Commentators

Showers (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 5°C

Philip Hensher: We're attempting to define the indefinable for 2012

Monday, 25 August 2008

As David Beckham kicked a football, Leona Lewis burst into song, a double-decker bus trundled into the Beijing stadium, and Boris Johnson took on the unforeseen role of flag-waving cheerleader, I wondered whether it occurred to anyone that perhaps the British are not all that good at this sort of thing. What does our nationality actually look like?

As our collective toes start to curl in anticipatory embarrassment, to remain locked in that position until the pageant of Britishness which will kick off the 2012 London Olympics, perhaps we ought to start to ask with some urgency what these games are going to mean to those of us who pay very little attention to sport in general and haven't actually raised the remote control in the past two weeks. No, not even at the prospect of a British triumph in the Yngling or the cycle sprint.

How are they going to claim to represent us? What are we going to get out of it in the end? It's mildly tragic that, these days, one of the easiest ways to fund a major redevelopment programme appears to be to host the Olympic Games. As much as the eastern stretches of London needed transport links and investment, there seemed to be no political will to undertake that without the panem et circenses of the event. These days, the two weeks of running and throwing and swimming is a definite sideshow. The main event appears to come in two halves. The first is an indefinable sense of national pride; the second, a definable "legacy".

Last year, I was in Athens, a mere three years after their Olympics. Travelling through the outskirts of the city, it was positively alarming how often one passed some elaborate Olympic project, already crumbling and abandoned to the weeds. And if you go further back, the Sydney Olympics, despite all hopes, doesn't seem to have inspired a generation towards sporting prowess. Australia came a relatively depressing sixth in the medal table this year. Anticipation, in that case, appears to have been a more effective goad than memory of what, by all accounts, was a highly successful games. National pride is most effectively and lastingly excited in the case of small nations, winning on a small scale – the single bronze medal won by an Afghan boxer will have meant a great deal in Kabul.

More nebulous questions of "legacies" don't seem to be justified by what the commentators are pleased to call "Olympic history". Awarding the games to oppressively governed nations in the hope that international attention will persuade them to moderate their position has never worked. The Soviet Union prematurely celebrated their games in 1980 by invading Afghanistan. The real legacy, I venture to predict, from the London games in 2012 will be an immense increase in surveillance and government control, above and beyond the horrifying levels now in place. All of this could not be easier to justify in the name of security threats to Olympic ceremonies, and it will not be removed once the Games are over.

This, we are told, is a chance to represent ourselves to the world, just as China has demonstrated that it has the money to commission foreign architects to build fanciful structures, and has the degree of control over its citizens to allow it to marshal immense displays of synchronised choreography. What can we do to show ourselves to the world?

Well, some of us, watching vast crowds moving in heavily drilled unison, do have a tendency to think the words "Leni Riefensthal". One of the unfortunate features of Britishness is that its best features don't quite lend themselves to representation in stadium form. Do your best with parliamentary democracy, the discovery of evolutionary biology and the invention of the internet, Lord Coe.

I'm quite tempted by the idea of a platoon of Elizabeth Bennets or phalanxes of black-clad Elizabethans in ruffs addressing themselves to skulls. More realistically, these days, a genuine display of British culture on the first night would mean dissolute regiments of Wags, paparazzi, Emos, chavs and sloanes, culminating in Miss Chelsy Davy in a bikini .

In any case, we shouldn't forget that the summer of 2012 will not only see the London Olympics, but the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen. The London mob, I predict, will have no difficulty in exercising its immense capacity for sentiment and display in the direction it's more used to, towards the golden coach and the small old lady with the big tiara. In any case, once we start worrying about what the outside world thinks of us, and mounting ceremonies to address the question, we might as well give up on being British altogether. All together now: Nobody likes us: we don't care.

Interesting? Click here to explore further

The bronze medal achieved my Nikpai of Afghanistan was in Taekwondo not boxing as might be assumed from the text. Although this may suggest a lack of knowledge clearly outlined when you write as if you yourself (disregarding the olympics as sport) are equivalent of the vast majority of uncaring masses its not of a great deal of importance as the point regarding the higher celebrations of 'smaller' (and by this I can only assume you mean ecomically speaking) nations is an important one.

Posted by Timothy | 31.08.08, 10:56 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Other nations - eg China, France - blow their own trumpets and celebrate their histories. But in the PC UK we shall have some silly worthy multiculti multifaith multitootifrooti load of nonsense, and endless rants about diversity, our new demigod.
The French have got it right - you learn French language, history, culture and you integrate or you leave and you damn well get patriotic and make no apologies. The British should be ashamed of absolutely nothing in their history - except perhaps how our overcrowded island is such a multiculti mess that so many Britons want to leave and live somewhere better, like France or New Zealand.
China is but a fascist police state and will surely start a war soon, so we should leave totalitarian regimes to their own mad nationalism. But we need French-style patriotism, not endless worship of diversity. THAT is not what it is to be British, for sure.

Posted by Tootle | 27.08.08, 20:36 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

"Britishness" is a legal concept not a "national identity". Whatever cultural "weight" the concept possessed (and that was primarily military and economic triumphalism) died with the empire. Trying to define something that doesn't exist is why so many people tie themselves up in knots about the subject.

There are Scots, Welsh, and English cultures - although the government (and, following their lead, the BBC based on last night's Panorama) seem determined to ignore the latter totally, despite the (growing) majority of people now defining themselves by their "real" country not as "British".

In fact, the "Britishness project" seems to be mostly aimed at forcibly over-writing the established, rediscovered, and newly emerging identities of England and Wales. After all, "Britishness lessons" aren't being taught in Scotland, are they? And "British Day" isn't going to be celebrated there either.

Posted by MJB | 26.08.08, 13:52 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Although factually dubious, and arrogant in tone (Ai Wei Wei designed the birds nest centrepiece, and the British most certainly did not make the internet what it is today). The central argument is right - What do you mean 'To Be British?', how do you define a sense of national cultural identity while being multicultural? Moreover, how do you even begin to express that on stage (Without looking like some Empire jamboree)? I think the solution is to look beyond the borders of nation, past or legacy. In order to stay relevant, London needs to redefine what it means to be 'modern'. Gd luck with that.

Posted by BleF | 26.08.08, 11:02 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

If the organisers of the 2012 excitements are looking for expressions of 'Britishness', they could do worse than dig out the files of the 1951 Festival of Britain. There was a lot of inspired lunacy around on that occasion…

Posted by Michael Crawshaw | 25.08.08, 13:01 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Beijing was great but forget it. London, be at your best. You can't be a large Chinese city so don't even try. But you can show us what is best about Britain in your own way.

Posted by Michael Rhian Driscoll | 25.08.08, 12:36 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

What a miserable, negative article displaying the worst aspects of self-deprecating Britishness. I thought the 8-minute London display in Beijing had a certain cool after all the pyrotechnics. It may defeat Philip Hensher to imagine how "parliamentary democracy, the discovery of evolutionary biology and the invention of the internet" can be shown visually, but I bet it can be done with a little ingenuity. The Chinese managed to show the printing press visually, for heaven's sake. Let our imaginations run free and remember that Britain leads the world in many of the arts. If all else fails, a massive rock concert with Brian May on the roof of the stadium would do the trick.

Posted by Bob | 25.08.08, 11:25 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

What a sour little piece, Mr Hensher. Many of us who don't normally follow sport enjoyed the Beijing Olympics and are now looking forward to London 2012 with a little apprehension but a great deal of hope. It's so easy to be negative, especially after 17 years of Tory rule and a further 10 years of Nu-Labour/Neo-Tory, but maybe it's about time we had a little positive thought and wished Boris and Seb good luck...

Posted by Martin | 25.08.08, 09:45 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Quite. Having seen the Olympics page on "Urban Regeneration" I have to ask why it would cost more than say, half a billion to achieve everything there rather than spending £10 billion with this as the justifications (the other justifications have been shown to have no evidence to support them).

It's like buying a new car just because you want a new CD player.

Posted by Tim | 25.08.08, 00:35 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Columnist Comments

steve_richards

Steve Richards: Damian Green will soon be forgotten

Cameron’s speech, though good, was upstaged by Brown’s mortgage coup.

matthew_norman

Matthew Norman: A written constitution is the answer

Jacqui Smith is Brown’s lightning rod when it’s the PM we should be frazzling

john_rentoul

John Rentoul: Thanks Queen, but it's about the Budget

The Queen's Speech never has a theme, New Labour has never fabricated one.