By Nimisha Dave [Edited by Aisha Parmenter and Seren Caglar]
‘‘The Absent-Minded Imperialists’ is trapped in a cul-de-sac.” This is how Antoinette Burton reviewed Bernard Porter’s 2004 book.[i] It is, perhaps, a good representation of how most cultural historians feel about his book. Porter’s publication focused on British culture and society, emphasising the argument that imperialism played a minor role in daily life.[ii]Ironically, the decision to quote Antoinette Burton above came from the realisation that Porter’s main issue with cultural historians is that he feels as though they have been trapped in a cul-de-sac of their own. This is because they all find the need to “read between every line and beneath every brushstroke.”[iii] One of the main aims of his book was to criticise cultural historians such as John MacKenzie for arguing that ‘British society was steeped in empire’.[iv] MacKenzie wrote a response to Porter in 2008 which was titled ‘Comfort and Conviction: A Response to Bernard Porter’.[v] In his article, he raises his main points of contention which were to do with Porter’s methodology, limited scope and lack of challenging existing research. In the same year, Porter authored a response called ‘Further Thoughts on Imperial Absent-Mindedness’, which intended to clarify his arguments whilst reiterating his main points of disagreement.[vi] This essay will evaluate the points of contention, alongside various arguments, to conclude whether or not this debate is productive.
Culture refers to the different types of songs, books, food, entertainment and routine of everyday life. This means that it is a function of identity. One drawback of understanding culture is that it is almost impossible to observe exactly how it adds to one’s identity. Both historians raise important points about culture and imperialism. Porter’s main strength is that he is not a cultural historian and so his findings come across as a breath of fresh air. As for MacKenzie, his greatest strength is that he looks at specific examples and so his assertions hold more validity. There are, however, substantial limitations. For example, the debate is centred around ‘impact’ and ‘influence’, but neither historian mentions the scientific barriers to assessing how people are ‘influenced’. This makes Porter’s work come across as a little dusty. Alongside this, Ireland seems to be a forgotten case when discussing empire, and this must be rectified. Through assessing these limitations and attempting to fill in the gaps created, it will be seen that the Porter-MacKenzie debate is not productive when considering culture and imperialism. The essay will particularly look at the music hall and theatre. In reaching this conclusion, the work of Richard Price, Antoinette Burton, Penny Summerfield, Soniya O. Rose, Catherine Hall and Edward Said will be referred to. The essay will begin by defining ‘impact’ and ‘influence’, followed by assessing Porter’s limitations and then MacKenzie’s.
In Porter’s ‘Further Thoughts on Imperial Absent-Mindedness’ article, he clarifies what he means by ‘impact’ and ‘influence’: "…imperialism and the Empire undoubtedly impacted on Britain mightily […] but not in ways that necessarily percolated through people’s thinking or even their unconsciousness."[vii] This means that even if empire seeped into daily life through forms of books, clothes, art or any other type of culture, it went unnoticed by Britons because it was not a matter of their concern. Whilst this is a straightforward, logical way of thinking, Porter seems to miss the point. Without having looked at his research, this statement allows historians to infer that he takes what he knows about empire at face value. This view can find support from MacKenzie as he argues that Porter ‘turns aside my evidence by failing to grapple with it’.[viii] Contrastingly, Richard Price has also commented on Porter’s collation of evidence and said that he “ploughed through an enormous variety of printed sources, periodicals, memoirs, and governmental documents.”[ix] Unless this is a sarcastic statement, it makes no sense because Porter does not acknowledge or contest any research conducted by other historians. He limits his scope to life pre-1880 as he goes on to argue that:
the ordinary Briton’s relationship to the empire in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was complex and ambivalent, less soaked in or affected by imperialism than these other scholars claimed – to the extent that many English people, at any rate, possibly even a majority, were almost entirely ignorant of it for most of the nineteenth century.[x]
This is a big, and open-ended statement to make for someone who has supposedly heavily research the topic. The only part of the statement above that may hold validity is that Briton’s relationship to Empire in that time frame was complex. Catherine Hall and Soniya O. Rose also agree because they found that “the empire’s influence on the metropole was undoubtedly uneven.”[xi] Both these historians, however, have also argued that “the majority of Briton’s most of the time were probably neither ‘gung-ho’ nor avid anti-imperialists, yet their everyday lives were infused with an imperial presence.”[xii] To strengthen this argument against Porter, the essay will now look more closely at pieces of evidence which suggest that British culture was influenced by imperialism.
Politics has always played a key role in British society, whether it be direct or indirect. Often, it was demonstrated through the music hall and theatre. For example, the song ‘By Jingo’ written by G.W Hunt in 1877 created a narrative on the British military and turned it into something enjoyable which strips Briton’s from the opportunity to create their own judgement about the case.[xiii] The bulk of the song exposes the blood on Russia’s hands, however, some of the most striking lyrics to support this essay include:
We don’t want to fight but by jingo if we do, we’ve got ships, we’ve got men, and got the money too! We’ve fought the Bear before and while we’re Britons true The Russians shall not have Constantinople.[xiv]
The ‘Bear’ is a reference to Russia. Penny Summerfield has argued that the reason this song was performed during the crisis of 1877-78, was that this threat was huge to Britain as it provided the route through the Mediterranean.[xv] The route through the Mediterranean was vital because the British wanted to keep the route east to India.[xvi] This is a clear understanding of Said’s interpretation of the ‘Orient’ being Eastward.[xvii] Interestingly, Porter does not pick up on this because he does criticise Said in his article.[xviii] As a whole, from ‘By Jingo’, it can be interpreted that the political sphere treated the British public as they did to their colonial subjects. This is because they went out into the public and sang songs to create a narrative to their benefit in the same way that they went into their colonies with the ‘white-saviour’ complex. This view can find support from J. A. Hobson as he criticised politicians for doing this. Regarding the absence of mass opposition to the Boer War, he claimed that the working-class had been ‘infected with Jingoism’.[xix] The fact that Porter fails to assess these views makes his argument lose validity. Thus, the debate loses strength of purpose.
The way that the subject of Porter’s argument limits his scope must also be addressed. The obvious problem with this is that culture is far more deep-seated than he puts across. Porter argues that class is important but contradicts himself when stating that “empire-related matters were almost never mentioned in schools, at any level.”[xx] This could not be more inaccurate. Stephen Heathorn has shown that “young children first learned to read in primary school classrooms from readers featuring stories of imperial adventure, ‘racial others’ and images of their natural home.”[xxi] Porter fails to grapple with any hardcore piece of evidence which prevents him from contesting who creates culture in the first place. He argues that class is important but does not admit that it is those at the top who write books, songs and other kinds of material which then pass down and indoctrinate the lower classes. Additionally, even if it was not for schools, children had other ways of being influenced by empire. For example, S.O Beeton’s Boy’s Own Magazine was created in 1855 which had ‘40,000 copies in circulation by 1862’.[xxii] This means that there was general awareness amongst boys to prepare themselves to grow up to be ‘white saviours’. Clement Atlee confirms this when he states that ‘most of us boys were imperialists.’[xxiii] The fact that the scope Porter limits himself to does not correlate with his research shows why the debate is unproductive.
In Porter’s response to MacKenzie’s article, he states that MacKenzie is correct on there being evidence for theatrical productions but “I could not cover everything.”[xxiv] For a historian, who according to Price, spent so much time researching that his bibliography was thirty pages long, this is a pathetic excuse.[xxv] There were plays produced in 1882, for example, The Zulu Chief and Cetewayo at Last which were about the Zulu king visiting Britain.[xxvi] Whilst it is after the time-frame that Porter limits himself to, it is impossible to think that the thought for producing the play was generated after 1880. There had to be a general consciousness which made playwriters know that these were the kinds of things people wanted to watch. It is not as though after 1880, there was a sudden occurrence within the minds of British people that made the influence of empire apparent. If anything, the fact that Porter even suggests this, makes it seem as though he thinks the British public were oblivious or cognitively impaired until 1880. This is undoubtedly Porter’s deepest flaw, which makes any kind of assertion which may remotely be correct, invalid. Thus, the debate is unproductive. Richard Price puts it best when he states, “Porter fails to ask how the connection between empire and British culture was actually made or by what methods and means it was realised.”[xxvii]
MacKenzie’s contribution to the lack of productivity for this debate also centres on the subject of ‘impact’ and ‘influence’. Neither historian spoke about how science limits the assessment of how people think. This may seem as if it is a minor limitation to the debate, but it is not. It is impossible to know how a human being’s thought process occurs or the actual thought itself and why it generates that particular way. MacKenzie uses lots of specific examples in his article which enables his work to get as close as one can to understanding how people are influenced by culture. For example, he states that the print ran one edition of a Savi novel around 45,000 times.[xxviii] Looking at how many times a book was printed allows historians to note how popular something was. Based on this, they can then reliably infer that something was influential because many people were doing the same thing. Assessing the genre of romance and inclusion of an exotic location, he goes on to ponder whether this was then read mainly by women.[xxix] He proves to Porter why he is correct and therefore, allows the debate to gain some power to be productive. The reason his work becomes unproductive is that he does not refer closely to the work of other historians, as well as the fact that no one can prove why people read books or sang songs. The fact that neither historian engaging in the debate brought up the latter issue made the discussion seem old-fashioned in the sense that it was whether or not empire mattered.
Finally, to deliberate the case of Ireland. Porter does not mention the role of Ireland as a colony and this is problematic because Irish culture and imperialism heavily impacted British society. Ireland is a risky subject to discuss because there is controversy over whether or not it can be considered a colony. This is because of the 1801 Act of Union where Ireland became part of Great Britain. Historians such as Stephen Howe have discussed this controversy in depth.[xxx] This essay will regard it as a colony because it is convinced by a very key point which Edward Said makes: if Ireland was not a colony, that means that ‘its failings in backwardness and unmodern habits and structures are its own and certainly cannot be ascribed to British colonialism’.[xxxi] Irish nationalism played a huge role in British society. It often went unnoticed because until the twentieth century, there was no formal distinction between imperial subjects and British subjects.[xxxii] MacKenzie’s research shows that after 1843, the Irish problem was discussed in plays.[xxxiii] This implies that many people were aware of the political content focusing on Ireland because it was being delivered to them. Porter did not recognise that this was not only an impact of empire but also an influence.
To conclude, there have been strengths and weaknesses in this debate. In terms of the strengths, they have been briefly outlined but for the most part, ignored. This is because this essay is convinced that the limitations outweighed them. The fact that neither historian clarified the scientific barriers to Porter’s idea of ‘influence’ made it difficult to become convinced by any argument that surrounded the concept. There was also the ignorance of Ireland being mentioned which was surprising on MacKenzie’s part mainly since he has, in the past, written much about Irish nationalism. As a whole, the essay must finish by remarking that without the debate, there would be a lack of clarity on what needs to be discussed. Porter is not a cultural historian and so this was a silver lining because it allowed the debate to extend beyond the field of cultural historians which came across as a breath of fresh air, a different perspective. Missing out key points as mentioned above, however, prevented the debate to go beyond the surface and as a result, it remains as an old-fashioned, outdated debate on whether or not empire matters. Therefore, the Porter-MacKenzie debate is unproductive when considering culture and imperialism.
Notes:
[i] Antoinette M. Burton, “The Absent-Minded Imperialists: What the British Really Thought About Empire (Review)”, Victorian Studies, 47/4 (2005), p. 628. [ii] Bernard Porter, The Absent-Minded Imperialists: Empire, Society and Culture in Britain (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 102. [iii] Porter, The Absent-Minded Imperialists, p. 102. [iv] Stuart Ward, “Echoes of Empire”, History Workshop Journal, 62 (2006), p. 265. [v] John M. MacKenzie, “‘Comfort’ and Conviction: A Response to Bernard Porter”, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 36/4 (2008). [vi] Bernard Porter, “Further Thoughts on Imperial Absent-Mindedness”, The Journal of imperial and Commonwealth History, 36/1 (2008). [vii] Bernard Porter, “Further Thoughts”, p. 102. [viii] MacKenzie, “‘Comfort’ and Conviction”, p. 662. [ix] Richard Price, “One Big Thing: Britain, Its Empire, and Their Imperial Culture”, Journal of British Studies, 45/3 (2006), p. 618. [x] Porter, “Further Thoughts”, p. 102. [xi] Catherine Hall and Soniya O. Rose, “Introduction: Being at Home with the Empire”, in Catherine Hall and Soniya O. Rose (eds.), At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 2. [xii] Hall and Rose, “Introduction”, p. 2. [xiii] G. W. Hunt, (1877) “Macdermott’s War Song”, The Victorian Web <http://www.victorianweb.org/mt/musichall/macdermott1.html> [Accessed 2 November 2019]. [xiv] Hunt, “Macdermott’s War Song”. [xv] Penny Summerfield, “Patriotism and Empire: Music Hall Entertainment 1870-1914”, in John M. Mackenzie (ed.), Imperialism and Popular Culture (Manchester University Press, 1986), p. 25. [xvi] Summerfield, “Patriotism and Empire”, p. 25. [xvii] Edward W. Said, Orientalism (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978), p. 13. [xviii] Porter, “Further Thoughts”, p. 107. [xix] Summerfield, “Patriotism and Empire”, p. 25. [xx] Porter, “Further Thoughts”, p. 102. [xxi] Hall and Rose, “Introduction”, p. 28. [xxii] John M. Mackenzie, Propaganda and Empire: The Manipulation of British Public Opinion 1880-1960 (Manchester University Press, 1984), p. 202. [xxiii] MacKenzie, “‘Comfort’ and Conviction”, p. 663. [xxiv] Porter, “Further Thoughts”, p. 107. [xxv] Price, “One Big Thing”, p. 618. [xxvi] Mackenzie, Propaganda and Empire, p. 49. [xxvii] Price, “One Big Thing”, p. 619. [xxviii] MacKenzie, “‘Comfort’ and Conviction”, p. 665. [xxix] MacKenzie, “‘Comfort’ and Conviction”, p. 665. [xxx] Stephen Howe, “Was Ireland a Colony?”, Cambridge University Press, 36/142 (2008) [xxxi] Howe, “Was Ireland a Colony?”, pp. 145-146. [xxxii] Catherine Hall, Keith McClelland and Jane Rendall, Defining the Victorian Nation: Class, Race, Gender and the Reform Act of 1867 (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 181. [xxxiii] Mackenzie, Propaganda and Empire, p. 42.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Hunt, G. W. (1877) “Macdermott’s War Song”. The Victorian Web.<http://www.victorianweb.org/mt/musichall/macdermott1.html> [Accessed 2 November 2019]
Secondary Sources
Burton, Antoinette M. “The Absent-Minded Imperialists: What the British Really Thought About Empire (Review)”. Victorian Studies. 47/4, 2005
Hall, Catherine, McClelland, Keith and Rendall, Jane. Defining the Victorian Nation: Class, Race, Gender and the Reform Act of 1867. Cambridge University Press, 2000
Hall, Catherine, and Rose, Soniya O. “Introduction: Being at Home with the Empire”. In Catherine Hall and Soniya O. Rose (eds.) At Home with the Empire: Metropolitan Culture and the Imperial World. Cambridge University Press, 2006
Howe, Stephen. “Was Ireland a Colony?”. Cambridge University Press. 36/142, 2008
MacKenzie, John M. “’Comfort’ and Conviction: A Response to Bernard Porter”. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 36/4, 2008
Mackenzie, John M. Propaganda and Empire: The Manipulation of British Public Opinion 1880-1960. Manchester University Press, 1984
Porter, Bernard. “Further Thoughts on Imperial Absent-Mindedness”. The Journal of imperial and Commonwealth History. 36/1, 2008
Porter, Bernard. The Absent-Minded Imperialists: Empire, Society and Culture in Britain. Oxford University Press, 2004
Price, Richard. “One Big Thing: Britain, Its Empire, and Their Imperial Culture”. Journal of British Studies. 45/3, 2006
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978
Summerfield, Penny. “Patriotism and Empire: Music Hall Entertainment 1870-1914”. In John M. Mackenzie (ed.) Imperialism and Popular Culture. Manchester University Press, 1986
Ward, Stuart. “Echoes of Empire”. History Workshop Journal. 62, 2006
Comments