MA Week 43 - Rawnsley on Northern Identity

Stuart Rawnsley - Constructing ‘The North’ : space and a sense of place

A potted history of how the North came into being, and extremely useful for a beginner like me.  

Rawnsley argues that “no other region has such an intensified ‘sense of place’” (p3) – and yet the North remains ill-defined, despite the convincing arguments he puts forward in this chapter. Having read a few authors on the topic now, each one seems to have their own idea of what constitutes “the North”, just as I do myself. Neither does Rawnsley offer any information on what traits Southerners – or non-Northerners - might display. I did also wonder, as I read the chapter, whether these concepts of “the North” (and whatever is the opposite) still ring true in these days of social media, global crises and Brexit. However, following the “Grim up North?” symposium, I think they these ideas are still strongly held.

Rawnsley argues that “the North” was “originally constructed by 16^th century cartographers and reconstructed many times through various agencies” (p4). The industrial revolution caused towns and cities to become differentiated from each other (p6), and led to the formation of working class enclaves. The suggestion about towns differentiating and competing is borne out by Jack Southern’s paper at the “Grim up North?” symposium, and whilst the inter-city rivalry might not be so bitter now, I am personally aware that there is still competition between Leeds and Manchester – particularly as the latter seems to get all the funding. He also states that the Irish contributed to Northern identity (p7) - this is the first time that I’ve learnt that my Irishness is Northern!

Traits of Northernness (p8) are identified as: “independence, dignity of labour and solidarity both at work and in the community”, depicting the construction of a Northern working class. I’m not sure how much of this is factual and how much of it is just perpetuating a stereotype, re-constructing the Northern working class in retrospect. Anyway, with the advent of the railway by the mid-19^th century, tourists could see the North without seeing the urban (p9). The production of beautiful images for advertising allowed the sense of place  to be “distilled”and exported to London.

Rawnsley specifically mentions London and he equates London with the State. The concept of Northernness is as an “other” to the Englishness of London and the surrounding areas. Thus a broadbrush description of North arose and the whole North was stamped with it.  Regional planning, emanating from London and used in the war, made spatial divisions of the country and helped in the construct of “the North” (p12).”The North” could now be shown on a map, defined ideologically and the site of battles of power and control between labour and capital. Alongside the state, the BBC (which can be considered an instrument of the state), identified (p14) the area between Trent and Tweed as “intrinsically different” from the rest of the country, particularly in its “general attitude and culture”. The BBC’s choice of personnel and some of its publications reinforced this Northern stereotype. It subsequently moved to regional broadcasting (“the North” being a region) which broadcast items about ”Northern” local culture. Rawnsley purports that the BBC would not overtly recognise class differences but at the same time sought to reinforce them.

Between the wars, the traditional industries started to decline and service industries started to appear. The North-South divide became more deeply entrenched (p16). The distress of North on appeared on TV in the South, once again underlining the “otherness” of the two areas to each other. “Photojournalism” became a kind of acceptable form of voyeurism (p17). I interpret this as a kind of virtual dark tourism of the North.

In the concluding pages of the chapter (pp19/20), Rawnsley stresses the importance of mapping, and therefore borders, in the construction and control of the North. He sees the boundary as controlling. He then concludes with a statement that can be interpreted in various ways: “In the modern world place is separated from space in the sense that knowledge of and familiarity with a place no longer depends on the immediate environment”. I presume he states this as his interpretation of “The South” presuming that it understands “The North”.

I think Rawnsley does overstate some of his arguments. He is clearly anti-State and goes so far as accusing the State of surveillance. However, the chapter does lead me to reflect on how much of my Northernness /Yorkshireness is socially constructed and how much is my actual experience. I think most of it is experience, but against that is the fact that I can’t go back in time and unpick how much media and social manipulation my own construct of Yorkshireness has undergone.

The reiteration of the county border as “controlling” also fails to take into account the pride of Yorkshire people in their (our) identity. I’ve previously mentioned the 2014 Tour de France Grand Depart in this context, when the whole of the county seemed to turn out to put the county very firmly and definitely on the map – possibly literally as well as figuratively. The Grim Up North? symposium revealed the Yorkshire-Lancashire rivalry to be still alive and kicking.

Regarding the disconnect of place and space, my own wanderings provide a counter argument to this. It is only by moving, physically, mentally and emotionally, within a place, that one can gain a knowledge of it.

Overall I found this chapter very useful and informative, not least in the counter arguments it made me construct.