AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 7–27, 2005 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/$30.00

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.006

AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS Experiencing Identity through Tourism Catherine Palmer University of Brighton, UK Abstract: Identity as a social construct is one of the key issues for tourism researchers. Yet few studies focus on the ways in which individuals experience identity through tourism. This paper contributes to current debate with an examination of the mechanisms enabling people to experience Englishness at three heritage sites: Battle Abbey, Hever Castle, and Chartwell. In the language of heritage tourism, these sites symbolize fundamental aspects of Englishness and in so doing present the nation as a family, a group of relations with shared history, values and beliefs, and common characteristics. Such felt kinship ties bind individuals to the wider nation. Keywords: identity, ethnography, culture, kinship, Englishness. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Re´sume´: Une ethnographie de ce qui est typiquement anglais. L’identite´ comme construction mentale sociale est une des questions-cle´s pour les chercheurs en tourisme. Pourtant, il y a peu d’e´tudes qui se concentrent sur les fac¸ons dont les individus ressentent l’identite´ a` travers le tourisme. Cet article contribue au de´bat actuel avec un examen des me´canismes qui permette d’e´prouver le sentiment du caracte´re anglais a` trois sites patrimoniaux: Battle Abbey, le chaˆteau d’Hever et Chartwell. Dans le langage du tourisme patrimonial, ces sites symbolisent des aspects de base du caracte`re anglais, et ils repre´sentent ainsi la nation en tant que famille, un groupe de parente´ ayant en commun une histoire, des valeurs, des croyances et des caracte´ristiques fondamentales. Une telle perception de liens de parente´ attache les individus a` la nation en ge´ne´ral. Mots-cle´s: identite´, ethnographie, culture, parente´, caracte´ristiques, anglaises. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Although the relationship between identity and tourism is frequently discussed within the literature, few studies focus on the ways in which individuals experience identity through encountering sites of national significance: landscapes, artifacts, buildings, and monuments that promote a sense of collective belonging. It is important to understand that the social processes enabling such encounters can tell much about how people make sense of the world in which they live. Despite some notable exceptions (Edensor 1998), not enough attention has been paid to the processes by which identities are formed, reformed, negotiated, and contested by those individuals who use and experience nationally symbolic Catherine Palmer is Principal Lecturer at the University of Brighton (Center for Tourism Policy Studies, Eastbourne, East Sussex TN22 5DB, UK. Email ). Her research interests include the role of objects in identity formation, tourism, culture and identity, and visual culture. Her publications and conference presentations reflect these interests. She is currently engaged in several joint research projects on aspects of photographic behavior in tourism. 7

8

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

sites. These issues are important since tourism is one of the defining activities of the modern world, shaping the ways in which one relates to and understands self and other, nation and nationness. The research discussed here makes a significant contribution to issues of identity and belonging through an examination of the mechanisms enabling people to feel their cultural roots, in this instance the roots of Englishness. It is important to stress that identity and belonging are complex and contested concepts over-laden by discourses of power and control. Dominant groups in society frequently construct definitions of identity to serve their own ends. This can result in competing and contradictory definitions designed to exclude as well as include, and which maybe employed to actively discriminate against particular individuals or groups (Hall 1996a; McCrone 2001). On an individual level, a person may draw upon more than one identity depending upon their personal circumstances. These interweaving identities are like hats that can be changed to suit both the occasion and the mood of the person wearing them (Driscoll 2003; Howard 1994; Iyer 2003). Therefore, identity is not a neutral concept and it is always necessary to ask who is doing the defining, on what basis, and for what purpose? Such questions are especially pertinent when it comes to discussions of English national identity, which has either been eulogized and defended (Bryant 1940; Scruton 2001), or derided as a mythical construction that has outlived its usefulness (Jones 1998; Nairn 1977). Despite the fact that England is merely one of the nations, regions, and ethnic groups within Great Britain, there is a long tradition of use whereby English and British are seen as synonymous terms (Aslet 1997; Weight 2002). According to Haseler (1996) Englishness has assumed the role of a cultural state-sponsored ideology that has come to represent the uniform identity of the British nation. McCrone endorses this view by arguing that Scotland has felt compelled to guard the iconography of Scottishness ‘‘. . .from the taken-for-granted supremacy of the AngloBritish state, which has. . .allowed its state flag to become a symbol of English nationalism’’ (1998:48). This ideology is present in tourism where English markers of identity are said to dominate (Samuel 1989; Storry and Childs 1997). All the above points underpin Hall’s comment that: . . .because identities are constructed within, not outside discourse, we need to understand them as produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific discursive formations and practices, by specific enunciative strategies (1996b:4).

This is significant because the sites examined here and the vision of nationhood they create come from within one specific discourse: that of heritage tourism. It is a hegemonic discourse of nationhood reflecting the values and agenda of those organizations that own and manage the sites (Pretes 2003). It is a discourse where nationness is presented as unifying and where tourists are invited to celebrate and commune with the core characteristics of Englishness. This does not mean that everyone will agree with the discourse presented, as people do not passively absorb the messages presented to them; they engage in a process

CATHERINE PALMER

9

of negotiation whereby certain aspects will resonate with their version of nationhood while other aspects will not. A good illustration of this process is provided by Edensor’s (1998, 2002) examinations of the Taj Mahal in India and the William Wallace ‘‘Braveheart’’ monument in Scotland. Although everyone may agree on the cultural and or iconic significance of these locations, they are both subject to varying and often contested interpretations shaped by such influences as gender, class, religion, and region. Nevertheless, the presentations at the three sites examined here do not allow for contradictory interpretations, nor do they give any real sense of the ongoing historical debates wherein history is re-evaluated and contested. Hence, the sense of Englishness discussed represents more a process of closure, the point at which alternative, contested definitions are excluded, than it does a unified whole. As such the sites are examples of what Hitchcock (1999) has referred to as situational constructions of nationalism, the creation and re-creation of ethnic identity through ‘‘intentional agency’’, in this instance heritage tourism. This is not identity as a primordial given but as a set of social processes and relations that can be manipulated within a variety of social-tourist situations. However, the heritage discourse of Englishness does promote the belief that identity is in someway primordial, with fixed and unchanging aspects of identity that can be handed down through the generations. The three attractions––Battle Abbey, Hever Castle, and Chartwell–– were selected because they are nationally significant sites, seemingly representative of a shared national identity. Their status as icons of Englishness is supported by the historic events associated with each site, reflecting fundamental aspects of this supposed shared identity. Battle Abbey represents the roots of the English as a nation due to The Battle of Hastings 1066 fought on the fields close to where the Abbey was subsequently built. As this battle represents the last time England was forcefully invaded, it has acquired the status of foundational history embodying the origin of a nation. Hever Castle represents a seminal moment in the religious evolution of the English nation through its association with the romance between Anne Boleyn and King Henry VIII; the romance links the castle to the religious upheavals of the Tudor period which witnessed the break with Catholic Rome and the establishment of the Church of England. Chartwell represents specific characteristics of Englishness as defined by the man who once lived there, Sir Winston Churchill, and the historic event most closely associated with him, the Second World War. Over the years, Churchill has come to symbolize a particular type of Englishness closely linked to the patriotic sentiments that wartime often invokes.

National Identity and Tourism Although grounded in theories of nations and nationalism, the focus here is upon the mechanisms enabling attachment to a particular

10

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

cultural tradition to be communicated and understood, rather than upon the structural processes by which nations came into being. As McCrone illustrates with reference to ‘‘Scotland as a nation. . .it is important to ask what the mechanisms are which reproduce the necessary imagery’’ (2001:51). Giddens (1985) refers to these mechanisms as the psychological dynamics of nationalism. For Giddens, nations are maintained and remain unified because the internal activities of the nation, what he refers to as the controlled use of reflection upon history, presuppose the existence of elements of cultural homogeneity. This perceived homogeneity is communicated to individuals conceptually via the symbolic content of the nation’s institutions, values, and beliefs (Giddens 1985). Individuals experience Giddens’ conceptual community as national identity. Smith (1991) develops Giddens’ concept of ‘‘internal activities’’ by arguing that national identity fulfils various functions on behalf of a nation; externally it underpins the state, while internally enabling it to provide a social bond between individuals and classes. This internal role, what Smith (1991) refers to as ‘‘intimate functions’’, provides the nation with repertoires of shared values, symbols and traditions through which members are reminded of their communal heritage and cultural kinship and so feel their common identity and belonging. It is important to understand how these intimate internal functions operate, as they are pivotal to the psychological cohesiveness of a nation’s existence. Connor provides a useful insight into the types of ‘‘intimate’’ social processes involved in the communication of nationness. He refers to these as the subconscious, psycho-emotional aspects that underpin and help to weld together the more tangible elements of culture, territory, language, and religion. For Connor, attachment to the state is based upon emotion not reason, it is experienced as a feeling that ‘‘we’’ are a nation, ‘‘we’’ belong together, ‘‘we’’ are all related in some way, intuitively rather than biologically. According to Connor, an emotional, nonrational attachment is primarily based upon a sense of consanguinity whereby the nation is conceived of as a kinship group founded upon a unique and separate line of descent. However, what is important is not whether the origins are actually unique, but rather the existence of an intuitive conviction that they are unique. The sense of unique descent claimed by many nations may not accord with factual history, since it is not factual history that is the key, but sentient or felt history (Connor 1993). The notion of felt history is significant because heritage tourism is experienced primarily from within the confines of the imagination, becoming in a sense an intimate communicator of nationness. The three sites thus resemble what Anderson (1991) has referred to as ‘‘imagined communities’’ wherein each individual imagines their fellow compatriots have the same basic understanding of what the nation is all about. This common understanding can come from such diverse activities as reading a daily newspaper or, as argued here, from visiting certain heritage sites where nationness is presented on the basis of a seemingly stable set of identity markers agreed upon by all. So, how

CATHERINE PALMER

11

does Connor’s subconscious, psycho-emotional bond promote such attachment? What is it that happens at the level of the ordinary, the everyday that enables people to keep in touch with their roots, either consciously or unconsciously? Billig (1995) argues that people are reminded of their identity on a daily basis through a process he refers to as ‘‘banal nationalism’’. Here, the less visible yet deeply engrained familiar routines and activities of life constantly remind people that they live in nations and that they have a national identity. According to Billig, ‘‘flagging the homeland daily’’ occurs via such diverse mediums as the sports pages of daily newspapers and the weather forecast. Such mundane activities reinforce attachment and belonging to a particular cultural tradition. As Cohen (1982) states, commonplace activities––how to evaluate your neighbor’s work in making a wheelbarrow, where and in which tidal conditions to fish––may be mundane, but each such event is a metaphorical statement of the culture in which it occurs. These views are important, as tourism is just such a taken-for-granted habit of life, routinely engaged in, mundanely experienced yet crucial to the construction of both self and nation (Desforges 2000; McCabe 2002).

THE ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT This analysis is based upon an ethnographic investigation into the relationship between heritage tourism and English national identity (Palmer 1999). It links into and reflects the processes and procedures associated with the ethnographic tradition concerned with understanding social meanings and behavior of people in a given setting, situation, or context (Geertz 1973; Medina 2003; Stephenson 2002). Archival research was supported by tape-recorded interviews with key informants (tourists, site employees, and members of related organizations) and observations of people as they toured each site. Around four to five months was spent at each site and a total of two hundred tourists were interviewed. Site employees were interviewed ‘‘on the job’’, in offices, during communal tea breaks, and, where appropriate, inside the properties just prior to opening or in gaps between tourists coming and going. This meant that some staff were spoken to only once, while others were engaged in on–off conversations during the research period. Employee interviews were not permitted at Hever Castle as the management felt the process would be too distracting. The arguments discussed here are based upon the results obtained from all these methods. The conversational interviews conducted were intended to put people at their ease and thereby increase the possibility of obtaining information that may more readily indicate underlying feelings, assumptions, and beliefs. The interview strategy was based around themes designed to open up a dialogue rather than a prescribed, formal list of set questions. The strategy for analyzing the discussions was devised to enable the researcher to reconstruct patterns of commonsense thinking by searching for underlying themes in the data

12

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

generated (Billig 1992). It is these themes that underpin the ensuing site analyses. The observations focused upon the ways individuals behaved and involved noting down overheard conversations and moments of reflection as people toured the site. Given the wealth of data generated, it is not possible to detail all observations or include examples from every interview; thus, what follows is necessarily a selective representation of the key themes and issues. Further details of the research methods appear elsewhere (Palmer 2001). The above methods cannot be isolated from the physical structure of the sites, their surrounding landscape, and internal layout. These characteristics represent the symbolic framework in and through which identity is mobilized and understood (Smith 1986). The physical and material aspects of each site emphasize continuity and tradition and in so doing symbolically guide people towards an understanding of the core characteristics of the nation’s collective identity. What is important here is both the symbolic content of the sites and the extent to which the memories evoked enabled individuals to link their own personal memories to those of the wider society, to recognize the individual and the collective as being part of an integrated whole. This is not to say that everyone will read and understand the sites in the same way, as clearly they will not. This merely highlights the complexities involved in trying to understand social phenomenon as it is experienced during the routine activities of life, in this instance the routine of visiting a tourism attraction.

Battle Abbey Battle Abbey celebrates the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Also known as the Norman Conquest, this battle––between the Saxon King, Harold and the Norman Duke, William of Normandy––is one of the most well known events in English history: Woman: . . .the date that’s stuck in your mind in history when you were at school. Man: King Harold got killed, didn’t he, which is why I think it sticks in your mind and William the Conqueror. I mean everybody at school, one of the first things you hear about is William the Conqueror, isn’t it, coming over here. . . Custodian: . . .I mean let’s get this on record I love this site, it’s just the most beautiful place at any time of the year. . .I definitely feel this place is the birthplace of the Country and I view it that way.

The ability of this date to remain fixed in people’s minds and the brochure descriptions of the battle as the ‘‘origin of the nation’’ or the ‘‘turning point of England’s history’’ underpin the significance of the site for its owners, English Heritage; the nongovernmental organization charged with preserving the historic environment for the nation, and ensuring that people understand the significance of what is being preserved for ‘‘them’’. Hence their marketing strap line ‘‘English Heritage. It’s Yours’’.

CATHERINE PALMER

13

The officially sanctioned meaning of Battle Abbey is that it represents the birthplace of the English as a nation, because of the changes brought in as a result of the Norman Conquest. These changes are said to represent the roots of the nation, its core characteristics. In visiting Battle Abbey, people are offered the chance to get in touch with these roots, to understand that which makes them distinctive. The year 1066 is significant because an invasion brings with it foreign interference in, and adulteration of a particular way of life. The lack of any subsequent invasions enables the idea (the myth) to take hold that the nation’s identity is underpinned by a set of ancient traditions, unbroken since 1066. These traditions are said to have resulted from the far-reaching changes wrought by the Norman Conquest, and are still reflected in the way the country is governed today (Douglas 1964; Kaye-Smith 1953; Loyn 1991), which is why the Norman Conquest is considered to be a watershed in English history (Brown 1973). Pre-conquest England, with its Anglo-Saxon and Danish connections, was completely submerged by the political, legal, sociocultural, and economic structures introduced by the Normans (Davies 1999). William swept away the notion of multiple kingship by establishing himself as king of all the land. Through the Doomsday Book, he compiled a detailed list describing who owned and worked the land, and the nature and value of people’s possessions. These details were used for tax and general value purposes and established an organized system of taxation directly traceable to the present day. The social hierarchy that had existed was destroyed as lands and property were confiscated and replaced by a feudal system of land tenure. Parts of the land could be owned by a ruling class of (mostly Norman) lords and barons or the church in exchange for services to the crown (primarily military). People who owned nothing, described as ‘‘villeins’’, became the equivalent of slaves or hired servants (KayeSmith 1953; Loyn 1991). In addition, William opened up the country to the influence of Latin Europe, culturally, socially, and religiously. Prior to the conquest, Anglo-Saxon England had been closely aligned to Scandinavia through the influence of the Danes, and religious affiliation was a complex blend of pagan, Celtic, and Germanic Christian traditions (Davies 1999). After the conquest, the country was turned towards Europe, and the religious values of Christendom took precedence. Hence, the battle and the date of 1066 are important, because they reinforce the belief that the nation is fundamentally Christian, at the head of which sits on hereditary monarchy supported by a ruling, land-owning elite. These aspects are the roots of the nation. As the Regional Marketing Manager stated, Battle Abbey. . .is one of the turning points in history, so it’s important for people trying to find their roots. . .everyone’s life was affected by it so that site has got a very poignant feel to it and that’s one of the key feelings that you want to engender there (personal interview).

A sense of poignancy and affinity with the site and its history are achievable because, according to the marketing manager,

14

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

. . .you can stand on the spot where Harold was killed. . .you can walk on the battle field and imagine what it must of been like on that daythis was the actual place. . .that in itself can create poignancy, plus the fact that the date 1066. . .really is one date that everyone remembers.

This appeal to an individual’s sense of belonging and understanding of collective roots heightens the sense of felt ownership: this place means something to ‘‘me’’, tells ‘‘me’’ about ‘‘my’’ history, ‘‘my’’ roots. However, being able to stand on the spot where Harold was killed is not enough. People are provided with an interpretive framework through which the meaning of the site can be reinforced. Part of this framework comprises a tape-recorded audio-tour accessible via hand-held devices rather interestingly referred to as ‘‘interpreters’’. This audio-tour involves a dramatic reconstruction of the story of the battle and its historic consequences. While gazing upon the battlefield, people can listen to this story, hear the screams of dying men and the sound of charging horses, listen to the famous and historically contested moment when Harold was shot in the eye by a Norman arrow, and learn how his body was then ‘‘savagely hacked about’’. Such historical imaginings offer people the potential to re-live the ‘‘birth of the nation’’, to witness the beginning of the unbroken traditions that are constantly referred to when the nation’s history and heritage are brought into the public arena. As one tourist commented, Man: . . .when you’re learning this at school. . .it doesn’t really hit home to you, does it? But when you come along here to where it actually happened and you’re listening to this [interpreter] then you begin to take a bit more interest and then you do actually try to work out what went on after and how things might have been different if the battle was won by the Saxons. . .

The interpretive framework also includes the books, brochures, and guidebooks for both the town of Battle and the ruins of Battle Abbey. Such publications encourage people to ‘‘. . .follow in the footsteps of William the Conqueror. . .see the field of Senlac where Harold was defeated. . .come and visit the birthplace of England: 1066 Country’’ (promotional brochure). This quote highlights a further aspect of the interpretive framework: the marketing of the town of Battle and the surrounding area under the promotional banner ‘‘1066 Country’’. This country has a clearly defined geographic area designated the ‘‘birthplace of the nation’’; it has boundaries or borders just like any other nation. It is a country with its own map, with brown road signs directing tourist traffic; it has its own flag, which can be flown from businesses and tourism attractions alike. Such a map powerfully reinforces the message that 1066 represents something fundamental about the nation’s sense of being. Moreover, it enables people to create imaginative links between the past and the present. They can imagine themselves and their descendants as part of this history and unbroken traditions, in what Taylor (1994) has referred to as ‘‘speculative reverie’’. The roads leading to the site, and along which people are directed, are similar to the ancestral lines connecting individuals to their

CATHERINE PALMER

15

own descendants. Just as a family tree can be used to trace a kinship line, the roads on the 1066 map direct tourists to the beginning of the national line. The 1066 map and the brochures of Battle Abbey encourage people to utilize ready-made emotions, adjectives, and feelings commensurate with a site labeled the birthplace of England. This is not to say that all tourists will connect with the site in this way; as one woman commented, ‘‘. . .[it’s] somewhere for the kids, lots of space to run around, you know. They can’t come to much harm here and its better than some big houses, I’m always terrified they’ll break something’’. However, there exists the possibility for a different type of relationship to emerge than that which may occur at other, less historically significant sites. This relationship is based upon the site’s ability to bring the nation home to people, what Billig (1995) referred to as flagging the homeland, by providing a space in which imaginative links with ‘‘my’’ ancestors can be created. However, people expressed this imaginative link in different ways. For some, this link was revealed by their emotional reactions to the site, as one woman stated ‘‘. . .I can hear their voices when their fighting down in the battle down there. . .’’; for others the link was based on relating aspects of the site to their own familiar worldview, as the following comments illustrate: Man:. . .they weren’t paid by the hour then, they just had to work until they pegged out I expect. . .and how skilled were the masons and that, and they didn’t have the tools that we’ve got now. Our craftsmen can’t do the same. Woman 1: It was interesting on this [interpreter]. . .when you listened to the Saxon and the Norman, what one was wearing and what the other was wearing, it made you feel as if you could really see them, Woman 2: And also having a female point of view as well was, er, Woman 1: With the baggage, cooking and boiling, things haven’t changed [both laughed]. Woman 2: Women were very important, I should imagine, yeah. Woman 1: Yes, they were because they were the ones that did the nursing really, didn’t they? And that must of been horrific, mustn’t it? What they had to do. Woman 2: There couldn’t of been very much they could do for them because with Harold there wasn’t much left, was there? Woman 1: No, because we we’re saying that if you lost a lot of blood, there was no way you could give them a blood transfusion, was there? You just had to comfort the dying really, terrible. Woman 2: And I think, well especially today, there’s a sort of sense of peace, wasn’t there? All around. Woman 1: Yes, and. . .you do get the sense of the history there, don’t you?

Since felt kinship ties are one way to communicate a sense of belonging, being able to feel oneself as part of a long line of descent reinforces this sense. Felt history personalizes the relationship between past and present; as one tourist stated, ‘‘. . .you seem to think more deeply about how they lived in those times and exactly what they had to endure, their suffering and what have you. . .’’.

16

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

Overall, then, Battle Abbey represents the underlying roots of the nation’s identity; an ancient land inhabited by a community of common descent with a characteristic way of life founded upon a set of unbroken traditions. However, this heritage story is so smooth and well ordered, as if everything from history falls neatly into place, when in reality the historic landscape of 1066 is still open to interpretation (McLynn 1999). The complex web of alternative interpretations does not feature prominently in the story presented at Battle Abbey. Indeed, there is a strong sense that history started with 1066, as if the centuries before had no bearing on the nation’s evolution at all. This sense is encouraged by phrases describing the site as the origin or birthplace of a nation. Although the discourse of Englishness depicted here reflects the government sponsored remit and agenda of English Heritage, this fact does not diminish the Abbey’s significance as a site of communal belonging. It merely acknowledges that this is one of many interpretations of nationhood.

Hever Castle Over the centuries a variety of people have owned Hever Castle, the most famous being the Boleyn or Bullen family and the Astor family, starting with the first owner William Waldorf Astor. However, the ‘‘Anne and Henry’’ association is the most significant historically, as Henry’s efforts to divorce his first wife in favor of Anne provided the catalyst for the break with the Catholic Church in Rome. The Protestant Reformation is a significant moment in the building of the English nation–state, since it served to redefine what were considered to be the core foundations of Englishness. Most notably, the sovereign’s status as Head of the Church of England which firmly established the Protestant Faith as the nation’s ‘‘official’’ religion. From then on, England was an independent nation free from foreign intervention in the affairs of both Church and State, thereby ensuring that liberty and Englishness were inextricably interlinked (Davies 1999; Haseler 1996; Kohn 1961). This is not to say that the Reformation started and ended with Henry’s divorce. There is, as expected, much debate as to what happened, when, and with what consequences (Davies 1999; Jones 1998; Weir 2002). However, heritage tourism tends to reduce the complexities of history to a kind of easily digestible shorthand associated with specific and often singular locations. Over the years, places like Hever become firmly entrenched in the national imagination as the place linking people to a key moment in the history of the nation. Hence its guidebook description as a treasured part of the nation’s heritage; because of the castle’s role as a backdrop to the far-reaching religious changes associated with the Tudor period, described as both the start of modern England and an important source of Englishness (Elton 1974; Storry and Childs 1997). Hever Castle is interesting because it presents a dual nationality in its juxtaposition of images that have both masculine, feminine, mother/

CATHERINE PALMER

17

father connotations. A castle is an overtly masculine structure both physically and symbolically. It signifies the nation as ancient, powerful, strong, and enduring. Yet Hever is not a true castle in the sense of a fortress built to withstand an attack since the whole structure resembles more a fortified manor house than a place from which invaders can be repelled. As an early guide to the castle states, although Hever may possess ‘‘. . .some of the stern features of what we call a castle. . .’’ it is really ‘‘. . .a castle in miniature’’, or a ‘‘castle-ette of the feminine gender’’ (Hever Castle and Gardens 1972:17). The feminine perspective that Hever represents is reinforced by the landscape that surrounds the castle, in particular the Tudor Herb Garden and its association with home, kitchen and cooking. In a sense the castle is a medieval facade, an illusion of strength that masks a soft inner core, a place of women and domestic life. This is the nation as a feminine entity, homely, domestic, a mother. At the beginning of the 20th century, a Tudor-style village was added to the medieval structure of Hever. This huddled, rambling village was designed to look as if each, apparently separate cottage had been built at different times instead of in three years. Illustrating what Strathern (1992) refers to as Englishness as an architectural form, the Tudor Village’s contribution to the national imagination is its personification of an idealized village community. An idea of village-ness can command a powerful emotional attachment through its ability to reflect and magnify notions of kinship, belonging and class (Strathern 1982). As another tourist commented, ‘‘English makes me feel like a village person rather than a town person. For me, English isn’t towns like Doncaster, it’s this kind of setting I’m thinking about, small scale’’. Gazing upon the Tudor Village enables people to connect with a particular sense of Englishness based upon what village life is deemed to represent, a sense of community, continuity, and tradition. The observations and interviews illustrate the ways in which individuals connect with the sense of nation displayed at Hever. An overarching theme links the castle to heritage and the existence of some kind of inheritance handed down through the generations: Man: Oh I never really thought about it before but yes. . .places like this remind you of who you are, because they tell of where you have come from, you know, like a family tree almost. Woman: Well it traces right back doesn’t it and comes up to recent times with Queen Victoria and all that, doesn’t it? And I mean it’s all part of where you came from sort of thing, isn’t it really? Man: Well for me this is about us, isn’t it? Our history, national history, the French have their, their Versailles, etc., and the Germans their, their, well you know.

As with Battle Abbey, a visit to Hever Castle enables people to feel the kinship ties linking them to the wider nation. Indeed, one woman came to the castle to find out more about an ancestor who once worked for Sir Thomas Boleyn. However, not everyone will feel this

18

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

way, since many people are capable of imagining an historic scene without feeling it necessarily represents their identity. For example, overseas tourists may recognize the ancestral line reflected by Hever Castle; as one American commented, ‘‘hey look, there’s Elizabeth 1. She’s related to the present Queen isn’t she?’’, but this recognition is in terms of ‘‘your’’ kinship ties not ‘‘my’’ kinship ties. The behavior and conversations of people inside the house illustrate the extent to which they relate to it as a family home. This is interesting, as it demonstrates that one of the ways attachment to the nation is experienced and understood is through the creation of a recognizable sense of familiarity. The layout of the furniture invites people to imagine themselves ‘‘at home’’. The house was described as ‘‘cozy’’, ‘‘really live-able’’ and ‘‘warm’’; a place where you can ‘‘. . .squash all the cushions down’’ and imagine yourself ‘‘. . .being in there lying out on the sofa’’. Even children found something to relate to: ‘‘there’s something missing, a TV’’. Such descriptions of homely familiarity extend to the types of mundane activities that go on in many homes. Women commented upon the amount of housework needed to maintain the house, other people discussed forthcoming family events or were prompted to recall memories of relatives. Indeed, people tended to discuss the Tudors as if they were related to them in someway, as illustrated by their reactions to key portraits, as if reviewing an album of family photographs: ‘‘Henry’s a massive man, recognized him. That’s Anne Boleyn, I’d recognize her anywhere’’. Talking about one’s relatives is a common family ritual that serves to define those who belong and those who do not (Geertz 1973; Okely 1983). Parents pointed out the pictures of Henry VIII, Anne, and Mary Boleyn to their children and recounted the story of their lives as if talking about long deceased family members. Hence the portraits are pictures of ‘‘my’’ relatives, ‘‘my’’ kith and kin, and thus subject to the type of gossip that occurs in many families. Emotions were ascribed to these ‘‘relatives’’, judgment was passed upon their actions, and suggestions made as to how they should have behaved. As the following comments illustrate: Woman: Mary Bullen, she was his mistress before Anne, but Anne stuck out for marriage, that was her fault. Woman: (Looking at layette made by Elizabeth 1) Mary, she kept on saying she was pregnant all the time. I think she really believed she was and of course Philip didn’t want to be around her.

This ritual identification of the ancestral line is further illustrated by the existence of so called family heirlooms. Just as many families bequeath significant objects and items to the next generation, so the contents of Hever represent heirlooms of the national family. This illustrates Samuel’s (1994) point that heritage offers a sense of place, an ideal home decked out with make-believe family heirlooms. At Hever, these heirlooms include several key objects, such as Anne Boleyn’s bed, her Book of Hours, Henry VIII’s alleged bedroom, and the most frequently reproduced portraits of Anne and Henry. People

CATHERINE PALMER

19

are introduced to these objects via the guidebook: most actively seek out these signs; while for others a mere encounter is sufficient, nothing remarkable perhaps, but must be seen nevertheless: Man: Do you think that is the bed he slept in? Must have been a bit small for him. Woman: Mmh yes, it must have. You can sort of see him though and it feels really old, don’t you think?

People actively sought confirmation that the contents were old and of the Tudor period, to legitimize the objects’ status as components of their national heritage. Anything restored or obviously modern is in many ways a disappointment, as when a seemingly valuable heirloom is found to be a fake or a replica of the real thing sold off many years before. Hence some people were unimpressed by the Astor Suite, because this was seen as too modern: ‘‘this is the Astor’s then, he did this, made it I mean, modern. It doesn’t seem old anymore’’. Overall, a tour of Hever covers a variety of historic periods: medieval, Tudor, the 17th and 20th centuries and these periods combine with the key objects to form significant signs of the past that highlight the ancient line of descent linking people of the past to those of the present day. Moreover, this lineage has a founding mother and father as represented by the feminine Tudor manor house and the masculine outer castle wall. Just as Anne and Henry physically produced an heir to carry on the (national) family line, so Hever’s intermingling of images with both masculine/feminine, mother/father connotations symbolically reproduces and underpins the birth of the nation’s religious identity. In visiting Hever Castle people are offered the potential to locate their own ancestral links, alongside those of the nation, and in so doing to remind themselves of the religious roots of their identity, Protestantism. Chartwell Chartwell, Churchill, and the Second World War are inextricably interlinked. Wartime exaggerates those things that draw a nation together, often expressed in terms of the existence (whether real or imagined) of a common belief in and awareness of the nation’s identity which everyone is trying to defend (Paxman 1998; Weight 1995). In the period since the Second World War, Churchill’s qualities and characteristics have come to personify this seemingly common national identity, turning him into what Haseler describes as ‘‘. . .the ultimate symbol of warrior Englishness. . .’’ (1996:54). Despite continuing debates as to the significance of certain events and the effectiveness of his contribution (Calder 1991; Cannadine 2002), Churchill is associated with a steadfastness of belief and direction that is still seen by many people as fundamental to the victory over Nazi Germany (Jenkins 2002; Walden 1998). In terms of Englishness, Churchill is a complex character, for despite being half-American his characteristics are described as being both typically English (Bacon 1965; Day 1965) and as the personification of Britishness (Walden 1998). This perfectly illustrates the point made

20

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

previously by Haseler (1996), that Britishness has tended to be defined in terms of a state-sponsored ideology of Englishness. In this instance there is no clear dividing line between English and British, since Churchill’s Englishness is specifically intended to be read as representing the wider nation; he is the embodiment of national identity in a public figure (Storry and Childs 1997). Chartwell is located in the weald of Kent, an area referred to as the ‘‘garden of England’’, and this enables a particular type of geographic imagining to take place that envisions the homeland as essentially English in both character and form (Matless 1998). Moreover, because Chartwell was once the home of the man who saved the nation, this transforms Chartwell into a metaphor for the whole nation. In gazing out over the gardens of Chartwell, people can imagine the wider national landscape that the nation was fighting to defend. The sense of certainty that Churchill epitomized during the Second World War is re-created in the house by both tangible and intangible means. The whole atmosphere implies that he still lives at Chartwell; as one steward commented, ‘‘. . .I feel often that his presence is here still. I know that sounds a bit remote and odd, but it’s true. . .’’. Inside the house, there are fresh flowers in the rooms, up-to-date daily newspapers, glasses of what appear to be whiskey on tables and cigars in ashtrays. In the Drawing Room, the chairs seem recently vacated, with the cushions naturally dented while in the Dining Room the table is laid out for a family tea with real scones, cake and jam. This enhances the feel of the house as a lived-in family home. People’s reactions to this home reinforce the point made with regard to Hever Castle that nationness is experienced on the basis of a recognizable sense of familiarity. Thus tourists described Chartwell as ‘‘a lovely house, like a home’’ and as containing the type of furniture to be found in one’s house: ‘‘that’s like our fireplace’’, ‘‘that’s a nice sofa, not too deep’’, and ‘‘. . .I could do with that as a dinner service, simple but elegant’’. As with Hever Castle, the comments made by those touring the house highlight the kind of rituals denoting kinship and belonging (Palmer 2003). Indeed, Balandier (1972) argues that clan descent is often defined in terms of links to a distant ancestor and one of the ways in which these links can be acknowledged is on the basis of an entourage of relations. Hence Churchill is referred to as if remembering a fondly deceased grand father or patriarch whose physical features are said to resemble those of current family members: ‘‘rather a resemblance to your father’’, ‘‘look, Winston’s got a bottom lip like yours’’. In addition, he is subject to the type of ‘‘leg pulling’’ that goes on within many families, as illustrated by comments making fun of his weight (‘‘podgy’’), his indifferent scholastic record (‘‘disastrous’’ and ‘‘unhappy’’) and his talent as a painter (‘‘. . .the greatest worst painter this century’’). Indeed, the high achiever who succeeds despite a lack of academic qualifications typifies the classic rags to riches story of the self-made entrepreneur. Thus, Churchill is the brother, son, father ‘‘made good’’, someone to look up to. Yet this is no ordinary family member, rather a high flyer whose achievements and successes reflect back onto the whole family. As illustrated by frequent references to his

CATHERINE PALMER

21

perceived greatness, ‘‘. . .he was a great, great man, men died for him you know and for the country, but it was him that made it all feel so personal’’. Churchill’s ‘‘entourage of relations’’ are able to visualize their place in the history of the nation, to both feel and experience their roots: Man: Yes, that’s just before Pearl Harbour, isn’t it? Woman: Yes it is, how amazing. Boy: What’s Pearl Harbour, dad? Man: Well, that’s what brought the United States into World War Two. The Japanese bombed the US ships and they joined us against Germany and Japan. Woman: Well, yes, it made me think in a way how lucky I was to be a child old enough during the war to realize what was going on, yes, you know, it does bring it all home to you.

It is not only memories of the time that are ‘‘brought home’’, but memories of what Churchill represents, the culture of Englishness personified in his English bulldog personality which came to symbolize the unique characteristics of the nation at its very best. These characteristics are based upon those of the man whose ‘‘finest hour’’ saved the legacy of 1066, the legacy of a nation unconquered and inviolate, namely indomitable courage, single-mindedness, defiance, endurance, love of freedom and determination. All of these have since become subsumed in the word ‘‘Churchillian’’, or as one commentator noted shortly after his death, ‘‘it was a vision of England which people discovered in themselves, and for themselves. . .voiced for them by one man. . .’’ (Fairlie 1965:6). The key communicators of these Churchillian characteristics are collectively referred to as Churchill’s ‘‘props’’ and assorted Churchilliana (Hall 2002). These items encompass his uniforms, garter robes, hats, siren suits, dispatch boxes, the relief map of the Mulberry Harbour D-Day landings, significant portraits, the writing desk in his study and the most frequently noticed and talked about items, his cigars. Brochures and guidebooks direct people to these significant signs, as do the room stewards who frequently indicate certain ‘‘must see’’ items: ‘‘on the window sill is the piece of shrapnel that injured Churchill in World War One’’. In touring the house, some people look expressly for the signs of Churchill: ‘‘where’s the dispatch box? Oh, over there, there’s the dispatch box’’, while many older individuals tended to stand, as if in quiet contemplation before the relief map of Mulberry Harbour. Others went from room to room reading the brochures or guidebooks and noting the signs highlighted within, while carrying on conversations unrelated to their visit. As if being able to say ‘‘I’ve seen that’’ is all that is required. All these ‘‘props’’ stand for Churchill and the vision of Englishness he personifies. However, not everyone identified with the view of nationness represented by Churchill or even expressed admiration for him; indeed, he was referred to by some as a ‘‘warmonger’’. The important point is not that everyone supports Churchill’s worldview; after all people are free to choose how they understand and relate to

22

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

the signs of Churchill, for as one steward remarked ‘‘. . .the spectrum of people who come round. . .’’ range from the ‘‘uninterested’’ to the ‘‘devotees’’. What is important is that he is considered worth remembering. Hence, Churchill will resonate with some people but not all, thus illustrating the complex nature of national identity and the passions at either end of the love-hate continuum that the nation so often inspires (Connor 1993). CONCLUSION As the above discussion shows, all three sites exercise a controlled use of reflection upon history by drawing upon the cultural peculiarities of historic people, places and events as a means of highlighting what it means to be English. The three sites thus operate in the manner described by Billig (1995) as flags of identity reminding ‘‘us’’ that ‘‘we are’’ ‘‘us’’ and not ‘‘them’’. As such they contribute towards what Billig (1995) has referred to as a possible taxonomy of flaggings. The systematic collection and classification of those aspects of social life that support, communicate, and maintain national identity. As a mundane taken-for-granted aspect of social life, heritage tourism reminds people of the nation’s core traditions through the stories of nationhood recounted at sites of national significance. In the language of heritage tourism, the three sites communicate fundamental aspects of English identity: Battle Abbey is ‘‘our’’ way of life, Hever Castle is ‘‘our’’ ancestral line and Chartwell is Churchill, ‘‘our’’ honorary relative. People experience these stories of nationhood from within the imagination, which is important as it enables them to visualize their cultural and historic roots, creating what Anderson (1991) refers to as a deep horizontal comradeship. Haseler (1996) argues that memories and sensibilities of a shared familiar background, whether real or imagined may be at the core of the very idea and feeling of ‘‘country’’. Moreover, people’s reactions to the sites illustrate how Connor’s (1993) nonrational psycho-emotional bond is triggered on the basis of felt history rather than chronological history; this is illustrated by the intermingling of phrases and images of home, family, kinship, ancestors and common blood, with expressions of emotion and feeling. It is this intermingling that enables the internal, intimate function of national identity to promote a sense of belonging, a sense of place. It is intimate because the sense of attachment is felt and experienced within the privacy of the individual’s imagination. The creation of intimacy is thus a key component in the communication of nationness. Intimacy is not only personal, but also deeply felt. It is about close personal relationships. Imagined intimacy is perhaps the most private relationship of all as it goes to the heart of a person’s most secret thoughts, desires, values, and beliefs. In this instance it relates to the fundamental relationship between the nation and its people. It is thus important to understand what themes of Englishness are symbolically communicated by each of the three sites as these help to construct the tourist’s intimate, national imaginings. These themes can

CATHERINE PALMER

23

Figure 1. Kinship Diagram

be viewed diagrammatically rather in the manner of Geertz’s (1973) generational layer cake of Balinese kinship ties (Figure 1). The presentation of these themes as a family tree illustrates the generational links between the sites. Moreover, this tree operates in a similar way to the more usual family tree that depicts not only one’s descendants, but also the era to which each belonged. These various national pasts join and intermingle to form a legacy that evolves down through the ages and into the present. This generational intermingling of past and present represents one of the ways in which a national identity evolves. According to Hewison, Within a cat’s cradle of dynamic forces, between the counterbalances of solid and fluid, chaos and order, inner and outer, dark and light, physical and spiritual, national and emotional, abstract and concrete, idealist and realist, male and female, the symbolic elements that constitute the particularities of a culture are shaped (1997:17).

The development of identity as an evolutionary process is not always smooth, well ordered, and without disruption. Internal and external factors can affect it, such as wars, invasions, and political instability. So what do these various aspects of the kinship diagram say about the nation? The main symbolic messages are highlighted in the connecting links between each site in the kinship diagram, namely unbroken tradition, kinship ties, and love of freedom. These links present the nation as a family, as a group of relations with a common history, values and beliefs handed down through the generations and as possessing common characteristics. It is these felt kinship ties that bind individuals to the wider nation.

24

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

Moreover, this is a family that is ‘‘free’’––free in the sense that it is independent of other nations and free in that it has remained inviolate since 1066; hence the significance of Chartwell, reminding people of Churchill’s determination to protect this freedom from outside interference. He is seen as a guardian of those unbroken traditions that enable the nation to imagine its evolution as being somehow independent of outside forces. Even though this is obviously not the case, ‘‘a subconscious belief in the groups’ separate origin and evolution is an important ingredient of national psychology’’ (Connor 1993:377). The sites thus communicate different yet interlinked components of nationness and, in so doing, create a gaze of Englishness. However, as previously argued, the discourse of nationness reflects the intentions and agenda of those organizations that own and manage the sites. It is a hegemonic discourse devoid of the nuances, complexities, and contradictions inherent in both defining the characteristics of a particular identity and in the reading of history. The research discussed here makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the mechanisms or social processes enabling people to experience identity through tourism. Imagination, memory, and emotion are crucial to the creation of a sense of intimate familiarity with the events depicted, such that this history is ‘‘my’’ history, these people are ‘‘my’’ kith and kin. All of which serves to illustrate the fact that while understanding the tangible characteristics of tourism is certainly important, what will really move tourism studies forward is its ability to contribute to the understanding of one of the most important concerns of contemporary society: identity as a social construct.

REFERENCES Anderson, B. 1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (2nd ed.). London: Verso. Aslet, C. 1997 Anyone for England. A Search for British Identity. London: Little and Brown. Bacon, E. 1965 Thousands Queue up to Offer Homage. The Illustrated London News (February 6):6. Balandier, G. 1972 Political Anthropology. London: Penguin. Billig, M. 1992 Talking of the Royal Family. London: Routledge. 1995 Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. Brown, R. 1973 Origins of English Feudalism. New York: Allen & Unwin. Bryant, A. 1940 English Saga. London: Collins. Calder, A. 1991 The Myth of the Blitz. London: Pimlico. Cannadine, D. 2002 In Churchill’s Shadow. London: Penguin Allenlane.

CATHERINE PALMER

25

Cohen, A. 1982 Belonging the Experience of Culture. In Belonging Identity and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures, A. Cohen, ed., pp. 1–17. Manchester: Manchester University. Connor, W. 1993 Beyond Reason: The Nature of the Ethnonational Bond. Ethnic and Racial Studies 16:373–389. Day, J. 1965 Inside Chartwell. Times (May):26–55. Davies, N. 1999 The Isles. A History. London: MacMillan. Desforges, L. 2000 Travelling the World. Identity and Travel Biography. Annals of Tourism Research 27:926–945. Douglas, D. 1964 William the Conqueror. The Norman Impact upon England. London: Eyre & Spottiswood. Driscoll, M. 2003 Mein Gott! My Roots are All Over the Place. The Sunday Times News Review 22 (February 9):9. Edensor, T. 1998 Tourists at the Taj. Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Site. London: Routledge. 2002 National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg. Elton, G. 1974 England under the Tudors (2nd ed.). London: Methuen. Fairlie, H. 1965 His Vision of England. The Sunday Telegraph Memorial Supplement (January 31):6–7. Geertz, C. 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Giddens, A. 1985 A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Vol. 2: The Nation State and Violence. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hall, D. 2002 The Book of Churchilliana. London: New Cavendish Books. Hall, S. 1996a The New Ethnicity. In Ethnicity, J. Hutchison and A. Smith, eds., pp. 161–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1996b Who Needs ‘‘Identity’’?. In Question’s of Cultural Identity, S. Hall and P. du Gay, eds., pp. 1–17. London: Sage. Haseler, S. 1996 The English Tribe. Identity. Nation and Europe. London: MacMillan. Hever Castle and Gardens 1972 Promotional Tourist Brochure. Norwich: Jarrold & Sons. Hewison, R. 1997 Culture & Consensus. England, Art and Politics Since 1940. London: Methuen. Hitchcock, M. 1999 Tourism and Ethnicity: Situational Perspectives. International Journal of Tourism Research 1 (1):17–32. Howard, P. 1994 Asset Formation and Heritage Policy. In Cultural Tourism, J. Fladmark, ed., pp. 67–73. London: Donhead. Iyer, P. 2003 I’m Anyone I Choose to Be. The Daily Telegraph 22 (November):21. Jenkins, R. 2002 Churchill. London: Pan Books. Jones, E. 1998 The English Nation. The Great Myth. Stroud: Sutton Publishing.

26

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ENGLISHNESS

Kaye-Smith, S. 1953 Weald of Kent and Sussex. London: Robert Hale. Kohn, H. 1961 The Idea of Nationalism. New York: MacMillan. Loyn, H. 1991 Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest (2nd ed.). London: Longman. Matless, D. 1998 Landscape and Englishness. London: Reaktion. McCabe, S. 2002 The Tourist Experience and Everyday Life. In The Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World, G. Dann, ed., pp. 61–75. Wallingford: CABI. McCrone, D. 1998 The Sociology of Nationalism. London: Routledge. 2001 Understanding Scotland, the Sociology of a Nation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. McLynn, F. 1999 1066 The Year of Three Battles. London: Pimlico. Medina, L. 2003 Commoditizing Culture. Tourism and Maya Identity. Annals of Tourism Research 30:353–368. Nairn, T. 1977 The Break-up of Britain. London: New Left Books. Okely, J. 1983 Changing Cultures. The Traveller-Gypsies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, C. 1999 Heritage Tourism and English National Identity. PhD dissertation, University of North London. 2001 Ethnography. A Research Method in Practice. International Journal of Tourism Research 3:301–312. 2003 Touring Churchill’s England: Rituals of Kinship and Belonging. Annals of Tourism Research 30:426–445. Paxman, J. 1998 The English. A Portrait of a People. London: Michael Joseph. Pretes, M. 2003 Tourism and Nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research 30:125–142. Samuel, R. 1989 Introduction: Exciting to be English. In Patriotism, The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity. Volume 1: History and Politics, R. Samuel ed., pp. xviii–lxvii. London: Routledge. 1994 Theatres of Memory. London: Verso. Scruton, R. 2001 England an Elegy. London: Pimlico. Smith, A. 1991 National Identity. London: Penguin. 1986 Ethnic Origin of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. Stevenson, M. 2002 Travelling to the Ancestral Homelands. The Aspirations and Experiences of a UK Caribbean Community. Current Issues in Tourism 5:378–425. Storry, M., and P. Childs 1997 Introduction. In British Cultural Identities, M. Storry and P. Childs, eds., pp. 1–40. London: Routledge. Strathern, M. 1982 The Village as an Idea: Constructs of Village-ness in Elmdon. In Belonging. Identity and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures, A. Cohen, ed., pp. 247–277. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1992 After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

CATHERINE PALMER

27

Taylor, J. 1994 A Dream of England. Landscape, Photography and the Tourist Imagination. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Walden, B. 1998 Walden on Heroes. London: BBC Learning Support. Weight, R. 1995 Pale Stood Albion. The Formulation of English National Identity 1939–56. PhD dissertation, University of London. 2002 Patriots. National Identity in Britain 1940–2000. London: Pan Books. Weir, A. 2002 Henry VIII King and Court. London: Pimlico.

Submitted 26 March 2003. Resubmitted 4 June 2003. Resubmitted 8 March 2004. Accepted 20 April 2004. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: John Urry