A quest for national quintessence
For many people in Europe, religion and ethnicity now seem to inspire more loyalty and affinity than does the country named on their passport. This is the main reason that British finance minister Gordon Brown is pushing for a firmer declaration of Britishness. 'To know where we are going, we first have to know who we are,' Mr Brown has said.
By contrast, Chinese don't ask themselves who they are. Chinese psychologists say that the value system represented by Chineseness is so ingrained and universally honoured that there is no reason to question or assert it. It stresses family, social hierarchy, self-restraint and hard work. Some would argue that it is uniquely resilient, surviving for generations among overseas Chinese.
Britishness, on the other hand, can't even seem to hang together in Britain. Mr Brown timorously proposes that Britishness may start with the values of tolerance, liberty and fairness. This is hardly inspiring: there can't be many takers for a national motto of 'intolerance, suppression and injustice'.
Mr Brown could fairly argue that it is not the characteristics themselves that describe Britishness, but the particular pattern of emphasis. We all share the same basic bundle of traits, but some adapt to the world by prioritising patience, for example, while others may stress dynamism. However, since the basic values seem to be in question, figuring out the order in which the British place them seems premature.
It is also useful to recall that national character does not form in a vacuum. Just as an individual depends on outside feedback to develop a self-image, so a nation is influenced by how others regard it. Therefore, Mr Brown would have to consider the discrepancy between his defining values and those I have heard repeatedly - including from a Hong Kong friend who spent six months in London: dry humour, politeness and drunkenness.
Philsopher Julian Baggini makes a case against uniqueness. He says that to belong in a country it is enough to respect the rule of law and to be committed to certain civic values - but those values do not necessarily distinguish one nation from another.
Differences do exist, however, even between cultural neighbours, if the respective citizenship tests of America and Britain are anything to go by. Would-be Americans have to swot up on factoids. They also have to know what is the most important right of a US citizen (the right to vote); why the Pilgrims came to America (to escape religious persecution); and what the First Amendment guarantees (freedom of speech, press and so on). The stress on rights and freedoms implies an emphasis on corresponding duties.
An aspiring British citizen, on the other hand, needs to know what he should do if he accidentally knocks over someone's beer in a pub and what number he should dial if the incident leads to a brawl. The political theorists who devised the test wanted something more 'humble' and welcoming than the US one.
So, 21st-century Britishness is not deep-rooted like Chineseness, nor assertively idealist like Americanness. Mr Brown, though, was not really talking about what Britishness is, but what he would like it to be.
It was as close as a politician in a multicultural, terrorist-producing country dares get to former US president John F. Kennedy's 'Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country'.
Jean Nicol looks at everyday issues from the point of view of a psychologist
