The concept of national identity 

There are two widely accepted conceptions of nationality: ‘ethnic’ and ‘civic’, both of which are linked to the development of nations and states in Europe. The civic conception of nationalism helps explain the development of nations in states that had already emerged as political and geographical units (for example, France). As such, the nation was defined as the totality of people living within the boundaries of that state and abiding by its laws. This is why in the French conception of nationalism the words ‘nationality’ and ‘citizenship’ denote the same thing: belonging to the French state. Indeed, in the civic conception of nationalism, the nation and the citizenry are one and the same, which is why such states are often referred to as nation states. Consequently, when we think of national identity in civic terms, we think of an inclusive form of identity: a person associates themselves with the citizenry and the political and legal institutions of the state. His or her identity is defined by attachment to the state as embodied by its institutions and rules and not by traditions, language or religion. Conversely, when we think of ethnic nationalism, traditions, language, religion and ancestry are precisely the things that matter. As opposed to the civic nation, the ethnic conception of nationalism came into existence in Germany and Eastern Europe as a response of communities in highly fragmented societies (such as the Austro-Hungarian empire) searching to define themselves. While civic nationalism emerged after, and as a response to, the emergence of a physical state, ethnic nationalism emerged and solidified culturally distinct communities who were looking to form their own state. This is why in nation states where the ethnic conception of nationalism dominates there is a clear distinction between citizenship and nationality. Citizenship denotes a person’s legal status vis-à-vis the state; nationality denotes his or her intrinsic identity. Ethnic national identity is characterised by an attachment to one’s ancestry, tradition, culture and language – and not necessarily to the state a person was born and lives in. This is why an ethnic national identity is exclusive: if you are not born into it, you cannot acquire it (Ignatieff, 1995).

This discussion assumes a very clear distinction between the two types of national identity. While this is accurate in certain circumstance and some states neatly fit into one or other category (for example, France and Germany), the picture in the UK is more complicated. Tilley et al., (2004) cite Cohen (1994) who describes Britishness as being a ‘fuzzy’ concept that cannot be readily placed into either of these two buckets. As such, they propose a matrix within which these two types of national identity intersect with one another, producing four possible types of national identity. This is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Their analysis of the 1995 and 2003 ISSP data suggests that most people in Britain think of national identity in a way which combines both ethnic and civic dimensions.