One of the most noticeable things about being in Spain was the lack of flags bearing the St George’s Cross (or indeed, any other kind of flag) fluttering off the tops of cars, adorning shop windows or festooning bars. In fact, the Spanish flag is pretty limited to flying outside official buildings; in a country as football-mad as Spain this might strike the visiting Englishman as a little strange - although granted, Spain’s federal nature and Spanish attitudes to nationalism are somewhat different to the makeup of the United Kingdom and England, and I am no expert on Spanish matters.

So I’ll leave comparative nationalism studies to someone else and just focus on England by itself. What is notable about the proliferation of red crosses is its speed; only in the last ten years has it really taken off. In contrast, England fans at the 1966 World Cup generally flew the red, white and blue; even though the tournament was only played in England, the mascot World Cup Willie wore the British flag as a T-shirt (thus possibly making him the first punk). The flag’s inexorable rise and near-ubiquity in the streets these days can be taken as a sign of renewed English nationalism and the emergence of a tangible, separate, idea of “Englishness” rather than Britishness.

But I don’t think it’s just different attitudes to nationalism that means the cross is now so popular. There is an important design element to it; many of the St George’s Crosses flying out there have been modified in many different ways. Corporate logos can be added to promote a brand, lions have been placed in the corners (alluding to the England team’s crest), or worst of all, “ENGLAND” is splashed across it (a big no-no in vexillology). You could argue it’s “remix culture” in effect, but other reworkings of the cross, and flags in general, more often involve incorporating it as part of a larger work, rather than defacing it with external elements (as, for example, the flags of Barcelona and Milan, which both also use the St George’s Cross). Though neither nation is at this World Cup, I don’t recall seeing many Scottish or Irish flags ever being altered in the same manner, at any other time or sporting event. It might be because so many other entities use the St George’s Cross in some form; as well as the above cities, there is of course, the country of Georgia, and there are many more examples, I’m sure. However, I think there are other elements at stake.

Though I am no brow-beating patriot, from that point of view it does seem a little disrespectful to treat the flag like this (although it’s perhaps more disrespectful to let it get tatty, dirty and faded, as most flags seem to be after several weeks’ use). However, I’m more concerned with the aesthetic level, and I think it is a shame the flag is given these extra decorations; the flag, far from being the “bloody crucifix”, as it has been cruelly described, is quite a nice design by itself. What it lacks in originality or unusualness (it isn’t cool and asymmetric like Nordic crosses), it makes up for in its uncrowded look, the crispness of its lines and strong contrast; at the same time, these distinctly modern traits are tempered by the use of primary colours and allusions to medievality which make it look more traditional. Contemporary adornments spoil this layout without producing any addition cosmetic benefit.

The England flag’s design means it is a remixer’s dream - plenty of blank space to conquer, the colours offset most other colours with little clash, there is no copyright or rights-holder to worry about. But the design is only the means of expression, not the motive; it is only half of the reason. The other half is its relatively “clean” past; quite apart from the fact that the England flag avoids the imperialist, ultra-nationalist or downright racist connotations the Union Flag has, its relative novelty in popular consciousness and unofficial status means there is no taboo in altering it to whatever you want it to mean (unlike official flags, in some countries). Which has led to a multiplicity of modifications, as detailed above.

In particular, the addition of the navy blue lions (by far the most popular working, from my own informal observations), suggests the English are not yet comfortable with totally rejecting the red, white and blue. Furthermore, the choice of symbology is highly relevant; the lions come from the England team crest (both in football and cricket), which suggests that the sporting teams rather than the nation of England, are what the English conscience is centred around. The flag, the symbol of England, becomes subservient to the sporting sides, rather than vice versa. Furthermore, this infers that the England team’s successes and failures become central to the meaning of Englishness; at the moment this is OK (after all, we hold The Ashes and the Rugby World Cup), but should England’s football team not qualify for the next European Championships or World Cup, or the cricketers get belted Down Under this winter, that the connection between flag and people becomes a negative one.

The over-reliance on sporting endeavour (or lack of it) as a means of identity is no great surprise; unlike Wales and Scotland there is no English parliament, there is very little in the way of an “English” media, and although attempts to define a distinct English culture are growing, it is still in its nascent stages. While sport can play an important role (e.g. the role FC Barcelona played in Catalonia’s national identity), and I myself am a massive football fan, sport cannot be the only mover and shaker. If the trend for English people to become more English and less British is to fully mature (which is by no means certain; as well as the multiculturalism issue, there is the possibility that the ongoing North-South divide means English nationalism is usurped by regionalism), then it needs other outlets to express itself. The defacing and reworking of the England flag are an example of how Englishness is in the process of being defined, but without other means to do so - political, social, cultural - then the exercise remains exclusive, and risks English identity being made a hostage to sporting fortune; for the sake of an inclusive national identity that we can all be comfortable with, we should aim for as multilateral an approach as possible.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 12th, 2006 at 13:55:49 and is filed under General.