As part of my degree, I had the opportunity to write an assignment where I applied two theories of religion to a case study. The case study did not have to be explicitly "religious" (whatever is meant by religious), one could, for example, consider, as I did in the essay, what can be learnt by looking at political rallies as rituals. This essay was to be considered only a starting point for further research, where one considered one's initial findings and point to areas where one might research further, due to the essay being only two thousand words. In this post, I have added a few things I was forced to exclude due to the word limit. For those who are not aware, the study of religion is not a theological perspective, rather it considers religion from the perspective as an outsider, therefore, this piece does not reflect so much my opinion of the Brexit Party as a person interested in political arguments, rather as an observer. The essay was also written in November and therefore, prior to the election results.
On
the 23rd of June 2016, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland voted
to leave the European Union by almost fifty-two percent. It has been regarded by
many as “the biggest shock to the political establishment in Britain.” It has led to a resurgence
of nationalism and populism in many of the UK’s political parties, but this
essay will focus on the Brexit Party. This essay will analyse the Brexit Party
by referring to two theories of religion put forward by Clifford Geertz and Daniele
Hervieu-Leger. It will consider the system symbols used by the Brexit Party,
how this is reinforced by rallies as a form of ritual and to what extent the
rallies reinforce the symbols. It will use the Brexit Party rally in Watford,
on October 10th, 2019 as an example. This essay will then consider whether
a history and a lineage has been constructed or reconstructed. It is hoped that
this research may be useful in further research on populism and nationalism.
Nigel
Farage became sceptical of the European Union in 1990 when the UK entered
Europe’s Exchange Rate Mechanism and became a founding member of the United
Kingdom Independence Party, commonly known as UKIP. It began as a small party, but
since the 2014 European and Local elections, where they received the largest
number of votes for the European Parliament in the UK, they have been seen as a
major party. Their rise came at a time
of austerity.
During the 2016 referendum, Farage did not lead the main campaign to leave the
EU, but led the campaign called Leave.EU. They argued that as members of the EU
they could not control immigration, which is seen with their poster of a crowd
of non-white refugees and said, “Breaking point: the EU has failed us all.” The
poster’s message suggests a need to control immigration. Since the referendum,
Farage has established a new party the Brexit Party, which received the largest
number of votes in the UK European election in 2019. The Brexit Party emerged
because of Farage’s dissatisfaction over UKIP, who after he stood down as
leader has argued that the party has become anti-Islam and because of his frustration
that the UK has not left the EU yet, despite the original departure being March
2019. There has also been less
of an emphasis on immigration, the rally at Watford, for example, did not
mention it at all. Since the Brexit party
has been founded they have been campaigning for the UK to leave without a
withdrawal agreement, to get candidates elected, appearing on television and
radio and holding rallies all over the UK.
The
referendum itself, since the referendum, has become an important symbol for
something bigger than the event itself. Geertz saw symbols as being “a vehicle
for conception”, which can be any object, act, quality and they formulate
notions, ideas and beliefs. The symbols create emotions and motivations. Farage has said that the
referendum had “the biggest democratic mandate in Britain’s history,” which can
be seen to create anger and frustration by those who voted to leave. It may motivate people to
campaign against delays or deals which go against their conception of Brexit.
The referendum is associated with bigger ideas, for example, the idea of a return
of sovereignty. The slogan of “Take Back Control,” while not Leave.EU’s slogan,
it is often evoked in the Brexit Party’s rhetoric. For example, Richard Tice at
a rally discussed their policies and said that they would save money by no
longer giving money to the EU and to the foreign aid budget because the UK
would spend the money better. This it is believed will
be possible once Brexit is enacted. There were news stories prior to the
referendum which discussed how the National Health Service “has been left 'on
its knees' by uncontrolled migration from the EU,” and stories about the NHS being dangerously
overworked. This corresponded with a
time when the UK was suffering from austerity. This likely caused a sense of
suffering and injustice, and the symbols used in Brexit may have helped to express
their experiences and gave people a sense of order. It requires further
research by conducting interviews, but the aim of Brexit and the rhetoric of taking
back control may have helped to create order. This is not to say that they see it
as a complete end to their suffering, some those who see themselves as living
in hardship have acknowledged that they will suffer because of Brexit, but honouring
the Brexit appears to make it bearable.It potentially gives them an origin to the injustice that people can blame where people and therefore, the necessary actions become apparent.
Geertz
viewed ritual as helping to give the sense that the religious conceptions are
true. It reinforces the moods and motivations which come from the symbols and
the sense of order which is found in the ritual. The symbols and rituals help
to reinforce each other. During the Brexit party
rally in Watford, Michael Heaver, an MEP, spoke about his experience on the EU
Budgetary Control Committee where at a meeting it was told that the EU in 2018 misspent
four billion euro, which he said sarcastically “isn’t that fantastic?” As one of the criticisms
of the EU is the lack of sovereignty and the amount of money that the UK gives
to the EU, one can observe that he appears to be trying to rile up the crowd’s
sense of anger at the EU. The symbols and moods from outside of the event are
reinforced. Some supporters, although not all, of the Brexit Party have said that they do not consume
mainstream media like the BBC anymore, but use online sources, like Rebel Media,
Spiked, and Youtube. Considering the
importance of the internet in today’s culture, the ritual may not play a major
role in reinforcing the symbols. For example, Maura had never seen Farage live, however,
when interviewed prior to the event, she used the same rhetoric that was used
by Farage. She said that after the referendum the genie was out of the bottle,
which Farage also said in his speech at Watford. Online media where people may be reading and watching a lot of content by the Brexit Party and other Brexit supporting media, likely has a greater role in shaping the person's moods and motivations than rallies as online media can be accessed at a moment's notice and most people use the internet several times a day. The rally probably does
reinforce the symbols and affect behaviour, one might discover that there are more
volunteers or donations after a rally, however, the internet may be a more
important factor in terms of reinforcement of symbols.
Geertz
has observed that rituals are not simply to be watched but enacted. In the
portrayal, it not only shows the model of believing but also helps one to
believe in it.
While a rally might be considered as something that is watched by the crowd
rather than enacted, the crowd in the rally at Watford did do more than simply
watch the rally. Clark, who attended the rally, described it as “like a
pantomime” and in watching the rally, I did observe that the crowd seemed to be
expected to cheer and boo at different points. For example, at the
beginning of Farage’s speech, he mentioned figures such as George Osborne, whose name was booed,
and that Watford voted leave, which received a cheer. One might hypothesise
that having the crowd repeat the sentiment of the speech helps to reinforce the
bigger concepts that they promote. There are also those who interrupted Farage’s
speech, for example, one person called the MP’s who have voted against Brexit
despite running on the promise that they would respect the vote liars and
Farage incorporated the individual’s outcry into his speech, saying that it is
worse, they have betrayed the people. Considering some of those
who support Brexit have stated that they feel Westminster does not focus on
them as why they voted for leave, this approach may produce a feeling of
recognition.
Supporters
of Brexit have made references to the past. The phrase “Take Back Control” may allude to a past where Britain did have control. Similarly, politicians have
made references to the past, for example, Farage wore a tie of the Bayeux
Tapestry as a symbol of “the last time we were invaded and taken over.” A blogpost on Leave.EU’s
website defends leaving the EU because British democracies have been proven to
be resilient to whatever challenges it faces. Hervieu-Leger has argued
that modernity lacks collective memory which is the consequence of rapid change.
However, there is felt to be a need for collective memory in times of rapid
change, in order to help form both collective and individual identity and to
provide meaning. This involves an appeal to history which may be inaccurate in
order to help an identity that is felt to be threatened. Some areas which voted
leave are areas that went from full employment in the 1960’s to mass
unemployment in the 1980’s as a result
of globalisation. For example, Ally Simcock,
a leave voter, said the end of the mining industry in Stoke on Trent was in
part the fault of EU because it was cheaper outside the UK. She hopes that
after Brexit will restore “the pride that Stoke had lost.” The return of sovereignty
may be an attempt to create a collective identity for these communities.
Further research is needed to see to what extent they identify as mining towns
with a strong trade union tradition and to what extent they feel a need for a
new identity. The interview with Simcock showed some of the children of trade
unionists still feel connected to the trade union movement. The appeal to memory is
not a main feature of Brexit, the examples previously mentioned are not key
arguments used by Brexit supporters. Leave.EU’s blogpost does appeal to the
past to justify the future, however, the history one is rather vague and
therefore, one could question to what extent it counts as a tradition. The
phrase “Take Back Control” also evokes a sense of a past where the UK was in
control, however, the focus is on the future. Tice when discussing the UK being
able to control its money after Brexit did not reference a perceived history. Hervieu-Leger
observed that there is often a rite where events of the past are remembered,
showing a lineage of belief. Apart from references to
the referendum result, there is no act of remembrance to anything prior to it.
This raises questions about how populist movements are understood. There is
often an assumption that they have in mind a past golden age which they are
appealing to, however, the evidence collected so far for this case study shows that
there may be a greater emphasis on the future.
Hervieu-Leger
near the end of her book discusses elective fraternities, which emerge from
shared interests and emotions. They emerge due to the collapse of traditional
communities and differ from traditional communities insofar as they are
voluntary. The emotional intensity found in some groups can lead to a feeling
that they are not transient, and they have a (re)construction of a chain of witnesses.
The chain in these groups are not necessarily primary, however, she observes
that they do tend to appeal to some sort of genealogy. Members, like Maura, who
said that the genie is out of the bottle, suggests they see the movement as staying
around. There is also a sense that people in the movement might see a lineage.
Maura says that she is supporting Boris Johnson at the moment because he can
get her out of the EU, though she says that Farage “deserves it.” The implication may be
that Farage has campaigned for over twenty-five years against the EU and
therefore, he is the head of the lineage. Brexit supporters may have viewed
Theresa May as the wrong person to bring the UK out of the EU because she is
not part of the lineage of those who have campaigned against Brexit. People may
support Johnson because he is seen as part of the lineage. However, it is
questionable whether this idea of lineage can be applied to Brexit, in part
because there is no clear sense of lineage, rather these figures are associated
with the Brexit campaign. The shortness of the time period also makes it
difficult in assessing whether it can be called a lineage. It may be that this
research is too early to see whether there will be debates of who are the
keepers of the Brexit memory.
To
conclude, using the theories of Geertz and Hervieu-Leger, one can make some
initial observations about the Brexit Party, although further research is
needed. Considering the injustices that people felt in relation to problems
with NHS and austerity, the symbols that they were presented with by the Brexit
supporters may have given them a sense of order which helped them to make sense
of their experiences, even if they continue to suffer. The rallies do reinforce
the symbols like the idea of sovereignty, in terms of the rhetoric that is
used, however, their impact may be small as the internet may have a bigger impact
in relation to reinforcement. The rallies by getting the crowd engaged with the
speeches, by cheering, booing and even interruptions, help to motivate the
crowd and give people the feeling that they are being recognised. There are
examples where people have evoked a sense of history, however, the references
have been very vague and it is not clear that the history is being used to
construct a new identity, the old identities may remain. It also does not
appear that they have constructed a lineage, at least one that is clearly
identifiable. This essay only marks the beginning of the research, questions
still remain, for example, to what extent are these nationalist movements
actually providing an alternative identity, whether their focus is really on
the past and does the system of symbols actually create a sense of order for
those facing injustice and suffering?
Clifford Geertz, Interpretations of Cultures: Selected Essays
(London: Fontana Press, 1993), 91.
.jpg)