1

Let them be Actors Themselves

The Role of Citizens and the role of Government in the creation of Civic Identity

The central aim of this paper will be to understand how civic identity is created and constructed ‘in a bottom up manner’ by the members who consist of it. It will also examine the role of Government in

this procedure and analyses whether their efforts help or hinder its process.

In order to address this issue this essay will develop the idea of ‘authenticity’ as found in Political Theory. This is the notion of an identity which is created by the people themselves through their actions and experiences as opposed to identities chosen or attributed to them by government or

external agents. In developing this theory we will draw from such thinkers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Søren Kierkegaard, Hannah Arendt and Charles Taylor.

Finally this paper will examine recent developments in Scotland in order to analyze and understand this process. It will deploy the theory of ‘authentic identity’ to examine how Scottish civic identity has developed over the last forty years to reach the form we find it in now. I will further examine the role played by the Westminster and Scottish Governments in this, analyzing whether they have helped or hindered this process, and asses the consequences of this for both civic identity and the government

of the British Isles.

Contact Details

Email: rb87@st-andrews.ac.uk

Address: 104 Lamond Drive

St Andrews

Fife

Scotland

KY16 8DB

Phone: 07881362986

2

It will be the intention of this paper to formulate a paradigm for understanding recent developments

in Scotland’s civic identity. In particular we will wish to understand how bottom up movements, that

is movements driven by the people themselves rather than by political elites, have shaped and

formulated Scottish civic identity in recent years. We will also hope to understand how such

movements in identity creation can be encouraged and how the role of Government may help or

hinder these developments.

In order to formulate this new paradigm we will look back to the European tradition of

thought and in particular the philosophical concept of ‘authenticity’. We will look to the Geneva

philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in particular in developing this concept focusing on his

appreciation of ‘self-understanding’; how identity can be developed by individuals and peoples

themselves through their own activity and furthermore how such an identity relates to and conflicts

with the identities advocated by a communities governing elites. Through developing this concept of

‘authentic identity’ we will be able to shed light on recent developments in Scotland and particularly

how Scottish ‘self-understanding’ has grown and come into conflict with both the governing powers

at Westminster and Holyrood.

Considering the difficulties in relating a historical thinker to more contemporary events it is

worth first clarifying our textual approach to distant thinkers such as Rousseau. A Paradigm, as

famously defined by Thomas Kuhn, is a set of established rules and practices which can provide

models for traditions in thought1. We are therefore looking to ascertain and construct a model for

interpreting how identity is formulated from which we may better understand the particular Scottish

phenomena we are trying to understand. We must be careful not however simply take these

thinkers observations as ‘timeless truths’ which can simply be lifted from his own historical context

and applied to our own without difficulty. As Quentin Skinner stresses we must understand that in

writing each historical thinker was attempting to answer a question which arose from their own

historical context and it is precisely this context in which we must understand their work2. In regards

3

to this we must therefore attempt to construct our paradigm of ‘authenticity’ from the work of

thinkers such as Rousseau whilst simultaneously paying close attention to the contextual factors

which inform both their understanding and our own.

In response to this our approach will be similar to the hermeneutical exercise Hans-

George Gadamer called the ‘fusion of Horizons’3. We will address Rousseau’s work within the

historical context or ‘horizon’ in which he wrote but we will do so whilst always bearing in mind that

we first approached Rousseau in an attempt to better understand the horizon we ourselves are

situated in. Through this process we will therefore aim to understand how Rousseau attempted to

address the issues facing identity in his own Eighteenth Century European context and from this

construct our own paradigm which we will then use to better understand the issues facing

contemporary Scottish civic identity. Through this ‘fusion’ of respected horizons we will thus be able

to both better appreciate Rousseau’s own thought and concerns as well as formulate the paradigm

of authenticity which will be deployed to understand the problems concerning our own historical

context.

In order to achieve this aim this paper will proceed in three steps. In section one we will

address Rousseau’s concerns about his own historical context and particularly his concern for the

identity of his native Geneva expressed in the Letter D’ Alembert. Section two will then attempt to

develop the concerns Rousseau raised in the Letter and, by relating them to his wider thought,

attempt to construct this paradigm of authenticity. Section three will then finally attempt to use this

understanding of ‘authenticity’ to better appreciate the nature and development of contemporary

Scottish civic identity. In particular we will analyse the development of Scotland’s ‘unofficial’

national anthem as to uncover how an ‘authentic identity’ may be constructed and the problems it

may face. Finally in the conclusion we will look at the implications of this understanding of national

identity both for Scotland and the wider European context.

1. Rousseau’s Genevan Problem

4

We may begin by addressing Rousseau’s Letter to d’ Almbert. The Letter was written in 1758 in

response to Alembert’s article on Geneva given for the Encyclopédie. Despite giving a generally

positive account of Geneva one element of the city Alembert found unfavourable was its lack of a

theatre and the ‘barbarous prejudice’ its citizens appeared to harbour against such professions as

comedians. As well as this unfortunate element Alembert also goes to great length to criticise

Geneva’s Calvinist Clergy particularly on matters of theology4. This ‘irregular behaviour’ Alembert

claims could nonetheless be mended by the construction of a theatre which would educate and

reform the Geneva’s citizenry5. Thus in Alembert’s article we find him criticising many of the

traditional practices of Geneva and advocating the creation of a theatre in a bid to correct them.

It is to defend these traditional practices, and thus ‘in defence of his country’, that Rousseau

writes his reply to Alambert6. Interestingly Rousseau does not engage Alembert on matters of

theology but rather defends Geneva’s church on ‘practical’ matters. He insists that whatever the

doctrines of the church may be they provide an invaluable social role in teaching the Geneva’s

citizens their duty to the city state and helping them understand their place in the world7. It is on a

similar practical vein that Rousseau also defends Geneva’s small social gatherings and societies

known as ‘circles’. Rousseau claims that although these societies are predominantly held in taverns

where men smoke and drink they are nevertheless invaluable to the Genevan Republic. First of all

they create a space where citizens can gather and discuss the politics of the day and thus form the

possibility for grass-roots participation in politics. Secondly by participating in these ancient practices

of the city-state Rousseau claims Geneva’s citizenry are also able to identify and define themselves

as members of that community8. Thus these societies provide the space in which citizens can gather

to discuss and participate in politics and through practising these traditions are able to identify

themselves with the Republic.

Thus we may understand that Rousseau defended Geneva’s church and her traditions on the

practical basis that it was these institutions that allowed its citizen’s to understand their place in the

5

world; through practicing and identifying with these customs Geneva’s citizens were able to identify

with and develop their Genevan identity. It was however such practices that Rousseau believed a

theatre would prove a direct threat to. The majority of Rousseau’s Letter is thus unsurprisingly taken

up with a criticism of Alembert’s proposal for a theatre in Geneva.

Rousseau responds to Alembert’s recommendations by rejecting the idea that the theatre

can educate. On the contrary Rousseau insists a theatre’s primary purpose is rather to ensnare the

audience through exciting their passions. As Rousseau explains moral and truthful plays are

uninteresting and in order to captivate the audience’s attention playwrights must display grossly

exaggerated human characteristics9. Jérôme Brillaud argues that such an interpretation is in line with

the cornerstone technique of French Neoclassical Poetics; verisimilitude. The purpose of

verisimilitude is to create and present a set of values and expectations to the audience rather than

allow them to construct these for themselves. This was unacceptable for Rousseau as it prevented

the audience from forming their own opinions and beliefs and made them dependent on the illusion

presented on the stage10. Consequently we can observe Rousseau rejected the belief that the

theatre was an educative device insisting it was rather an organ of coercion which manipulated the

people’s opinions and prevented them from forming their own. Thus rather than allowing the

Genevans to participate and disclose their identity through participating in the city-state’s traditions

they would have a morality and identity enforced upon them through the theatre.

Rousseau proceeds that one of the major effects of the theatre is that individuals become

overly concerned with the stories they are presented with and forget their relations in the real

world;

“we forget our friends, our neighbours, our relations, only to concern ourselves with fabulous

representations,11”.

Rousseau believed the ‘circles’ were in particular directly under threat by the construction of

the theatre as attendance to these would decrease as people became more concerned with

6

attending the theatre. The consequence of this would be that Geneva’s citizenries understanding of

themselves as developed through participating through the community’s traditions would be

replaced by a ‘false’ understanding of themselves as dictated by the representation they are

confronted with on the stage; the authentic identity of Geneva constructed through shared practices

would be replaced with the inauthentic identity provided by the theatre12.

To better understand Rousseau’s concerns however we must investigate the political

context in which he wrote. Geneva had gone through dramatic change from its foundation as a small

republic to the time of Rousseau’s birth. With the religious wars of the Sixteenth Century refugees

had poured into Geneva swelling its population significantly. Although the Genevan government was

originally open to refugees it gradually became less hospitable, increasing taxes and putting

considerable price on citizenship. This did not pose trouble for the richer French refugees who were

able to both purchase citizenship and marry into older established families creating a de facto

‘Francophile elite’. This shift was reflected in the political organization of Geneva as the importance

of the General Council, where every citizen was entitled to vote, was eclipsed by the Small Council,

which was under the control of this new elite. Animosity between this new elite and the rest of the

citizenry grew as the former began using their contacts in the French court to become

moneylenders. This threatened Geneva’s independence as first the ‘elite’ families and then gradually

the entire Republic became heavily dependent on France. This animosity intensified when, in

response to the increasingly Francophile nature of Geneva, a German embargo was placed upon the

city which ruined the artisan class. The newly impoverished class naturally placed blame on the

Francophile banking elite who grew rich on French banking at the expense, they claimed, of Geneva

as a whole. This eventually manifested in the splitting of Geneva when the Francophile elite

segregated themselves from the rest of the city into an ‘upper town’. The division of the city was

made evident by the fact that, now separated from the rest of the citizenry, the Francophile elite fell

further under the influence of French culture as they adopted a new taste for the arts, theatre and

luxurious living. Indeed it should be noted that the theatre in particular was associated with French

7

culture. Thus it can be observed that Rousseau grew up in a city which was socially and culturally

polarised and in which traditional Genevan practices and institutions were believed to be at risk

from the influx of French culture13. Indeed those who identified with the ‘traditional Genevan’

culture of the city could indeed be understood to be becoming ‘frozen out’ of their city’s politics by

this rising elite.

Thus we may understand Rousseau’s criticism of Alembert and his proposals for the theatre

as a defence of what he saw as Geneva’s traditional and authentic identity against the influx of

French culture which was encouraged by the city’s elites. Indeed from this we may understand more

clearly what Rousseau meant when he stated he wrote to defend his native country14. As further

evidence of this affiliation we might observe that at the time of writing the Letter Rousseau was in

close correspondence to the lead defender of Geneva’s traditions against the Francophile incursion

Jacob Vernet15. It is also not difficult to view Alembert, with his complaints that Geneva appeared

gloomy ‘to the French’, as proponent in the Francophile camp16. This affiliation is apparent when we

consider Alembert’s relationship with Voltaire who, after relocating to Geneva in 1755, was seen as

the figurehead of Geneva’s Francophile elite17 . Alembert and Voltaire were not only close friends

but Alembert actually stayed with Voltaire whilst undertaking his research for the article. Indeed

Graham Gargett notes that at the time it was largely believed that Alembert was just a mouthpiece

for Voltaire who composed the article himself18. What is not so much important here is the historical

fact whether Alembert wrote the article himself but that at the time he was believed to be only a

mouthpiece of Voltaire and thus of the Francophile elite. In rebutting Alembert and his views it

would thus certainly seem that Rousseau was casting himself as defender of Geveva’s traditions and

institutions against the incursion of French culture.19

We may thus interpret Rousseau’s letter as a defence of Geneva’s traditional culture and

identity against the Francophile culture proliferated predominantly by their most powerful weapon

the theatre. More particularly we may understand the argument as a defence of Geneva’s authentic

8

identity created and maintained by the citizens participation in the traditions and practices of the

city against an inauthentic or alien culture propagated by the city’s elites.

Nonetheless Rousseau did not only criticise the current affairs of Geneva but also offered a

solution. This solution was an alternate form of entertainment called the ‘fête’. This Rousseau

describes as an open space where the audience themselves are allowed to participate and act rather

than have a show put on for them. Rousseau describes what would be shown at the fête as;

“nothing, if you please… let the spectators be exhibited as the show, let them be actors

themselves”20.

This description is the most debated passage in the text. Jacques Derrida has claimed Rousseau, by

proposing a ‘stage without a show’, proclaims the death of the theatre21. Brillaud however insists

that focus should not be put on the term ‘nothing’ but on ‘as you please’. The effect of this is to

collapse the presented image of the theatre into an open space, the ‘nothing’, in which the audience

can come and act if they so desire, if they ‘please’22. We wish to follow Brillaud with his

interpretation of ‘open space’ but we would also wish to emphasise Rousseau’s phrase ‘let them be

actors themselves’. Clearly from this we can understand the fête as a space where the audience

themselves come to create value rather than be dictated to by the image presented on the stage.

From this we can interpret Rousseau’s fête as a collapsing of the ensnaring illusion of the theatre

into an open space where the audience themselves can come and create value.

Thus we may understand that Rousseau saw Geneva’s authentic identity as threatened by a

Francophile culture propagated by the city’s elites. The main weapon they used to spread this

culture was the theatre which projected models of behaviour and morality onto a passive audience.

In response to this Rousseau advocated the fête which consisted of an open space in which the

citizens could themselves gather and construct value and meaning. From this we may consequently

understand the means Rousseau advocated for retaining an authentic identity was the creation of

9

space where individuals could come and have the opportunity to gather and create and contribute

to the community’s identity.

This brings us to the end of our discussion about Rousseau and the issues of his

contemporary Geneva. In the next section we will proceed to extrapolate from this historical debate

our paradigm of ‘authentic identity’ which will be used to understand contemporary debates in

Scotland.

2. ‘Authenticity’

To summarise we have observed that Rousseau perceived the Genevans to have an authentic

identity in so far as it was constructed through their own engagement and participation in such

practices as grassroots public discussions and involvement with the Calvinist Church. We have seen

however that this identity he perceived was threatened by the new Francophile culture which the

city-state’s elites were attempting to impose upon the populace from above. To summarise

therefore we may say that the genuine identity the citizens of Geneva had created for themselves

was threatened by an alien identity which the ruling elites were trying to impose.

Such an understanding of identity is further evident across his writings. In his earliest work

Discourse on the Sciences and Arts Rousseau claims one of the negative effects of the ‘civilised’ arts

and sciences is that they pressurise individuals to appear and behave in a particular manner that is

according to the fashions and prejudices of the time. As a consequence of this people are too

frightened to appear as they truly are but rather are forced ‘to wear a mask’23. The political nature of

this claim, and indeed its relevance to Rousseau’s Genevan concerns, become more apparent when

we consider his much later work The Government of Poland. Here Rousseau claims that the unique

cultures of the European nations are being gradually worn away as political elites attempt to

cultivate a civilised ‘European culture’ across the continent as corresponds to the fashions of the

time24. He particularly lambasts the idea in Poland that a Pole should wish to appear in court clad as

‘a Frenchman’ as opposed to wearing his own national dress. What we can interpret from this is that

10

Rousseau perceives a threat to people’s and nation’s unique identities by a prevailing ‘civilised’

culture which is being propagated by the governing elite. We may therefore understand an

‘authentic’ identity as this unique identity which has been constructed by the practices and

experiences of the actual individuals who make up the community. This is threatened by the identity

of the political elites who wish to impose an identity upon the populace which is more according to

their own aims and desires.

We may further elucidate this understanding of ‘authenticity’ by comparing Rousseau’s

thought to Søren Kierkegaard’s observations a century later. Kierkegaard understood life as a

journey of free acts and choices which allowed individuals to realise their possibilities and thus come

to understand who they are. Nonetheless Kierkegaard also observed individuals often choose to

avoid this journey of self-discovery as it is difficult and steeped in anxiety. Instead they take the ‘easy

option’ of adopting a pre-constructed identity and in the process negate the freedom of choice to

determine who they are25. The similarity here with Rousseau’s concept of identity is evident as we

can see both put emphasis on being who we are through our own choices and construction rather

than attempting to adopt an external pre-constructed identity. Indeed Kierkegaard also recognised

that this desire to adopt a pre-constructed identity was particularly endemic in modern society. Like

Rousseau Kierkegaard observed the pressures of modern society often required us to become

something we are not and thus ‘forget ourselves’26. Consequently we may interpret the problem

pertaining identity was that modern society was forcing individuals to supress who they truly where,

that is who they are as a result of their own choices and construction, in order to conform with the

rest of society.

This understanding of ‘authenticity’ resonates with the description Charles Taylor gives in

The Ethics of Authenticity. Taylor defines this notion as being true to who we originally are through

our own articulation and discovery and not by the imposition or imitation of an external identity. It is

11

through this duel process of action and reflection that Taylor claims we define ourselves and become

‘authentic’27.

We have come thus to understand an ‘authentic identity’ as one which is constructed by

individuals themselves through their acts and experiences. Such an identity stands in contrast to

what we may call a ‘pre-constructed’ identity which an individual may take on rather than

developing their own understanding of themselves. It has been further identified how ‘authentic’

identities are particularly threatened by ‘pre-constructed identities’ when the latter have the force

of the prevailing fashions or the support of a communities elites and leaders behind them.

The question however remains how can these ‘authentic identities’ be maintained and

encouraged? In the Letter we see that Rousseau held that the identity of Geneva’s citizens had been

fostered through their participation in the public affairs of the city and through their engagement

with its church. In Poland we may again observe that it is through citizen participation in the

traditions of Poland which Rousseau believes will maintain and encourage the Polish identity28. We

might also add to this the importance Rousseau puts on the ability for citizens to be able to

participate in public ceremonies and traditions in his draft constitution for the island of Corsica29.

We can thus understand that an individual’s ability to participate and share in the traditions

and practices of a community as essential in generating an ‘authentic identity’. But how can we

insure that individual’s will be able to partake in these practices? We may recall when addressing the

problem facing Geneva Rousseau advocated the féte as his solution. The crucial importance of this

was that it was a public space in which the citizens themselves became involved in the spectacle and

thus shared and contributed the formation of identity. In Government of Poland we can observe

Rousseau advocating similar ‘open spaces’ in which the form of national games. The importance

here is again on the ability of all citizens to be able to participate equally and thus share in and

contribute to the identity of the community30. We might therefore deduce from this that the key to

securing the means for a community to generate its own ‘authentic identity’ is to facilitate the

12

possibility of open public spaces in which citizens all have equal access to participate in and thus

share in practicing and contributing to the traditions and identity of the community. The

fundamental basis of Rousseau’s concept of ‘public space’ is nowhere better demonstrated than is a

short comment he makes about the maypole;

“You may plant a maypole in the middle of square… let the people then assemble round it, and this

shall be called a festival”31.

Clearly the quintessence of the idea of ‘public space’ is not actually what goes on within it but the

space itself which facilitates citizen participation and allows them a role in moulding both their own

and their communities ‘authentic identity’. It is this ‘space’ and the citizen’s ability to participate

freely in it which is necessary if a community is to maintain their ‘authentic identity’.

Before proceeding on however it is worth perhaps finally defending why an ‘authentic

identity’ is actually important and thus why we should go to such great lengths in allowing for it to

flower. Taylor claims that for Rousseau the need for recognition of one’s ‘authentic identity’ was

crucial for the health of an individual32. Indeed we may see that recognition can be considered as a

primary drive for Rousseau by the fact he claims it was this social drive, and not biological necessity,

that resulted in the creation of languages33. Similarly we may observe in the Discourse on the Origin

of the Foundations of Inequality amongst men that it was this desire to be recognised by one’s peers

that is the origin of human conflict34. From this we may understand that recognition of identity is

important as it is one of a human beings fundamental needs. In Government of Poland Rousseau also

stresses the fundamental importance of recognition for the wellbeing of communities. He argues

that it was by demeaning their culture that foreign nations were able to weaken Poland and allow

for intrusions into her sovereignty. The first thing the Poles must do if they are to be strong again is

therefore to believe in themselves35. We may therefore interpret from this that recognition of one’s

identity is a fundamental human need and the failure to gain this can severly damage and individual

or community.

13

We may clarify this with the arguments of Taylor. Following Rousseau Taylor claims the

failure to recognise or the misrecognition of one’s ‘authentic identity’ can do great damage to an

individual or culture as it belittles and demeans their mode of existence36. This is crucial as we can

understand an individual’s or a communities’ authentic identity, being constructed and developed

through their own understanding and experiences, as representing exactly this; their mode of

existence or being. Therefore if the individual or community is to gain recognition and be accepted

for who they truly are it is fundamental that these authentic identities are recognised and allowed

space to grow. Preventing this development or attempting to replace such ‘authentic identities’ with

something more ‘fashionable’ or deemed more ‘appropriate’ or ‘correct’ by elites is to consequently

demean and belittle these identities and with it the individual and communities very mode of being.

To thus summarise concisely the recognition and facilitating of authentic identity is a crucial human

need and to prevent this can do significant damage to an individual or community by belittling their

very mode of being.

This established we may now summarise our concept of ‘authentic identity’. We

have understood this concept as the construction and cultivation of an identity by an individual or a

community through their own actions and experiences. This ‘authentic identity’ is furthermore of

fundamental importance to the subject concerned as it represents their mode of being and their

existence. We have seen however such an identity and process is endangered by the temptation to

adopt ‘pre-constructed’ identities especially when these have behind them the force of current

fashions or prejudices or the support of the community’s elites. We have finally seen the best way of

securing an ‘authentic identity’ is provide the possibilities of open ‘public space’ which allows for all

members of the community to equally and freely participate in the practices of the community and

contribute to the development of identity and understanding. This concept of ‘authentic identity’

thus defined we may now turn to use this paradigm in understanding contemporary Scottish civic

identity.

14

3. Authenticity and Scottish National Identity

Scotland’s unique history and culture has had an extremely prominent role in shaping

Scottish identity. Nonetheless despite the importance of Scotland’s history its interpretation has

always been a controversial matter. Unfortunately the confines of this essay do not allow us to

examine Scotland’s identity and relationship to its past in its entirety. Rather we will focus on one

particular case which illustrates this wider controversy, namely the debate surrounding the Scottish

National Anthem37.

Scotland’s ‘unofficial’ National Anthem was composed by Roy Williamson in 1966 and played

by the band he made with Ronnie Browne the Corries. The political implications of the song were

immediately evident not just because of the subject matter, celebrating the Scottish victory over the

English at the battle of Bannockburn, but also because the tune was played to close Corries concerts.

This was of course a direct challenge to British tradition where all concerts were closed by a

rendition of the British National Anthem ‘God Save the Queen’. The song became widely popular in

the 1970’s and 1980’s gradually transforming from a simple protest song at a folk concert to being

perceived as an alternative ‘Scottish’ National Anthem38. Murrey Pittock notes that one unique

factor in the spread of ‘flower’ was that this was achieved not so much by the media or even the

attending of Corries concerts but rather by oral transmission as the song was recounted and shared

by Scots throughout the 70’s and 80’s39. Following Williamson’s death ‘flower’ was sung for the first

time in the capacity of a National Anthem at Murrayfield in 1990. Since then ‘flower’ has been used

as a de facto national anthem at sporting events and national celebrations40.

To understand this development we must understand both the song ‘flower’ replaced and

the context this occurred in. ‘God Save the Queen’ is often perceived as a deeply Anglo-centric tune

which is not only unpopular in Scotland but indeed often invokes hostility41. This is perhaps not

surprising considering the song, first played during the 1745 Jacobite rebellion, originally contained

the lines asking God to ‘save’ the British Monarch by ‘crushing rebellious Scots’42 .

15

We can view ‘flower’s’ ascendency and eventual supplanting of ‘God Save the Queen’

against the backdrop of a resurgence in Scottish culture beginning in the 1960’s. T.M. Devine and

Pittock have attributed this resurgence of Scottish culture to an erosion of Scottish political

autonomy by the increased centralisation of the Westminster government and its supporting of a

more ‘Pan-British’ culture. This would become particularly evident under Prime Minister Margaret

Thatcher and her Conservative Government, perceived in Scotland as an ‘English party’. Matters

would intensify in 1987 when despite being soundly defeated in Scotland Thatcher would win the

election across the United Kingdom as a whole. Thus by 1990 the Scottish people largely believed

they were being governed by an undemocratic body who was forcing both unwanted policies and

culture upon them43. We can thus understand the rise of ‘flower’ as part of a resurgence in Scottish

culture reacting to the pan-British culture of a Government that was perceived as undemocratic and

working against the nation’s interests.

We can shed light on this historical development with our interpretation of authenticity. We

can see that Scottish tradition was perceived to be under threat by the British Government at

Westminster. In response to this we find a small folk band singing a song in protest. Through this act

they constructed and disclosed their own identity as they chose to stress their Scottish nationality

against the pan-British model being expounded by their political elites. This expression of identity

was not however contained to the concerts but was acted out wherever Scots came together and

communicated in song. This would indeed provide a unique example of our understanding of ‘public

space’ as we can observe Scots coming together in impromptu spaces across the country and

mutually expressing and disclosing their identity. This eventually culminated in the singing of ‘flower’

at a national event and the adoption of it as a representation of Scotland’s identity. We can thus call

this the formation of an ‘authentic identity’ as we can see it was created by the Scottish people

coming together and mutually expressing and disclosing their understanding of their identity.

16

Nevertheless in the Twenty-First Century we can perceive a problem with the recognition of

Scotland’s ‘authentic identity’. Scotland’s political elites have been particularly reluctant to view

‘flower’ as an expression of Scottish identity and have rather wished the identity of the people to

conform to a more ‘politically correct’ model. The deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives for

instance insisted the song must be changed as it is ‘jingoistic’44. Former Labour First Minister Jack

McConnell similarly called for the anthem to be changed in order to improve Scotland’s ‘national

brand’45. Even former First Minister and leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party Alex Salmond called

for the song to be replaced with ‘Scotland will Flourish’, a song he claimed represented a more ‘open

nationalism’ in its rejection of bigotry46. This is all in spite of the fact popular pols continually show

‘flower’ as the song Scots believe themselves to best express Scottish National Identity47.

Thus we can see in the Twenty-First Century the problem of Scotland’s political leaders

failing to recognise the authentic Scottish identity as formulated by its people. Taking it upon

themselves to decide that ‘flower’ is not an ‘appropriate’ expression of Scottish identity they have

tried to create a more ‘marketable’ or ‘open’ expression as suits their respected agendas. In this they

are essentially trying to veil the authentic Scottish identity as generated by its people and provide it

with a more acceptable ‘mask’. Thus we can understand the problem of Scottish civic identity in our

contemporary context as one where the ‘authentic identity’ of the Scottish people is failing to be

recognised by the nation’s political elites.

We have seen from our understanding of Rousseau that recognition is vital to the health of

both individuals and peoples. It would thus follow that the failure to recognise this expression of

identity by Scotland’s political elites will have negative consequences. Firstly we observed Scotland’s

‘authentic identity’ was born out of a feeling of lost autonomy. If Scottish politicians are to fail to

recognise this movement and attempt to enforce one of their own pre-constructed identities on to

the people this can only increase the latter’s feeling of powerlessness and lack of agency.

17

However failing to recognise ‘Flower’ may not only increase the Scottish people’s feeling of

political impotence but may also hurt their esteem and cultivate a negative conception of

themselves. It is conveying that the identity that Scots have defined themselves by is not an

acceptable identity for modernity and furthermore Scots cannot be trusted to construct an identity

for themselves and must have one constructed for them by their ‘political elites’. When Salmond

first ran for the position of First Minister he did so on a promise to restore the nation’s self-

confidence and combat the ‘Scottish Cringe’; the belief amongst Scots that they are culturally

inferior48. Thus Salmond recognised that the first thing the country needed to do going forward was

to believe in itself again. A very similar message indeed to what Rousseau told the Polish49. By

refusing to the identity which Scots have chosen for themselves however we recognise ‘flower’

cannot hope to restore Scotland’s self-confidence but only damage it further.

By reflecting on the contemporary horizon the author is situated in through our

interpretation of Rousseau we have come to shed light on the identity debate pertaining Twenty-

First Century Scotland. Firstly we have seen that Scotland has largely constructed its own ‘authentic

identity’ through its choice of national anthem in ‘flower’. We termed this as an ‘authentic identity’

as it was generated and chosen by the Scots themselves when they came together to disclose and

define their identity. We have nonetheless seen a problem with this as Scotland’s political elites

have been reluctant to accept this expression of identity. We have argued that this failure of

recognition could damage Scotland both politically and, perhaps more crucially, in terms of her self-

confidence and esteem.

Although we have only used the paradigm of authenticity to analyse the issue of Scotland’s

‘unofficial’ national anthem we can expand this to understand the political climate of the country as

a whole. During the referendum campaign Scotland bore witness to incredible amounts of small

grass-roots movements for independence ranging from associations such as ‘farmers’, ‘women’ and

‘academics’ for independence as well as associations such as ‘The National Collective’ which aimed

18

to open up space for ordinary Scots to express through their artistic work their own understanding

and interpretation of both Scotland generally and the referendum more particularly. It was further

these autonomous grassroots organisations which, whilst working under the umbrella of the ‘Yes’

campaign, formed the backbone of the campaign for independence50.

Now we must overstate the success of this grass-roots ‘Yes’ movement, it did after

all ultimately lose the referendum. Equally we are not saying that the ‘Yes’ movement is Scotland’s

true ‘authentic identity’ and by extension claiming the ‘No’ vote is an expression ‘unauthenticity’.

What we are rather demonstrating is that our paradigm of authenticity reveals to us the nature of

the events in contemporary Scotland; like with the ‘unofficial’ national anthem we see the support

for independence and consequently this new understanding of Scotland being primarily driven by

the intercourse and actions of the people themselves in a predominantly bottom up manner. The

paradigm of authenticity thus becomes crucial in understanding this tremor in recent Scottish, and

indeed European, politics and how a fringe argument for independence was able to grow so

dramatically and in the process redefine the nation’s understanding of itself. If we are thus to

understand this new phenomena in Scottish politics we need to recognise and address this

‘authentic identity’.

It is interesting that in the wake of the referendum and the concerns it has raised about

Scotland’s identity the issue of Scotland’s national anthem has again risen to prominence. In an

attempt to ‘bring Scots together’ after the referendum it was proposed by the Scottish Youth

Parliament that ‘Flower’ should now be recognised as the countries official National Anthem.

Interestingly the first politician to comment of this proposition was the leader of Scottish Labour Jim

Murphy whose party incidentally has suffered worst in the post-referendum fallout. Although not

outright endorsing that ‘Flower’ should be recognised as Scotland’s official anthem Murphy did

insists that the ‘Proud Scots’ should have a an ‘official national anthem’ and suggested that the

Scottish people must be involved in selecting the song that best represents them themselves51. From

19

this it would again appear that, in the wake of an energising as well as polarising referendum

campaign, Scotland’s ‘authentic identity’ is finally being recognised or at least engaged with.

We can thus see how vital the issue of identity has been in the recent developments of

Scottish politics. We have seen in particular how Scots’ have themselves generated their own

understanding of themselves through the creation of the ‘unofficial’ Scottish National Anthem

‘Flower of Scotland’. We have argued that this ‘self-identification’ can be understood as what we

have called ‘authentic identity’ as it was generated from the populace in a bottom up manner

through informal gatherings often in opposition to the ‘identity’ of the country as propounded by

political elites. We have further advocated that it is vital for the health and esteem of Scotland and

its people that such an identity is not rejected or ignored by these elites. Rather what is required is

that these authentic modes of identity should be recognised and that more spaces and opportunities

should be made for Scots to form and disclose their identity for themselves. With the effects of the

referendum on Scottish politics, and in particular the nature of these grass-roots movements

focused on identity which made up the ‘Yes’ campaign, it would appear that such an understanding

of ‘authentic identity’ is vital in understanding the new climate of Scottish politics after the

referendum. It would finally appear that Scotland’s political elites are realising the importance of

this and are at least attempting to open up the spaces necessary for such identity to be constructed.

4. Conclusions

From our study of Rousseau we developed a paradigm for understanding contemporary

politics and in particular issues concerning identity. This paradigm we have called ‘authentic

identity’. This is an understanding of identity created by an individual or a people not through

imitation or imposition by an external source but through their own decisions, actions and words.

We have further seen that such a concept of identity is vital to the wellbeing to both individual’s and

nations. Nonetheless this self-understanding is vulnerable and is particularly endangered by pre-

constructed identities which may be adopted or forced upon a subject by the fashions or political

20

biases of the time. This is particularly the case when ‘pre-constructed identities’ have the backing of

political elites who wish use them as a replacement for ‘authentic identities’ they deem as

unsuitable. The answer to this danger we have seen is the creation of spaces and opportunities for

people to come and freely define and disclose their identity for themselves.

We have seen this understanding of identity has been particularly relevant to recent

developments in Scottish politics where a large proportion of the populace have defined their own

understanding of themselves through the creation of an ‘unofficial’ national anthem. We have

further seen such ‘authentic’ identity construction in the recent campaign for an independent

Scottish State. Nonetheless we would stress that such an understanding of identity is not limited to

Scottish politics. As we eluded to in the introduction events in Scotland have caused wide debate

across the European continent. In particular there has appears to be a divide developing between

the European elites who opposed the move for Scottish independence and many of the people’s of

Europe, especially amongst other ‘minority nationalities’, who supported Scotland’s ‘Yes’ campaign.

The most obvious example of this would be the contrast between the comments of the Spanish

Prime minister and the considerable body of Spain’s Catalonian citizens who not only travelled to

Scotland to support the ‘Yes’ campaign but also campaigned for a similar independence referendum

to be held in Catalonia52. As stated this case in Spain highlights the most obvious division in Europe

concerning the Scottish referendum but there are many others53. We unfortunately do not have the

space in this paper to go into these cases and investigate this divide in Europe more. Nonetheless,

given our findings in the Scottish case, it would appear that the paradigm of ‘authentic identity’

would be an apt model to begin such investigations from.

21

1 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I. Hacking (ed.), (London, 2012) p.11 2 Quinton Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, History and Theory, vol.8, No.1 (1969), p.50 3 See Hans–George Gadamer, Truth and Method, D. Marshall and J. Weinsheimer (eds.), (London, 2004) pp.304-5 4 Rousseau reproduce a considerable amount of Alembert’s entry on Geneva, indeed an exact eighth of his letter in parody to the exact amount of the Alembert’s article ‘wasted’ on discussing something did not exist in and was unimportant to Geneva namely the theatre. See Jena-Jacques Rousseau, A Letter from M. Rousseau, of Geneva, to M. d’Alembert, of Paris, concerning the effects of theatrical entertainments on the manners of mankind, 1779 edn. (London, 2010) p.iv Alembert’s comments about the manners of Geneva’s citizenry and the recommendation of a theatre are taken from this reproduced passage. See pp.iv-v. Rousseau does not however reproduce Alembert’s writings on Geneva’s and only makes comment on them. See ibid pp.3-7 5 Ibid vi-vii 6 For Rousseau’s claims he was moved to write out of a patriotic desire to defend Geneva see ibid p.ix 7 Rousseau goes as far to state that Alembert will be unable to understand the social role of Geneva’s church as he is an ‘outsider’ and a ‘Catholic’ see ibid p.5. For Rousseau and the practical social role of the church see ibid. pp.9-10 8 It should be noted that as well as discussing men’s societies held in taverns he also discusses women’s societies where they can chat and play cards. For Rousseau’s full discussion on Geneva’s circles see ibid pp.131-3 9 Ibid. p56 10 J. Brillaud, ‘If you please! Theatre, verisimilitude, and freedom in the Letter d’Alembert’, (in) C. McDonald and S. Hoffmann (eds.), Rousseau and Freedom, (Cambridge, 2010) p.84 11 Rousseau, Letter, p.12 12 Ibid p.133 13 H. Rosenblatt, Rousseau and Geneva, From the First Discourse to the Social Contract, 17489-1762, (Cambridge, 1997) pp.18-21 14 Rousseau, Letter, viii-ix 15 For Vernet’s defence of Genevan traditional practices see Gareth Gargett, Jacob Vernet, Geneva and the Philosophes, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, vol. 321, (Oxford, 1994). For Rousseau’s particular involvement with Vernet see in particular pp.98-9,147,157 16 Ibid pp.v-vi 17 Rosenblatt, Rousseau and Geneva, pp.221-2 18 Gargett, Jacob Vernet p.145 19 See Rosenblatt, Rousseau and Geneva, pp.121-2, Gargett, Geneva and the Philosophes, p.145 20 Rousseau, Letter, pp.174-5 21 Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, G. Spivak (trans.), (Baltimore, 1998) p.306 22 Brillaud, ‘If you please!’, pp.89-90 23 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ‘’Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men or Second Discourse’, (in) V. Gourevitch (ed.) Rousseau: The Discourses and Other Early Writings, (Cambridge, 1997) p.8 24 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the Government of Poland, W. Kendall (ed.), (Indianapolis, 1985) p.11 25 Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness unto Death, A. Hannay (ed.), (London, 2004) p.49 26 Ibid pp.63-5 27 Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, (London, 1991) p.29 28 Rousseau, Government of Poland, p.15€ 29 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ‘Plan for the Constitution of Corsica’, (in) C. Kelly (ed.), The Collected Writings of Rousseau Volume II: The Plan for Perpetual Peace, On the Government of Poland, And Other Wirings on History and Politics, (Hanover, 2005) pp.158-9 30 Ibid pp.8-9,15 31 Rousseau, Letter, p.172 32 Taylor, Ethics of Authenticity, pp.48-9

22

33 J.J. Rousseau, ‘Essay on the Origin of Languages’, (in) V. Gourevitch (ed.) Rousseau: The Discourses and Other Early Writings, (Cambridge, 1997) p.166 34 J.J. Rousseau, ‘’Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men or Second Discourse’, (in) V. Gourevitch (ed.) Rousseau: The Discourses and Other Early Writings, (Cambridge, 1997) p.248 35 Rousseau, Government of Poland, p.12 36 Charles Taylor, ‘The Politics of Recognition’, (in) A. Gutman (ed.), Multiculturalism, (Chichester, 1994) p.26 37 Other controversies that could have been discussed include but are not exhausted by the wearing of tartan, the refusal by politicians to make the anniversary of the ‘Declaration of Arbroath’ a public holiday and the public reception of William Wallace. For each issue see Murray Pittock, The Myth of the Jacobite Clans, The Jacobite Army in 1745, (Edinburgh, 2009), Edward Cowan, ‘For Freedom Alone’, The Declaration of Arbroath 1320, (Edinburgh, 2008) and Richard Finlay ‘The Wallace Cult in the Twentieth Century: The Making of a Nationalist Icon’, (in) E. Cowan (ed.), The Wallace Book, (Edinburgh, 2007) respectively. 38 Murray Pittock, The Road to Independence?, Scotland Since the Sixties, (London, 2008) pp.121-2 39 Ibid 40 ibid 41 See for instance Kevin Williamson’s account of the reaction to ‘God Save the Queen’ being sung by England supporters during a match at Hampden park in Glasgow in 1999 in Kevin Williamson, ‘Language and Culture in a Rediscovered Scotland’, (in) M. Perryman, Breaking Up Britain: Four Nations After a Union, (London, 2009) pp.57-8. 42 J. Carswell, From Revolution to Revolution: England 1688-1776 (London, 1973) p.103 43 For more detail on this growing alienation between Westminster and Scotland during the latter half of the Twentieth Century see T.M. Devine , The Scottish Nation, 1700-2000, (London, 2000) p.606. Also see Pittock, Road to Independence p.41 44 Former Scottish deputy leader Murdo Fraser reported on BBC News, ‘Will Scotland Ever Have a National Anthem’, May 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13520689, accessed 16/01/2015 45Jack McConnell reported on ibid accessed 16/01/2015 46 Alex Salmond Reported in ibid, accessed 16/01/2015 47 ‘Flower’ one a landslide victory in a popular poll asking what was the preferred possible National Anthem for Scotland held by the Royal Scottish National Opera in 2006. See Pittock Road to Independencep.122 48 See Alex Salmond’s address to the SNP Spring Conference 2007 reproduced at http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2007/mar/alex-salmond-speech-spring-conference, accessed 16/01/2015 49 Rousseau, Government of Poland, p.12 50 For a good account and analysis of the creation and impact of these autonomous grass-roots movements see Ian MacWhirter’s account in Disunited Kingdom 51 Reported at STV News 13/01/2015, http://news.stv.tv/scotland/306400-jim-murphy-backs-plan-to-allow-scotland-to-decide-national-anthem/ accessed 19/01/2015 52 Catalonian’s in ‘Yes’ campaign reported in ‘Sottish Independence: Support from Catalonia’, The Scotsman, 17/11/2014, http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-support-from-catalonia-1-3543896, accessed 19/01/2014. Call for Catalan vote reported in ‘Catalan leader calls on Referendum on Independence from Spain’, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/27/catalonia-spain-referendum-independence accessed 19/01/2014. 53 For instance the impact of the referendum on Italian Regionalism. See Ilenia Ruggiu, ‘The Scottish Referendum: The view from Sardinia and Italy’, Scottish Affairs, Vol.23 Issue 3. (2014), pp.407-14. Also see support and aspirations of the Bavarian Pary reported at EurActiv.com http://www.euractiv.com/sections/elections/bavaria-party-hopes-ride-scottish-independence-vote-308457 accessed 19/01/2015 . The referendum has also had considerable impact on Northern England north in how they see Scotland as well as how they understand ‘England’. See Keith Shaw, ‘Our Friends in the North: Response to the Independence Debate in the North East and Cumbria, Vol.23 Issue 3. (2014), pp396-406. These are of course examples of the referendums impact and do not exhaust the issue.