If I were English, I should technically open this review by a discussion of the weather. But if I were English, I would be obligated to grumble about it until I found some semblance of solace in my winging. But I am an American and the weather is beautiful right now. According to Kate Fox, I would now have to find something else to complain about. There is apparently no other way to start a conversation in England. Fortunately her anthropological study of this cold island culture, Watching the English, gives me plenty to choose from. Her work is a guidebook on a peoples infamous for their peculiarities. But a recent trip to England myself leaves me wondering whether it is an updated copy.
After a quick introduction positing that the English have, in fact, not lost their identity, Ms. Fox jumps right into explaining what that identity is. The answers abound in subtlety. For Englishness is not derived from the Queen’s eminence, double-decker buses, or those cute little telephone boxes peppered throughout London. The English identity is defined by a carefully managed and persistent lack of communication. Fox’s book describes how consistently blundered forms of correspondence run rampant throughout society. From muted hellos to extemporaneous goodbyes, Englishness is driven by apprehension and unease. But even this is too simplified an explanation when talking about the English. The country’s class system muddies any sort of easily definable set of social cues, ascribing unique rules to individuals depending on what rung of society they appear to be hanging onto.
In addressing this controversial issue of class, Fox illuminates how it is as relevant today as it was a century ago. Seemingly incongruous with its prevalence, the English are largely uncomfortable with the role it plays in their society. Fox appears to believe its longevity is a result of its utter saturation. From how one purchases toilet paper in the supermarket (don’t actually say toilet if you aspire to something more than being described by the hue of blue on your collar), to the inclusion or exclusion of vowels and consonants, class is a permanent fixture in the culture. George Bernard Shaw drives this point home stating, “ It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate him or despise him.” Vernacular, however, is not the sole purveyor of class. The other indicators are more overt and less English-specific. Sure, how one dresses can be as big of a red flag as saying “serviette”, but this is a fairly international norm. The larger point is that no aspect of English culture escapes demarcation by class.
According to Watching the English, humor’s equally prevalent nature in society helps to offset the tensions caused by the strictures of class. Fox points to the “value…put on humor” as the reason for its predominance. Used to disarm situations, counteract banality and even make new friends, humor affords the English a multifaceted “default mode”. It also combats one of Englishness’ biggest no-nos: earnestness. Taking oneself too seriously invites swift excommunication from the English ranks. In fact, Fox treats earnestness as a litmus test for visible levels of assimilation. If your understanding of the distinction between seriousness and solemnity fails to be nuanced enough, “you will never feel…entirely at home in conversation with the English.”
As a foreigner, not all of these phenomenons are obvious. Even with Watching the English as my guide, class is perhaps too idiosyncratic to be discernible to the casual cultural observer. Social unease was the most glaring of the bunch. In my capacity as a visiting student at Oxford, I found social awkwardness present in many interactions. A surprising amount of lecturers exhibited these characteristics as well. At lunch, some were very timid when conversing on matters unrelated to our class work of the day. However, humor was always present. True to Fox’s observations, self-deprecation brought more than its fair share of smiles. Self-deprecation also served to break Oxford’s (most likely unfair) stereotype of complete and utter earnestness. Class discussions were always serious but never too serious. Then again, it makes sense for one of England’s most historic and traditional institutions to abide by the country’s own set of rules, no matter how peculiar.
Before we could achieve this more jocular banter between the students and the instructors we had to suffer through the notoriously awkward introduction period. Although Fox stresses the difficulty inherent in the initial greeting, I found the period right after to be the more challenging. The notion of “over-formality” cited as a greeting issue did not surface until both parties sought the right mixture of friendliness and professionalism. Initial conversations were stilted and the traditional questions (Where are you from? What brought you to Oxford?) were offered with a touch of insincerity. Once some semblance of a relationship had been established the awkward pretenses largely disappeared. Only a handful of times did an uncomfortable transition or two rear its head. Fox’s “no-name rule” also quickly became obvious. As Americans are used to immediately presenting their name to the opposite party upon an introduction, I did so without hesitation. After a few of these I noticed that all I received in return was a mildly inquisitive half-nod. Only until I reached a “greater degree of intimacy” was name giving reciprocated.
The most readily apparent of all of Watching the English’s accounts of society was queuing. Not only was this word acutely present in instructions from bartenders, hosts and store clerks, but only the non-English needed to heed the message. Natives queued up without hesitation almost everywhere. In the smallest of shops with the littlest of room, to the outside vendor with unlimited space, queues were formed. They were respected too. No one “jumped the queue” and people were very mindful of filing in from the rear. However, while on a grocery run to Sainsbury’s a guest lecturer from the first night of the Oxford program was queued up slightly behind me. As an older gentlemen found his way in front of him (thus inadvertently jumping the queue) he spoke up instantly. After lecturing the gentleman on the rules of queuing he was excused and not asked to remove himself from the line because he was indeed much older. Ironically, this event proved contrary to the English’s aversion to confrontation. According to Fox, infractions of this nature are normally suffered by the rest of the group for fear of having to converse with the offending party. Usually a throat-clearing or loud shuffle will suffice.
Despite these examples, most of Fox’s more tangential musings on the English were almost entirely unrepresented in my experiences. For instance, her chapter on “Pub Rules” took great pain to describe the social facilitating role that games in the pub play. Used for everything including chatting up women, pub games played a central role in Fox’s study. However, I spotted not a single billiards table or dartboard in my over two weeks in the country. Fox also mentions the abhorrence of cell phone use or loud conversation on public transportation. On the Tube in London I spotted these invasions of the coveted English privacy everywhere; Most were unaccompanied by the loud throat clearing or pointed glares Fox described as responses to such infractions. In many ways, public transportation was no different from my experiences in the United States. To be fair, Oxford was in the midst of tourist season and London may be no different from other big cities in this regard.
Many of the other things mentioned in Watching the English can’t be uncovered without spending significantly more time in the country. Fox’s work is a nuanced take on a nuanced culture - fascinating to the outside reader but inapplicable outside the first third of the book where the most practical information for travelers resides. But this is not a guidebook for travelers. It is a study on a culture, and a fine one at that. Fox analyses the everyday minutiae we never think to ponder of our own cultures. She looks at the subtle interactions we would never see. She asks why – a lot. And we are the better for it. By revealing the foundations of a society not too dissimilar from our own we can better appreciate the idiosyncrasies that make ours special. What Fox has given us is an entertaining read and an important addition to the study of human interaction. She proves that anthropology is not only still relevant but crucial to modern social science. Staying true to her subject, we even get a few laughs along the way. After all, being too earnest is un-English.
No comments:
Post a Comment