Anglosphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definitions of the Anglosphere vary: one definition (depicted, all in blue) includes two "node" countries – the United Kingdom and the United States – and five "outliers": Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa.

The word Anglosphere describes a certain group of anglophone (English-speaking) nations which share historical, political, and ethnocultural characteristics rooted in or attributed to the historical experience of the British people.

The term is usually attributed to science fiction writer Neal Stephenson, who used it in his 1995 novel The Diamond Age (p. 373). Its first published use after Stephenson was in an article by James C. Bennett entitled "Canada's World Advantage" which appeared in a Canadian newspaper, The National Post, on 4 January 2000 (page A16).

[edit] Definitions and membership

The term as actually used incorporates a range of ideas about history, geography, politics, legal systems, and economics, and its definition is necessarily loose.^[1] It can mean just English-speaking nations, or it may mean all the nations which use legal systems based on Common law. It can also be seen as an expansion of Atlanticism, a much older concept in international relations, to include Pacific nations such as Australia and New Zealand. It also fills a gap in the English vocabulary corresponding roughly to the French phrase le monde Anglo-Saxon. Thus, the term can carry a wide variety of connotations.

According to Bennett, "the Anglosphere is not a club that a person or nation can join or be excluded from, but a condition or status on a network",[1] and

... 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.[2]

Historian Robert Conquest has also promoted the concept.[3] 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. Writer Mark Steyn, who uses the term often, takes it to denote the nations that were or have been part of the British Empire for a significant period of time, and thus were heavily subject to British political influence: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States at the core, then India, New Zealand, and South Africa, and finally outliers like Grenada and St. Lucia. [4] [5]

[edit] Advocacy

A leading advocate of the importance for contemporary international relations of a concept of Anglosphere is James C. Bennett, founder of The Anglosphere Institute. His book The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century (ISBN 0-7425-3332-8), published in 2004, is an extended exposition of his version of the concept.

[edit] Bonding qualities

In a political context, the Anglosphere largely comprises the United Kingdom and some of its former colonies, including prior and current members of the Commonwealth of Nations. These territories have many common features, most of which come from their shared history. These include:

British-inspired democratic 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
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, South Africa, and Ireland have republican systems of government while the others have constitutional monarchies; Quebec and Louisiana do not use Common Law, with Scotland and South Africa using hybrid systems, and so on.

The Anglosphere nations also share other similarities, including economic prosperity, traditional and established civil rights and personal freedoms, and high global cultural influence. These make the Anglosphere different from other English-speaking international groups, notably the Commonwealth of Nations. Bennett writes

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.[6]

[edit] 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 (such as the UKUSA Community which runs Echelon, or the ABCA agreement) exists between the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, 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 US, 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 would 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 the UK at the top of their lists.^{[citation needed]}

The Anglosphere nations freely interchange cultural materials. Certain actors, directors, movies, literature, and TV shows enjoy high levels of popularity across the Anglosphere nations. 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 (New Zealand and Australia), Jim Carrey (Canada), Charlize Theron (South Africa), Bono (Ireland) and Nicole Kidman (Australia) 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.

[edit] Criticism

The Anglosphere as a concept has attracted some debate. Critical views overlap, and also extend over a number of schools of thought.

[edit] Cultural relativists

Some have criticized the term as an application of ethnocentrism to international relations by implying that certain nations and their cultures are superior to others. Journalist George Monbiot wrote, "instead of the Ummah, the anglosphere... I don’t hate Britain, and I am not ashamed of my nationality, but I have no idea why I should love this country more than any other. There are some things I like about it and some things I don’t, and the same goes for everywhere else I’ve visited." [7]

[edit] Regionalists

Regionalists believe that the idea of cultural alliances is a distraction from regionally-based unions or partnerships, such as NAFTA and The Americas in United States and Canada, the European Union for the United Kingdom or greater Asia for Australia and New Zealand.

Regionalists tend to be on the left wing. In America they tend to favour immigration from South and Central America. [8] 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.

In such a vein, Michael Ignatieff has written that the term overstates the similarities of the United States and the UK, and understates the similarities of, and the connections between, the UK and continental Europe. [9]

[edit] Realists

Realism (from the German Realpolitik) is a defined school of thought on international relations, more interested in maintaining effective power dynamics and self-gain than culture partnerships. It sees power as the defining factor in a state's relations, and may conclude that culture is irrelevant, aside from perhaps as a propaganda source. 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 emphasized differences. Canada and New Zealand refused to support combat activities conducted by the coalition with the other three countries (other than with small contingents engaged in ancillary activities).

[edit] Autonomists

Autonomists criticize 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", and that the Anglosphere concept tends generally to underestimate the impact of non-English cultures, such as the Scots-Irish, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German, Dutch and Québécois cultures. They argue that in all member states, there is wide variation from the supposed distinctive characteristics of the Anglosphere.^{[citation needed]}

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 the Scandinavian style of politics.^{[citation needed]}

Similarly, they regard American culture as having been divorced from the United Kingdom for too long to be regarded as congruent.^{[citation needed]} 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, the United Kingdom's experience of a worldwide Empire not being shared by Americans (though America has held colonies such as the Philippines and Guam, and some have argued that America has behaved as an empire at various other times throughout its history - see American Empire for more details on this controversial issue). Autonomists argue that, furthermore, the shared experiences of two World Wars were not at all the same experience, the particular British reaction being formative of much of its post-war culture.^{[citation needed]}

In America autonomists tend to be natural cultural conservatives, while in Australasia they are found both on the right and the left (e.g. see the 1930's Australia First Movement). In the United Kingdom, they also fall across the political spectrum (see Merry England).

[edit] Critics of Neo-Liberalism

Other critics treat the Anglosphere concept as political rhetoric, with aims they claim are identifiable. They argue that Thatcherites and Reaganites have used it to try to consolidate the political position they achieved during the 1980s and first half of the 1990s. Margaret Thatcher's administration, for instance, was centralising, in certain ways, with local government less autonomous and financially more constrained. These critics have argued that conjuring up visions of a unique political heritage is simply part of a power grab by forces that still serve corporatist aims.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] 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 larger dominant "core" and a smaller subsidiary "satellite state". Namely:

North America: United States of America + Canada
Europe: United Kingdom + Ireland
Australasia: 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". Comparing the relationship between New Zealand and Australia with that of Canada and the United States, 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).

[edit] Historical perspectives

The United States, Canada, Ireland, 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, were manifested by 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 allies of the United States did not participate.

[edit] 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 the United Kingdom 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 generalize, 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, Netherlands, Sweden) and less similar to those of southern and south-eastern Europe (e.g. Greece, Bulgaria).

[edit] Cultural differences: The example of the UK and France

Advocates of the view that British culture is distinct from 'European' culture, often draw on France as an example. Whilst it is possible to gain important insights into both cultures by probing the culture differences between the two states, there are undoubtedly many more cultural similarities than differences between the two countries, which are geographically close (France is one the UK's nearest neighbouring states) 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 emerged as distinct leading European nation-states. They were often at war. From the 17th century onward, as the two countries conquered extensive empires, each 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, some traces of Anglo-French rivalry remain.

In language, on the other hand, there has been a profound mutual influence between Anglophone and Francophone cultures. 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 Globalization 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.).

In this debate, the example of Canadian confederation - the ongoing interaction between French and English Canada providing a major impetus in its development - is a prominent one, reflected in Canada's membership in both the Commonwealth and La Francophonie.

[edit] The USA and continental European influence

Regardless of the distance separating America from Europe (unlike the United Kingdom's proximity), the country's population is largely descended from 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; New York was originally a Dutch colony called New Amsterdam; while Florida and the entire Southwestern United States were originally a Spanish settlement. Furthermore the Southwestern United States including the country's two most populous states, California and Texas, were part of Mexico until well into the 19^th century. 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.^{[citation needed]} On the other hand, only 8.7% of Americans claim to have Majority English ancestries, with other British and Irish 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 (5.6%), Polish (3.2%) and French (3%) are also major self-identified continental European ancestries.

America has a history of direct contact with Europe, other than through the United Kingdom'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.

[edit] 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 English Civil War could quite well be considered a struggle against attempts by English kings to establish an absolute monarchy, and King Henry VIII could quite well be considered to be an absolute monarch.

At the time of the Holy Alliance, after the Napoleonic Wars had ended, 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 politicized, 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.

[edit] Institutional history

A certain residual resistance against the metric system is symptomatic in the USA and UK. Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand on the other hand, have embraced the metric system in principle if not always in practise.

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. Some states in the USA, that at one time were a part of the Spanish Empire and later Mexico have vestiges of the Napoleonic Code. The community property statutes in regards to family law (most relevant in divorce property distribution) that are present in California and Nevada are an example of this.

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. On the other hand, there was an earlier scare that England would become a fief of the Holy Roman Empire's premier Austrian family when Philip Habsburg was king in right of marriage to Mary Tudor.

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.

[edit] Commonalities in 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 (except the Channel Islands, which are crown dependencies rather than part of the UK.)

The philosophical trends in the United Kingdom, 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 yet been required.

Discussion of Anglo-American diplomacy is often formulated, from the UK side, in terms of the existence and health of the special relationship, mostly harkening back to the years 1941 to 1945 of very close alliance. This could be called a 'Churchillian' formulation.

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.

[edit] Current trends

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 centralized 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 slightly 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, and that Latino culture represents a threat to that heritage; in other words, the USA is subject to a pull towards Latin America.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

The Anglosphere Institute Official website
An Anglosphere Primer A speech by Bennett to the Foreign Policy Research Institute
The Anglosphere Challenge The website for Bennett's book
Albion's Seedlings A blog about the Anglosphere and related topics to which Bennett contributes
Anglosphere: why do they hate us?, James C. Bennett, UPI, April 12, 2003 - 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.
Summary of various definitions/citations for the term "Anglosphere"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/g/Anglosphere.html"

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.