the Anglosphere; there were fascist and communist sympathisers, but they never gained political power except in some very limited ways. None of the countries was occupied by the Fascist powers, if one discounts the German occupation of the Channel Islands.

The philosophical trends in Britain, with logical positivism gaining at one point the upper hand, and in the United States, with a consistent strand of interest in types of pragmatism, differ from the existentialism and later philosophical trends in continental Europe. This distinction became sharp around 1930.

Identity cards were used in the UK in World War II, but were withdrawn some years after its end. Otherwise identity documents have not been required. (This may however change since proposals are again being floated for identity cards, to combat crime, terrorism and illegal immigration.)

Discussion of Anglo-American diplomacy is often formulated, from the UK side, in terms of the existence and health of the special relationship, mostly harking back to the years 1941 to 1945 of very close alliance. This could be called a 'Churchillian' formulation; talk about the Anglosphere is in some sense a reformulation to suit policy discussion from Washington's perspective.

The Anglosphere has cemented itself in formal alliances, such as that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and ANZUS, and is more directly manifested in the existence of the UKUSA Community, an intelligence-gathering alliance formed by Anglosphere members.

Trends as of 2006

It is possible to point to a number of the supposed differences between the "Anglosphere" and "continental Europe" which are (as of 2006) being eroded. There has been an increase in centralised state control in the UK, examples being the National Curriculum, and the proposed introduction of identity cards in the UK.

Police powers have been recently expanded in the USA post-9/11. The REAL ID Act in the US centralizes state-issued identification cards.

Samuel P. Huntington, in his controversial work Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (2004), claimed that America's national identity is largely based on Anglo-Protestant culture. The book argues, however, that Latino culture is some kind of 'threat' to that heritage; in other words, the USA is subject to a centrifugal pull towards Latin America.

External links

An Anglosphere Primer. Bennett's summary of what he believes the concept to be about
The Anglosphere Challenge Online book
The Anglosphere Institute Official website
[4] A summary of various definitions/citations for the term "Anglosphere"
James C. Bennett, UPI, April 12, 2003 - Anglosphere: why do they hate us? Discusses the Anglosphere and the continental "industrial counter-revolution." Also discusses the historic role of Jews in continental European culture, their status as a bellwether, and the effects of their current absence.

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 ===Realists===
-Some of the most telling criticism of the Anglosphere has been from the realist side. The clash between realists and Anglospherists may be sharper than any clash with another school.
+Some of the most telling criticism of the Anglosphere has been from the [[realist]] side. The clash between realists and Anglospherists may be sharper than any clash with another school.
 Realists argue that it is dangerous for one power to see itself as having a permanent alliance with another power whose interests in a few years may be at odds with their own.