The Impact of the Empire on British Attitudes and Culture (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Impact of the Empire on British Attitudes and Culture
Introduction: imperial attitudes before the 1870s
Throughout much of the nineteenth century, imperial matters occupied a marginal position in British political discourse and public consciousness. Colonial affairs rarely generated substantial debate or divided political opinion. This relative indifference would undergo dramatic transformation from the 1870s onwards, as Empire became increasingly central to British identity, culture and political life.
The situation, 1857-1914
Disraeli and the politicization of Empire
The year 1872 marked a turning point when Conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli deliberately brought imperial issues into mainstream political debate. His strategy involved attacking the Liberal government's imperial policies, positioning the Conservative Party as the defender of British interests abroad. Serving as prime minister between 1874 and 1880, Disraeli made the strengthening of British control over India the centrepiece of his imperial programme.
Disraeli's underlying objective appears to have been electoral: associating Conservatism with patriotism to broaden the party's appeal. Although this strategy failed to prevent Conservative defeat in the 1880 election, it established a lasting pattern whereby governments perceived as weak on imperial matters faced electoral consequences.
By the 1880s and 1890s, imperialist feeling had grown sufficiently strong that political leaders could not afford to appear indifferent to British imperial interests.
The peak of imperial enthusiasm
Imperial fervour describes the intense public excitement and pride surrounding Empire, which reached its height during the Boer War (1899-1902). Rather than declining after this conflict, imperialist sentiment remained robust throughout the early twentieth century. This sustained enthusiasm manifested in multiple forms.
The Role of Mass Media
The most widely read newspapers - particularly the Daily Mail and Daily Express - vigorously promoted imperialist viewpoints, ensuring that pro-imperial perspectives reached mass audiences. Dedicated organizations emerged specifically to campaign for imperial unity, coordinating efforts to maintain and strengthen bonds across the Empire.
The British population encountered imperial themes constantly in their daily lives. Visual imagery celebrating imperial achievements appeared in advertising, packaging, public monuments and entertainment. This saturation of imperial propaganda shaped how ordinary Britons understood their nation's place in the world.
Emigration and imperial consciousness
Imperial consciousness refers to the widespread awareness among Britons of their connection to a global Empire. Emigration patterns significantly reinforced this consciousness. In the five years preceding 1914, approximately 1.5 million Britons emigrated to imperial territories. These first-generation emigrants typically maintained close connections with Britain, sending letters home and returning for visits.
Their experiences and communications helped sustain the notion that Britain stood at the centre of a Greater Britain extending across the globe. This ongoing contact meant that millions of families in Britain had personal stakes in imperial affairs through emigrated relatives.
Education, youth movements and imperial values
Educational institutions systematically instilled imperial pride in young Britons. School textbooks devoted considerable attention to the achievements of men and women who had built and administered the Empire, presenting imperial expansion as a source of national glory.
The success of youth organizations like the Scout and Guide movements further embedded imperial values in popular culture. These movements explicitly emphasized the obligations and benefits of imperial citizenship, training young people to see themselves as part of an imperial community with duties to uphold.
Class dimensions of imperial support
The relationship between social class and imperial enthusiasm remains contested among historians. The strongest and most consistent imperial enthusiasts came from public schools, which produced the army officers, naval officers, colonial administrators and businessmen who directly managed imperial affairs.
Historiographical Debate: Working-Class Support
The extent of working-class support generates ongoing debate. Some historians argue that the working class showed limited genuine enthusiasm for Empire, questioning whether ordinary workers truly supported imperial expansion. Alternative interpretations suggest that substantial numbers of working-class Britons were either persuaded by imperial rhetoric or manipulated into supporting imperialism through propaganda and economic pressures.
Evidence exists for working-class engagement with Empire. Numerous working-class Britons served in the armed forces stationed throughout imperial territories, giving these servicemen and their families direct interest in imperial matters. Yet whether this translated into active support for imperial ideology or simply reflected economic necessity remains disputed.
Imperial identity: mission not race
Late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Britons generally took pride in belonging to what they perceived as a successful imperial nation. Although the term Anglo-Saxon race appeared frequently in discourse about Empire, it functioned more as cultural and institutional shorthand than biological classification.
The Concept of 'Mission'
The primary justification for Empire rested not on racial superiority but on the concept of 'mission' - a widespread belief that Britain brought improved living conditions to less fortunate peoples. This paternalistic outlook held that British rule benefited indigenous populations by introducing law, order, education and economic development.
National efficiency and imperial anxiety
Britain's initially poor military performance in the Boer War shattered some of the national complacency that had characterized late Victorian imperialism. Many commentators feared that imperial decline might result from national decadence and inefficiency.
The National Efficiency Debate
Debates about national efficiency emphasized that only through becoming more organized, disciplined and effective could the Empire survive and prosper. Reformers argued that improving the health, education and upbringing of all children, regardless of class background, was essential if Britain was to maintain its status as a great imperial power. These concerns reflected anxiety that without substantial social reforms, Britain might lose its Empire to more efficient rivals.
Opposition to Empire
Not all Britons supported imperial expansion. Critics of Empire included radical Liberals, Irish Nationalists and Socialists, who advanced several arguments against imperialism:
- Empire involved Britain in unnecessary wars
- Diverted government attention and resources from pressing social problems at home
- Led to the exploitation of indigenous peoples
Following the Boer War, imperial enthusiasm declined somewhat. The pro-imperialist Conservative and Unionist coalition suffered heavy electoral defeats in both 1906 and 1910, suggesting that imperialism's political appeal had weakened, at least temporarily.
The situation, 1914-67
The inter-war years: maintaining imperial commitment
Britain demonstrated no inclination to abandon its Empire during the period between the World Wars. Imperialist advocates actively promoted the imperial cause. Lord Beaverbrook, proprietor of the Daily Express, used his newspaper to advocate for Empire. Lord Reith, head of the British Broadcasting Corporation, recognized radio's potential as a unifying force across imperial territories.
In 1932, the BBC established an Empire Service that broadcast to all countries within the Empire, using this new technology to maintain connections across vast distances.
Racial prejudice prevented most Britons from seriously entertaining the idea that non-European populations could govern themselves. Even Labour Members of Parliament, generally more sympathetic to colonial aspirations than Conservatives, believed that self-determination remained unrealistic for most colonies for the foreseeable future.
The only colonial population granted self-rule between the wars consisted of 30,000 white settlers in Southern Rhodesia, who exercised authority over 1 million Africans. This exceptional case revealed that British willingness to transfer power depended fundamentally on the racial composition of those receiving it.
Post-1945: democratic ideals and imperial realities
After 1945, many Britons who had been raised to value parliamentary democracy found it increasingly difficult to reconcile these democratic principles with the paternalistic nature of Empire. On the political left, doubts grew about the justice of imperial rule and the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination. Nevertheless, before 1960 little public pressure existed to relinquish Britain's remaining colonies.
Several factors explain this continued attachment to Empire throughout the 1950s:
Economic Importance: Awareness of the Empire and Commonwealth's economic significance remained acute. In 1951, imperial territories supplied nearly half of Britain's imports and purchased 54 per cent of British exports. These substantial economic ties made Empire seem essential for British prosperity.
Geopolitical Considerations: Maintaining the Empire appeared necessary if Britain was to remain a world power in the emerging Cold War context.
Sense of Duty: Most Britons believed their country retained responsibilities toward colonial peoples, suggesting that abandoning colonies would constitute a betrayal of duty.
Electoral behaviour reflected these attitudes: throughout the 1950s, most voters continued supporting the Conservative Party, traditionally identified as the party of Empire.
The 1960s: shifting attitudes and public indifference
After 1960, British attitudes toward imperial rule underwent rapid transformation. Although some Conservatives opposed the swift transfer of power to black Africans, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan encountered considerably less resistance to decolonization than he had anticipated. By the early 1960s, most Britons, encouraged by a predominantly liberal media, had come to disapprove of coercive methods for maintaining control.
The public proved unwilling to accept arguments for preserving minority white rule based on claims of racial supremacy. Crucially, the British public had become far more preoccupied with domestic concerns - employment, education, health and housing - than with maintaining overseas territories.
Consequently, Britons observed the process of imperial disintegration with remarkable indifference. Those on the political left generally regarded the Empire's end positively, viewing decolonization as overdue justice. Those on the right tended to see imperial decline as regrettable but inevitable.
Across the political spectrum, most Britons appear to have believed that Britain had performed its imperial role reasonably well, leaving former colonies a legacy including parliamentary government, health care, education, applied technology and respect for individual rights. However, this self-assessment proved overly optimistic: in many newly independent states, these institutions failed to take firm root.
Legacy: multiracial Britain
By the 1960s, rather than Britons emigrating to settle imperial territories, substantial numbers of people from the Caribbean, India and Pakistan migrated to Britain, seeking to establish new lives.
An Unprepared Nation
A multiracial Britain emerged as one of the Empire's principal legacies - ironically, one for which the Empire, despite all its rhetoric about multiracial cooperation, had done virtually nothing to prepare the British population. This unpreparedness would generate significant social tensions in subsequent decades as Britain adjusted to becoming a multicultural society.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Empire became central to British political life and popular culture from the 1870s onwards, driven by politicians like Disraeli, mass media, emigration patterns and educational initiatives.
-
Imperial enthusiasm peaked around the Boer War (1899-1902) and remained strong into the early twentieth century, though working-class support remains debated by historians. Imperial identity rested more on notions of civilizing mission than racial superiority.
-
Between the wars, racial prejudice prevented serious consideration of non-European self-government, with media and institutions like the BBC (Empire Service, 1932) actively promoting imperial unity.
-
Throughout the 1950s, economic importance (half of imports, 54% of exports in 1951) and geopolitical considerations maintained British attachment to Empire despite growing tensions between democratic values and imperial paternalism.
-
After 1960, public attitudes shifted dramatically toward indifference about decolonization, with domestic issues taking priority over imperial concerns. The resulting multiracial Britain through immigration from former colonies represented an imperial legacy for which Britain was unprepared.