What does it imply to belong to a nation that doesn’t recognise you? In case you’ve spent any time on British political X in the previous few days, you’ve seemingly seen a video of GB Information US Correspondent Steve Edginton interviewing folks in a pocket of South London about their relationship to British id. The phase is a part of a wider documentary titled Yookay vs Britain: How immigration remodeled a nation.
However one second specifically has captured public consideration: a younger black man passionately articulating his expertise and sense of belonging. He’s requested by Edgington about Britain and Britishness, and talks about south London, about Stockwell and Clapham, and the way he was born in Britain and it’s his “residence”. When requested about Alfred the Nice, the Duke of Wellington and Churchill, he’s a bit not sure of himself however mainly chirpy.
That is somebody talking with real cheer about the place he’s from. And the video ought to have been seen as a strong instance of genuine human expression. As a substitute, it has turn out to be a Rorschach take a look at for the anxieties of the political proper about tradition, id and race. As Harrison Pitt put it “he’s something however assimilated” and “associates ‘Britain’ with its most conquered, colonised, YooKay areas” versus its “host folks”. One younger man in south London has obliviously turn out to be the personification of a perceived immigration emergency – and disaster of British nationhood.
For a while now, multiculturalism has been drifting to the centre of right-wing political discourse. Mass migration, cultural fragmentation, and id politics have made conversations round integration deeply contested. These disputes have spawned the “Yookay” meme Pitt referred to, an ironic shorthand for the nation some consider Britain has turn out to be: deracinated, multicultural, its ancestral roots torn up or decayed. And this is the reason, in some quarters of the political proper, we’re seeing the rise of what might be known as “aesthetic citizenship” – the concept one’s declare to nationwide belonging isn’t measured by shared values, civic participation, or contribution, however by how nicely you conform to a dominant aesthetic outlined by speech, costume, tone, posture, even emotional register.
The younger man within the video didn’t “match the half”. He was assured. He wore streetwear. He spoke in Multicultural London English. He was expressive, unapologetically himself. For some viewers, that alone disqualified him from true British citizenship – not on ethical or civic grounds, however on aesthetic ones. This doesn’t align with the “mannequin minority” trope – somebody like Rishi Sunak, for example, who embodies a model of Britishness that’s polished, palatable, and deferential to conventional norms. Nobody would model Sunak as “Yookay” or query whether or not he belongs.
The backlash reveals one thing deeper: some folks don’t really need the combination of minorities; they need assimilation. To take part in British life isn’t sufficient. To be pleased with Britain and name this place your house isn’t sufficient. It’s essential to carry out a particular model of Britishness – soft-spoken, composed, restrained and probably middle-class – to be thought-about really one in every of us. And there’s a rising hazard that we’re drifting right into a type of racial – or extra exactly, aesthetic – essentialism. This can be a worldview that judges belonging not by shared dedication or civic id, however by whether or not somebody acts, speaks, or clothes like the youngsters of the English shires.
This ignores a vital historic reality: many non-white Britons are second- or third-generation residents, raised in houses formed not by afternoon tea and Enid Blyton, however by diasporic reminiscence, migration trauma, non secular conviction, and postcolonial resilience. These will not be ethical deficiencies. They’re the consequence of distinct class trajectories and intergenerational cultural hybridity. However extra importantly, none of this precludes love of nation. None of it disqualifies somebody from nationwide loyalty, public service, or a need to belong. You possibly can put on a puffer jacket and love Britain. You possibly can communicate Multicultural London English and nonetheless consider within the Crown. You could be a Pentecostal and sing the nationwide anthem with sincerity.
And that is exactly why aesthetic essentialism is so harmful. It refuses to acknowledge the complexity of recent Britain. It tells a younger man from Brixton, who might deeply love this nation however doesn’t communicate in clipped RP, that he’s not one in every of us. This isn’t to say that one can’t increase professional considerations about facets of city youth tradition. Critique has its place. However more and more, these critiques are getting used to masks a deeper racial hostility. Sure, the interviewee within the viral clip displayed a shaky grasp of British historical past. However let’s be sincere: what number of white Brits in Brixton – or anyplace else within the nation – have opinions about King Alfred or the Duke of Wellington? Would their ignorance be used to query their Britishness?
The true concern isn’t information. It’s framing. The clip is getting used to pathologise a younger black man’s whole presence, whereas ignoring broader systemic failures – such because the shortcomings of the British training system in instructing a cohesive and inclusive nationwide historical past within the first place. However maybe that’s unsurprising. The phase types half of a bigger documentary titled Yookay vs Britain – a framing that’s inherently antagonistic. From the outset, it positions multiethnicity as a menace to “actual” Britain relatively than a constituent a part of it.
The model of Britishness valorised by elements of the suitable isn’t even mirrored in most white British residents. Most individuals don’t communicate Obtained Pronunciation, attend evensong, or learn Kipling. So what’s the normal – and who will get to set it? One wonders, too, how these identical critics view white radical progressives: folks born and raised in Britain who’re hostile to the monarchy, embarrassed by empire, and deeply crucial of British values. Their dissent is tolerated, even celebrated, as a result of their aesthetic nonetheless “suits”.
This exposes the core concern. We don’t have a shared definition of Britishness. What we’ve got as a substitute is a fragmented Britain, the place every subculture – liberal, conservative, city, rural – has its personal imagined normal of who qualifies as authentically British. And that, I might argue, is the better menace to nationwide cohesion than something captured by the phrase “Yookay” – or than any younger black man in south London.
[Further reading: Anarchy in the “yookay”]