Nationalism (and RVW &c.)

[Guest]

[Ed: detached from the Prom 46 - RVW thread in Concerts 2012. ff]


On the last series of comments, might I mildly suggest that we exercise some caution on the terminology.

'Nationalism' and 'conservatism' aren't necessarily interchangeable in any sphere. In music, the latter to me denotes 'not the avant-garde' for want of a better phrase. More importantly, nationalism splits into two, albeit with overlap, and this is true of 20C English classical music. There is a difference between 'the people celebrating their country through music' and a patriotic ra-ra-ra.

If RVW and others responded to accusations that English classical music didn't dig deep enough into history, then in a sense what was being alleged was that it lacked enough depth to be nationalistic. It seems to me that they might be seen as 'nationalistic' to the extent that they created a new national music. But the way in which they did it, not least in rooting some of the music in forgotten folk song, was hardly 'for king and country'. Folk music was the people's music and often created in rebellion.

So I sometimes wonder if the English have such a problem with their countryside, or the underbelly of urban life, that they seek to link them inextricably with "Evil Empire". In truth, many here were the victims of Empire. The common music of, say, Spain or Latin America is a celebration of ordinary life there or, often, a critique of political regimes. I don't see why our national music should be very different, even if as the piece by John Ireland showed some days ago, it has often been pegged on to patriotic events.

I could also speak about how one might view those inputs as turning nationalism into something more acceptable by enabling it to be more encompassing, rather than as being compromised by nationalism, but that requires more words and this is not the place.

[rauschwerk]

If RVW and others responded to accusations that English classical music didn't dig deep enough into history,...

It seems to me that, quite simply, many composition pupils of Stanford were trying to avoid the Germanic models of compositions on which they had been force-fed, and that the last thing they wanted was to become Brahms clones. So RVW, Holst and others sought out folksong, RVW went to Paris and Ravel, Goossens wrote very Frenchified pieces in reaction.

[Serial_Apologist]

On the last series of comments, might I mildly suggest that we exercise some caution on the terminology.

'Nationalism' and 'conservatism' aren't necessarily interchangeable in any sphere. In music, the latter to me denotes 'not the avant-garde' for want of a better phrase. More importantly, nationalism splits into two, albeit with overlap, and this is true of 20C English classical music. There is a difference between 'the people celebrating their country through music' and a patriotic ra-ra-ra.

If RVW and others responded to accusations that English classical music didn't dig deep enough into history, then in a sense what was being alleged was that it lacked enough depth to be nationalistic. It seems to me that they might be seen as 'nationalistic' to the extent that they created a new national music. But the way in which they did it, not least in rooting some of the music in forgotten folk song, was hardly 'for king and country'. Folk music was the people's music and often created in rebellion.

So I sometimes wonder if the English have such a problem with their countryside, or the underbelly of urban life, that they seek to link them inextricably with "Evil Empire". In truth, many here were the victims of Empire. The common music of, say, Spain or Latin America is a celebration of ordinary life there or, often, a critique of political regimes. I don't see why our national music should be very different, even if as the piece by John Ireland showed some days ago, it has often been pegged on to patriotic events.

I could also speak about how one might view those inputs as turning nationalism into something more acceptable by enabling it to be more encompassing, rather than as being compromised by nationalism, but that requires more words and this not the place.

Surely to be nationalistic in/on behalf of a country which is an imperialist power is in no way progressive, unless it dissociates itself from the ruling order? How can it do that when the ruling order is part of a global order which can ultimately only be overcome by internationalist solidarity against the global order. One has to face the uncomfortable fact that the nationalist school RVW and Holst effectively initiated at the turn of the last century was a combination of many assumptions, close to those of Morris and Arts & Crafts, ruralist and anti-mass production, so one needs to isolate from within it the implicit areas of critique of the prevailing order, (industrialism's attack on the natural order, alienation), and point out where that critique had its heart in the right place but was ultimately inadequate.

Modernism (as opposed to Betjamenesque neo-archaism) was part and parcel of the work or preparation, the filling out of the spaces: Expressionism and its musical parallels the psychoanalytic counterparting peeling back of masks of denial to reveal some of the psychological mechanisms of acquiescence and fear; Constructivism archetypalising shapes of renewal.

Euan McColl and Peggy Seeger provided another part of the corrective, in their case (here) in terms of the "folk song revival" issue - working class resistance, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, internationalism.

[Lateralthinking1]

Surely to be nationalistic in/on behalf of a country which is an imperialist power is in no way progressive, unless it dissociates itself from the ruling order? How can it do that when the ruling order is part of a global order which can ultimately only be overcome by internationalist solidarity against the global order. One has to face the uncomfortable fact that the nationalist school RVW and Holst effectively initiated at the turn of the last century was a combination of many assumptions, close to those of Morris and Arts & Crafts, ruralist and anti-mass production, so one needs to isolate from within it the implicit areas of critique of the prevailing order, (industrialism's attack on the natural order, alienation), and point out where that critique had its heart in the right place but was ultimately inadequate.

Modernism (as opposed to Betjamenesque neo-archaism) was part and parcel of the work or preparation, the filling out of the spaces: Expressionism and its musical parallels the psychoanalytic counterparting peeling back of masks of denial to reveal some of the psychological mechanisms of acquiescence and fear; Constructivism archetypalising shapes of renewal.

Euan McColl and Peggy Seeger provided another part of the corrective, in their case (here) in terms of the "folk song revival" issue - working class resistance, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, internationalism.

I was born in this country. It is my right, and those of others, to define nationalism as we choose. If the nationalism that is presented to us is not to our liking, then we have no liberty if the only option available to us is to oppose it.

There is in me some awareness of 19th and 20th century Britain. A degree along the way, not that it should matter. The history in nationalism is just one history or, more accurately, one perspective on our history. If nationalism can select its history and say "this is nationalism", we can select other parts of the history and say "this is our nationalism".

I am not overly enamoured by human achievement. It is great only when it is great. I see land as being above most of it. Music and art are above most of it too. I quite like the comforting idyll that is offered by romanticism but it is not my idyllic or even romantic nationalism. There is no need for anything to be painted on by mere humans.

This might sound as if my nationalism resides on a desert island, involving nobody else but me. That is true. But it is also the suggestion to every other citizen that he and she should do the same. For there is the connection. It is one nation of
highly individual perspectives on nationalism becoming the definition of nationalism. And many will be of similar views.

Where perhaps this outlook is on rockier ground is in its allegiance to monarchy and the flag. However, such things are also for individual interpretation for if they are not, again, there is no liberty. Mine is that they provide cohesion and stand for nothing else. It is my right to take that view. It is anyone's right to do so. One might say that this ignores history and is therefore a distorted view. I say it is a liberation from the worst aspects of history and would, if widely applied, be radically transforming.

I think it was there in Isles of Wonder just a little. It was there too in John Ireland. Between the two, it all became very pro and anti. That is why nothing much has been seen to evolve. It is time to build on the new momentum.

[Anna]

I was born in this country. It is my right, and those of others, to define nationalism as we choose. .

Rubbish. You were born here, and were your ancestors; Angles, Jutes, Goths, Vikings, Normans, Romans, or Vandals? Were you not a Hugeneot or a Jew? Can you claim to be 100% - what? A Serf? Oh come on Lat were'll all mongrels!! And all the better for that.

[Lateralthinking1]

Rubbish. You were born here, and were your ancestors; Angles, Jutes, Goths, Vikings, Normans, Romans, or Vandals? Were you not a Hugeneot or a Jew? Can you claim to be 100% - what? A Serf? Oh come on Lat were'll all mongrels!! And all the better for that.

Anna, I don't know where we started. One side of it was definitely not from anywhere round here.

But isn't that the point?

In a multicultural Britain, we need a multicultural nationalism. People can unite with reference to silly people donning crowns in celebration of the grass and sea. Then one adds in socialism and another hinduism or whatever. A la carte.

It takes out all of the controversial bits.

[Serial_Apologist]

Anna, I don't know where we started. One side of it was definitely not from anywhere round here.

But isn't that the point?

In a multicultural Britain, we need a multicultural nationalism. People can unite with reference to silly people donning crowns in celebration of the grass and sea. Then one adds in socialism and another hinduism or whatever. A la carte.

It takes out all of the controversial bits.

Just because our 99% half of the class war goes into intermission doesn't mean that the other 1% half gives up and shakes hands, while we woefully admit that now us lot have come to our senses and agreed all around to disagree and let be what must be, everything'll be all right.

[french frank]

I think this discussion has now moved far enough away from the actual concert (Prom 46) to deserve a thread of its own.

[Northender]

That's a relief!

[french frank]

That's a relief!

Well, to be fair, when I feel I want to join in the debate because I have something I want to say but I can't because I'll be chided for being off-topic - then is the moment to 'upgrade' it to its own thread.

When Lat says:

It is my right, and those of others, to define nationalism as we choose. If the nationalism that is presented to us is not to our liking, then we have no liberty if the only option available to us is to oppose it.

it sounds a bit Humpty Dumptyish:

"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

How about the proposition that a multicultural society precludes nationalism altogether; or that nationalism is a denial of multiculturalism?

[Pabmusic]

"I am told that when grape vines were first cultivated in California the vineyard masters used to try the experiment of importing plants from France or Italy and setting them in their own soil. The result was that the grapes acquired a particular individual flavour, so strong was the influence of the soil in which they were planted. I think I need hardly draw the moral of this, namely, that if the roots of your art are firmly planted in your own soil and if that soil has anything individual to give you, you may still gain the whole world and not lose your own souls".

That is the final paragraph of RVW's lecture "National Music", delivered at Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, in 1932. Nothing about empires or multiculturalism, right- or left-wing politics - in fact, just leaning very slightly toward great-uncle Charles. It's easily available, published by OUP.

[MrGongGong]

How about the proposition that a multicultural society precludes nationalism altogether; or that nationalism is a denial of multiculturalism?

You are not following the "script"
which says

"Multiculturalism has failed"
you only have to look at the LSO (or any other UK Orchestra) to show how it's not possible for people from diverse communities and backgrounds to coexist

[Lateralthinking1]

"I am told that when grape vines were first cultivated in California the vineyard masters used to try the experiment of importing plants from France or Italy and setting them in their own soil. The result was that the grapes acquired a particular individual flavour, so strong was the influence of the soil in which they were planted. I think I need hardly draw the moral of this, namely, that if the roots of your art are firmly planted in your own soil and if that soil has anything individual to give you, you may still gain the whole world and not lose your own souls".

That is the final paragraph of RVW's lecture "National Music", delivered at Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, in 1932. Nothing about empires or multiculturalism, right- or left-wing politics - in fact, just leaning very slightly toward great-uncle Charles. It's easily available, published by OUP.

Well, that is excellent because it is entitled 'National Music' and it refers to the land. That might not have been his nationalism - instead it is about his music - but it is very close indeed to my sense of nationalism.

My points on empires - "nationalism doesn't have to be that way" and multiculturalism - "nationalism can embrace it" - were responses to serial_apologist and Anna. But mainly I feel that if it is people who are nationalistic, then it doesn't have to be mainly people who are celebrated in nationalism. It can be topography, culture etc instead.

I do have a 1940s leftish thing painted onto it but that is secondary. As I said, others will have hinduism, double decker buses, or whatever. That's up to them.

And frenchfrank's comment on Humpty Dumpty was very good, if a bit worrying.

[BBMmk2]

I feel that nationalism is to be patriotic.