Unit 1BritishCoreValues
LEAD-IN
Schoolchildren should be taught "traditional British values" as part of an attempt to challenge extremism and promote a more cohesive society, the UK higher education minister claimed.
Under the proposals, all 11 to 16-year-olds will learn about free speech and democracy in the UK, as well as the contribution of different communities to building a modern, successful country.
Do you think core values should be taught at schools?
What are other ways to promote patriotism?
READING 1: WORKING WITH TWO TEXTS
Read the following texts on the British core values. Discuss the question in groups:
In what way are the British ‘core values’ different from the core values of other nations?
What's British about core values?
Martin Kettle
The Guardian May 15, 2006
Now, if there is one thing that most people will accept (happily in some cases, unhappily in others) about a country like ours in the 21st century, it is that the old nation state no longer comfortably embodies the people who inhabit it - call that the Tebbit test or the melting pot according to choice. But it's a fact that we all know we live in interconnected and weakened nations. So I'm very sceptical that a dose of shared national values are really the answer to any of these issues. I fear they might merely be a source of fresh divisions and disagreements.
I'd be more in favour of kids being taught Core British Values if I knew what CBV actually were. But in every discussion I've ever been involved in on this subject (and I've been in a few) it's not long before someone (sometimes me) makes the blindingly obvious point that fairness or ingenuity or respect or love of the countryside - or whatever virtue some other speaker has identified as essentially British - isn't in fact uniquely British at all. If I were French, I would have no trouble claiming that all these qualities were French Values too. Or ifI were American. Or Chinese. And so on around the world. It is just daft to pretend that we British, however polite or pastoral we may imagine ourselves to be, are uniquely defined by them.
I'm not going to pretend that there isn't something worthy of the name that I would want to call Britishness. I think it's a fascinating challenge to define what, if anything, really differentiates one group of human beings from another. But this is an incredibly slippery and elusive subject and too much of the debate is owned by scoundrels.
Yes, some aspects of what I would define as truly distinctive Britishness are rather admirable, like our pride in our particular independence, or an inherent scepticism towards theory and authority and a rumbustiously creative and adaptive use of language. But there are other British values, like drunken aggression and a seemingly unquenchable appetite for smut, that do less for me. And in any case, as I've said, a lot of what we tend to pass off as British is actually common to all humankind, while quite a lot of the rest is more accurately labelled, I suspect, as English.
So my view is that we should abandon the rather quaint and daft (and perhaps rather British) idea of trying to define the Britishness of core values, and should concentrate instead on the Core Values themselves, without trying to plant the Union Jack on any of them. I'm all for kids being taught about good citizenship and the principles of democracy, about respect for others, about non-violence, the rule of law, the ethical life, respect for the environment, individual freedom and the ties of community - and about how we can reconcile them.
Reading Notes
Norman Beresford Tebbit, Baron Tebbit, CH, PC (born 29 March 1931) is a British Conservative politician and former MP. He proposed the "Cricket test", also known as the "Tebbit Test", where he suggested that people from ethnic minorities in Britain should not be considered truly British until they supported the England cricket team, as opposed to the country of their or their ancestors' birth.
Themelting pot is a metaphor for the way in which homogenous societies develop, in which the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures and religions) are combined so as to lose their discrete identities and yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor, which is quite different from the original inputs.
The Union Jack or the Union Flag is the national flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The current design dates from the Union of Ireland and Great Britain in 1801. The Flag Institute states that in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that both "Jack" of "Union Jack" could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that 'the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag'.
Ten core values of the British identity
Telegraph.co.uk
27 Jul 2005
It cannot be said too often that terrorist atrocities are solely the responsibility of those who perpetrate them. To blame the invasion of Iraq, or the occupation of the West Bank, or poverty, or racism, or Western decadence, is both intellectually and morally wrong.What is reasonable, however, is to ask why modern Britain is breeding so many anti-British fanatics.
Part of the answer has to do with how Britain sees itself. The ancestors of the Leeds bombers, who arrived here in the mid-20th century from countries which had prospered under colonial rule, were infected by the self-belief of the British Empire. They were content, as it were, to buy into a nation whose subjects were so obviously proud of it.
Many countries try to codify their values in law. Some oblige their citizens to speak the national language; others make it a criminal offence to show disrespect to the flag. But statutory patriotism is an intrinsically un-British notion. We prefer simply to set out, in general terms, the non-negotiable components of our identity - the qualities of the citizenship that so many people crave for.
I. The rule of law. Our society is based on the idea that we all abide by the same rules, whatever our wealth or status. No one is above the law - not even the government.
II. The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.
III. The pluralist state. Equality before the law implies that no one should be treated differently on the basis of belonging to a particular group. Conversely, all parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the existence of their rivals.
IV. Personal freedom. There should be a presumption, always and everywhere, against state coercion. We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
V. Private property. Freedom must include the freedom to buy and sell without fear of confiscation, to transfer ownership, to sign contracts and have them enforced. Britain was quicker than most countries to recognise this and became, in consequence, one of the happiest and most prosperous nations on Earth.
VI. Institutions. British freedom and British character are immanent in British institutions. These are not, mostly, statutory bodies, but spring from the way free individuals regulate each other's conduct, and provide for their needs, without recourse to coercion.
VII. The family. Civic society depends on values being passed from generation to generation. Stable families are the essential ingredient of a stable society.
VIII. History. British children inherit a political culture, a set of specific legal rights and obligations, and a stupendous series of national achievements. They should be taught about these things.
IX. The English-speaking world. The atrocities of September 11, 2001, were not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the anglosphere - on all of us who believe in freedom, justice and the rule of law.
X. The British character. Shaped by and in turn shaping our national institutions is our character as a people: stubborn, stoical, indignant at injustice. "The Saxon," wrote Kipling, "never means anything seriously till he talks about justice and right."
Not for the first time, we have been slow - perhaps too slow - to wake up to the threat we face. Now is the time to "talk about justice and right", and to act on our words.
Answer these questions on the texts:
Text 1
- How important are the shared national values according to the author?
- What qualities does the author define as distinctively British?
Text 2
- How do you understand the words of the author: “… statutory patriotism is an intrinsically un-British notion.”
Find words in the texts which mean the same as the following. (They are in text order.) Use an English-English dictionary to help you.
1
ПродайводаЕ.Д. Graduation Course
Text 1
resourcefulness
evasive
a rogue
typical of
adjust
Text 2
cruelty
to commit
forefather
essentially
to observe
to put up with
inherent in
feeling anger at sth
1
ПродайводаЕ.Д. Graduation Course
The Russian Government has put the concept of a national vision for Russia back on the political agenda, arguing the need to fill the current "ideological vacuum" in the country. It is widely recognized that reforms had left Russia without a unifying theme. To fill this void, a new national idea should be constructed, one based on "patriotism in the most positive sense of the concept."
What ideas (multinationalism, multireligiousity, shared historical background, opposing common enemy, etc) can form the basis of the unifying theme in your country?
READING 2: ANALYSING TEXT STRUCTRE
Read the text and analyse itsstructure answering the questions that follow.
Why Monarchy?
Paul James
January, 30, 2005
We live in the 21st century, the age of democracy and equality of opportunity. We elect our leaders and hold them accountable to our representatives and to the law. Despite all this, a significant proportion of the World's democracies have as their head of state an unelected, hereditary monarch, chosen by nothing more representative or accountable than chance of birth, and normally removable by nothing other than death. The status of these individuals defies the principle of equality and meritocracy. Why do we continue to accept it? What does monarchy give us that makes this apparent anachronism worth preserving?
Part of the answer probably lies in the principle “if it ain't broke, don't fix it.” In Europe, monarchies have survived in countries which have remained relatively stable over long periods, evolving gradually into modern democracies, evolving the monarchy along with them. In their cases, there has been no sudden or radical shift in political philosophy, leaving the monarchy floundering as a symbol of the old and discredited regime. Monarchies have fallen as a result of revolution, invasion, or catastrophic defeat in war, but never (in Europe) through a lawfully taken decision of a legislature or constitutional process where no wider major conflicts were involved.
Whatever faults the British monarchy may have, they don’t appear to be enough to warrant its removal, or enough to outweigh the benefits. There are various constitutional and political arguments which may underline the benefits of its existence. Not all the arguments which apply to the British monarchy will apply to others (or even to other realms of Her Britannic Majesty), but I will concentrate here on the British arguments.
The constitutional argument puts the monarch at the centre of the state. Although she exercises very little power at her own discretion, the Queen is the central cog in the machinery of state, the common link between executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, military, church and other institutions, and keeps them all working. The Crown embodies the central authority under which these other bodies operate; it gives the final stamp of approval, the Royal Assent, to legislation. In a country without a written constitution, the Crown is the source of all state authority (although it is still subject to the law of the land – its authority is not absolute). The authority, and those who exercise it, could be codified in writing, and the particular functions of the Head of State granted to a President, but we would lose the flexibility of a constitution which can evolve to meet changing circumstances without the difficulties of a formal, and sometimes difficult, amendment process.
The existence of a hereditary monarch keeps the politicians in their place. However eminent a Prime Minister may become, he is always subject to a higher personal authority. Ambition, politicking and intrigue can never take someone to the highest office in the land, and he can never aggrandise himself by claiming to be the head and ultimate representative of the nation. A British Prime Minister can be verbally mauled in the legislature, and summarily dismissed by it, with a level of disrespect which few nations would be happy to show to their Head of State, but might like to inflict on their lesser politicians. Although, in practice, it is always the politicians who give the orders and run the country, if they go far beyond their authority, others can, in theory, defy them by claiming allegiance to the higher authority of the Crown, which is duty-bound to uphold the democratic order without personal interest or favour. This argument has never been put to the test in the UK, and has had mixed success elsewhere.
Proponents of a republic might argue that their head of state has at least been chosen by the people, and so has a right to command their respect, but the flip-side of that is that every elected president was opposed by a sizable section of the population, which may feel little loyalty or respect for the man they didn't want to represent it. While it is true that nobody ever voted for Elizabeth II, it is equally the case that not one person has ever rejected her at the ballot box either. While we have a vague idea where she stands on some issues, we don't really know her views in the way in which we would with a politician or ex-politician, and it is difficult to feel resentment towards a person who has never imposed, or attempted to impose, an unpopular policy on anyone. Personal loyalty is easier to achieve, and personal loyalty perhaps has more resonance than loyalty to an inanimate flag or amorphous state.
That loyalty is also easier to feel towards people with whom one has been familiar all one's life. With only the gradual changes of births and deaths, the Royal Family has always been with us, without the constant changes which come with elections every few years. By the same token, members of the Royal Family know from an early age that their lives will be ones of public duty, and are brought up in that ethos, in a way which a private citizen is usually not. As a result, they rarely go wrong in their public role, even though they may be no more successful than the rest of us in achieving ideal private lives.
“Monarchy” means rule by one person, but modern monarchies can offer more than the services of one person, or one person plus a spouse, because they are supported by a royal family. The Queen alone is responsible for the constitutional functions of the monarch, but she can delegate other duties (such as investitures) when necessary to other members of the family, all as well-known and familiar as herself. Part of what gives constitutional monarchy an enhanced social role is its ability to espouse many worthy causes, and take the time to attend events and functions without having to take time out of the essential job of running the country to do so; and that role is greatly enhanced further by the fact that there are a number of princes and princesses to carry it out. By contrast, an individual non-executive President in a parliamentary republic is more limited in number of roles he can play and causes he can espouse.
As well as the familiarity with the members of today’s monarchy, the Crown also gives a sense of continuity with the past, in a way which a very modern institution doesn’t, and in a more personalized way than a non-hereditary, older institution can. It is instinctively conservative, and can preserve and represent traditions which date back centuries; its current representatives are the descendants of its former ones, and its family continuity over centuries enhances the sense of identity with a nation’s own history and culture.
The nation wouldn’t fall apart without the monarchy. Its culture isn’t entirely dependent on royalty, and ways can be found to preserve traditions and handle the constitutional issues which its absence would create (in fact, some would argue that such issues would be better dealt with through a written constitution, with clearly defined powers for the institutions of state). Because of its enduring nature, its importance can be romantically overemphasized. It’s not an institution which could be created today embodying all the features which give it its distinctive character, because its history is part of what makes it distinctive. But given that it exists and that it enhances the character of the nation, it would be a shame to lose it.