A divided Britain is not new. So why do today’s schisms seem intractable? | Kenan Malik

Once, divisions were more clearly embedded in politics. Now they can appear arbitrary

A few years ago, we stayed in a cottage in the Yorkshire Dales. One night, we went for a drink in the local. It was plastered inside and out with union jacks. The moment I saw the flags, the hairs on my neck stood up. Anyone black or Asian who had grown up in 70s and 80s Britain would probably have felt the same. The union jack in those days was a sign, meaning: “Beware, fascists around”.

Littondale in the 2010s is, of course, a very different place from east London in the 1980s and the meaning of the union jack very different too. The pub was welcoming and friendly and we returned there more than once. And yet I know that the next time I see a pub plastered with union jacks, the hairs of my neck once more will stand up.

Signs and symbols are essential to our lives, helping us navigate the social world and allowing us to link outward appearance to some inner essence or truth. They provide a means of signalling who we are and what we stand for. It’s why we wear badges and ribbons, why many Jewish men wear the kippa and some Muslim women the hijab.

The way we read signs, and the meanings we attribute to them, is not necessarily rational, as my response to the union jacks expressed. Personal experience has embedded in me a reflexive response to a particular sign.

The distortion in the way people interpret social signs can be profoundly damaging. Racism attributes to surface markers a pernicious deeper meaning. To a racist, a black skin can be a sign of threat or of inferiority, an immigrant, a signal of social degradation.

In a recent essay, the Conservative activist Graeme Archer suggested that we live today in an “age of semiotics” in which signs have become both all-important and peculiarly distorted. Signs have become “tribalised” and “the deconstruction of signs… has become our chief political diagnostic”. There is truth to this. Consider the Brexit debate. The hostility and harassment faced by the Tory Remainer Anna Soubry dominated much discussion over the past week. “This is what has happened to our country,” Soubry observed in the infamous interview on London’s College Green drowned out by chants of “Soubry is a Nazi”. She was right, though perhaps not quite in the way she meant.

It’s not, as Soubry seemed to suggest, that the Brexit debate has created a tribalised Britain in which people with whom you disagree become fair game to be harassed and denounced as Nazis. Rather, it is that a more tribalised Britain has meant that the Brexit debate is inevitably now seen in tribal terms.

Abusive views of opponents were stitched into the Brexit debate long before far-right idiots in yellow jackets hijacked College Green. Almost from the beginning, Remainers dismissed Brexiters as ignorant and racist. Brexiters denounced Remainers as traitors and enemies of the people. No doubt, on reading this, both sides will insist: “Yes, but we’re right and they’re wrong.”

One way in which people try to make sense of this is in the observation that we are living in a more polarised society. A divided Britain is not, however, anything new. The miners’ strike of 1984-85 created far greater social instability than anything we are witnessing today. In 1926, the General Strike led the prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, to claim that union leaders were “threatening the basis of ordered government, and going nearer to proclaiming civil war than we have been for centuries past”.

What is peculiar today is not polarisation itself, but the manner of division. In the past, the distinction between left and right gave people a means of making sense of social divisions. That distinction no longer provides a useful compass for today’s political landscape. In the past, movements for social change helped shape peoples’ ideals and gave meaning to national fault lines. Today’s polarisation is disconnected from any such movements, making divisions appear more arbitrary and more intractable.

Today, British politics seems simultaneously to be chaotic and immovable. The Brexit process has exposed a fragmented political class with few ideas, seemingly unable to govern the nation. Yet public attitudes have barely changed towards Brexit. And, for all the disasters faced by the Tory party, Labour has been unable to take advantage. Britain is socially polarised, yet politically paralysed. As a result, politics skates largely on the surface. It is this degradation of politics that has made signs all-important. They are what’s left and what we polarise around.

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Contributor

Kenan Malik

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Why Labour must lead calls for a people’s vote on Brexit | David Lammy
The party has a duty to millions of people to mobilise opposition to the government’s ruinous course of action

David Lammy

02, Sep, 2018 @5:30 AM

Article image
Failed by both its major parties, betrayed Britain lurches towards the abyss | Andrew Rawnsley
There are no winners, only losers, in this profound crisis in our politics

Andrew Rawnsley

16, Dec, 2018 @8:30 AM

Article image
Well done, Brexit ultras – the EU has never had more power over Britain | Andrew Rawnsley
European leaders now get to dictate terms to a supplicant Britain

Andrew Rawnsley

17, Mar, 2019 @9:00 AM

Article image
Tories must publish Brexit plan or there’s zero chance of a good deal | Keir Starmer
It’s time to halt this destructive uncertainty over quitting the EU. MPs should support Labour’s Brexit motion, to be debated this week

Keir Starmer

04, Dec, 2016 @12:03 AM

Article image
The Observer view on Brexit: it’s our political system, not just MPs, that is failing us | Observer editorial
Both Labour and the Tories have put party management before the national interest

Observer editorial

07, Apr, 2019 @4:59 AM

Article image
As nationalists grip the Tories, I now support Change UK | Stephen Dorrell
The European election could give UK voters the voice Westminster has denied them

Stephen Dorrell

14, Apr, 2019 @8:00 AM

Article image
Brexit is heading towards extra time. The question then is: to what purpose? | Andrew Rawnsley
The prime minister’s deal is likely to be defeated and Britain will plunge deeper into uncertainty a fortnight before Brexit day

Andrew Rawnsley

10, Mar, 2019 @6:00 AM

Article image
Mrs May has put her cards on the table. Now it’s everyone else’s turn | Andrew Rawnsley
The prime minister has made her choices. Others will have to take responsibility for fateful decisions of their own

Andrew Rawnsley

18, Nov, 2018 @8:00 AM

Article image
Where are the politicians with principles they would stand down for? | Andrew Rawnsley
Over Brexit and antisemitism, Labour and Tory MPs are confronted with character-defining moral questions

Andrew Rawnsley

14, Jul, 2019 @7:00 AM

Article image
The Observer view on Boris Johnson: a toxic prospectus | Observer ditorial
Any hope of avoiding a calamitous no-deal Brexit now rests on the decisions of Tory moderates and the Labour leadership

Observer editorial

28, Jul, 2019 @5:00 AM