Samuel Selvon's "The Lonely Londoners" |
There can be few more contentious topics than nationalism.
In the UK – or, more accurately, in England – nationalism is seen inextricable
from racism, zealous hatred and kneejerk reactionarism. Ask someone to describe a
nationalist and they will likely describe an EDL member, a staunch opponent of
immigration, a white supremacist etc etc.
It has become a sort of Nietzchean slave morality – a belief
defined completely by an opposition to another, and therefore an unsubstantial
one. It creates an ‘us v. them’ scenario – those within the haven of our
national boundaries (with justifiable reason to be there) versus those without.
This highlights the arbitrary nature of modern nationalism,
specifically English nationalism. During World War Two, when Britain was under
a real threat of invasion by the forces of Hitler’s Germany, such nationalism
became almost a practical necessity, if a sometimes unpleasant one. Nowadays,
with most of the world connected in an open forum of information exchange, it
feels archaic and redundant.
Johann Gottfried Herder first coined the term “nationalism”
in the 1770s while developing his philosophical concept of the “Volksgeist”, or
“spirit of the people”. Seventy years later, another prominent German writer,
Arthur Schopenhauer, would pour scorn on the concept, and on people who hold
nationalism up as a defining facet of their character;
“The cheapest sort of pride,” Schopenhauer wrote, “is
national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation it argues that he has
no qualities of his own of which he can be proud.”
Schopenhauer was writing over 160 years ago, but his comment
on nationalism and national pride still stokes the fires of debate today. The
truth is – speaking from my experience as an Englishman – the majority of
English people would readily distance themselves from the “nationalist” tag,
while simultaneously attempting to renegotiate some semblance of national pride
from elsewhere.
For example, you may cry when England lose a penalty
shootout, you may proselytise about the unparalleled beauty of the Peak
District or the Lakes, you may feel a flush of pride when watching footage of
the Olympic closing ceremony – but are you a nationalist? No way!
Nationalism is an increasingly awkward concept, particularly
now that transnational borders are becoming more fluid and global mobility is
more readily accessible. It seems to me that a person should align their pride
to their surroundings and to their community – on as wide a scale as they may
wish – rather than practice a simple, blind loyalty to a sovereign state.
Literature thrives off this awkward pairing of the
individual human soul and the arbitrary groupings of nationality. Passages in Milan
Kundera’s “The Book of Laughter and Forgetting” , for example, act as symphonic love letters
to the Czech capital Prague, but are told through the eyes of exiles and
neurotics, each dislocated from the city in their own unique way.
Another example is Salman Rushdie’s “The Moor’s Last Sigh”. In his 1995 novel, Rushdie deconstructs what is
supposedly a key aspect of nationalism – language; exposing it as the organic,
polymorphous beast that it truly is, all the while in the midst of a Portuguese
merchant enclave in India, and later in southern Spain.
The blisteringly brief, but nonetheless brilliant novel “The
Lonely Londoners” by Samuel Selvon is amongst the most immediate examples of
negotiated nationalism in literature. Penned in 1956, the novel charts the life
of a group of West Indian immigrants who arrived in London following the
British Nationality Act of 1948, the parliamentary bill that effectively ushered
in the first waves of migrant workers from the Commonwealth.
The book examines the different cultures emanating from distinct
Caribbean islands and their transplantation into a metropolis on the cusp of
the next stage of its evolution, cultures that become unintentionally
homogenised as the émigrés clamour to find their place in a new society. In the
eyes of the indigenous Brits, this gaggle of lonely Londoners are refugees from
only one nation: “Black”.
Trinidadian, Jamaican, Antiguan, Barbadian, even Nigerian; none
of these distinctions matter in the eyes of the racially suspicious post-war
Britons that Selvon’s characters come into contact with. It is this aspect that
makes the novel one of the most fascinating critiques of modern nationalism and
identity in twentieth century literature.
As the global community continues to develop, and artistic
inspiration ceases to be limited by parochial geographical locale, the debate
surrounding nationalism – and the great art and literature that springs forth
from it – can only become more fascinating, more discomfited and more vital to our sense of human identity,
than ever before.
No comments:
Post a Comment