Anti-Establishment Culture (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Anti-establishment culture
Introduction: Changing attitudes in late 20th-century Britain
By 1997, British society had become notably more diverse and tolerant compared to 1979. Prejudiced views based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and religion had not disappeared, but the number of people willing to express such views publicly had fallen sharply. Expressing intolerant attitudes had become socially unacceptable in many parts of society, marking a substantial shift in public discourse and social norms.
This transformation in public attitudes represented one of the most significant social changes in late 20th-century Britain, affecting how people interacted across different segments of society and how institutions were expected to behave.
Understanding the establishment and its critics
Establishment refers to the collection of individuals who own and run the country. This elite group typically includes politicians, senior civil servants, military commanders, judges, bishops, wealthy industrialists, members of the royal family, and the aristocracy. The assumption underlying this concept is that these people share common attitudes, values, and attributes, often rooted in similar educational and social backgrounds.
Anti-establishment culture describes the activities of people who attack, oppose, or mock the establishment and its institutions. During the 1990s, traditional pillars of the British establishment—the royal family, the established Church of England, and Westminster—all experienced weakening authority and declining public respect. This erosion of institutional power and prestige formed part of the context to which John Major responded in his 1993 "back to basics" speech, attempting to reassert traditional values.
The distinction between establishment and anti-establishment is not always straightforward. The boundary between these categories is subtle, complex, and constantly shifting, making it difficult to categorise individuals or movements definitively.
The royal family: Tradition under scrutiny
Lady Diana Spencer and royal marriage patterns
Lady Diana Spencer, daughter of an earl, was clearly a member of the establishment by birth. Her 1981 marriage to the Prince of Wales, however, was unusual in royal terms. Traditionally, heirs to the throne married foreign royalty rather than British aristocrats. The marriages that followed showed further departures from convention:
- In 1986, the Queen's second son married the daughter of an upper-class but non-noble family
- Two of the four royal children married royals
- Only Prince Charles married a titled member of the aristocracy
These changing marriage patterns reflected broader shifts in British social attitudes and the monarchy's relationship with traditional aristocratic structures. The move away from requiring royal or aristocratic matches suggested a modernizing institution, though one still rooted in privilege.
The Princess of Wales and celebrity culture
The Princess of Wales's media image aligned her with celebrity culture, differentiating her from other members of the royal family. She cultivated a public persona that resonated with popular culture rather than traditional royal protocol. Her death in 1997 damaged the standing of the royal family in the short term, exposing tensions between the institution's traditional reserve and public expectations for emotional engagement.
The Church of England: Establishment in crisis
The established church and its anti-establishment actions
As an established church, the Church of England is inherently part of the establishment. An established church possesses institutional links to the state, guaranteed or regulated by law. Yet the Church demonstrated capability for taking anti-establishment positions. It published Faith in the City, a report addressing urban poverty and social inequality, and handled the post-Falklands War celebrations in ways that questioned triumphalism.
This paradox—an establishment institution taking anti-establishment positions—illustrates the complexity of these categories. The Church's willingness to critique government policy and social conditions demonstrated that establishment institutions could challenge the status quo from within.
Declining attendance and calls for disestablishment
The 20th century witnessed substantial decline in church attendance. Century-opening figures showed approximately 55% of children attending Sunday school; by the late 20th century, this had fallen to about 4%. The 1980s and 1990s saw continued decline in regular churchgoing.
Disestablishment—the process whereby an established church breaks its ties with the state and its institutions—was widely discussed in church circles during this period, though no change was made to the Church's constitutional status. The debate reflected broader questions about the Church's role in an increasingly secular and diverse society.
Westminster: Political challenges to establishment norms
Anti-establishment MPs and political representation
The House of Commons, through the constituency party and electoral systems, proved naturally responsive to public opinion. The 1980s saw several MPs elected who might be characterised as "anti-establishment". These were not simply individual MPs differing from colleagues, but representatives whose presence challenged the standing of politicians generally. This development may have contributed to growing distrust of political parties, which challenged not just other political parties but the political system and its underlying values.
Harold Wilson and class-based politics (1964)
In the 1964 election, Harold Wilson successfully drew on anti-establishment sentiment when he mocked the prevailing conception of national leadership. He asserted that "the right father, the right school and the right friends" were not qualifications for joining government. However, Labour, as an experienced party of government, was itself part of the establishment in many people's eyes. This perception pushed some towards revolutionary parties to Labour's left, and others into the Green Party.
Green politics and challenges to conventional thinking
Green politics prioritise ecological issues—such as global warming—over issues like law and order, defence, and social justice, which most political parties expect to campaign on. Green politics are manifestly anti-establishment, and the Green Party deliberately set out to organise itself differently from traditional parties.
Feminism—a socio-political programme founded on the belief that women are suppressed and allowed less social, economic, political, and cultural freedom and power than men—challenged the assumption that men should rule over women. Anti-racism opposed treating people differently according to supposed racial categories or making unfounded assumptions based on prejudice about ethnic groups. Anti-imperialism opposed the invasion of weaker countries by stronger ones, or the imposition of social, political, economic, or cultural programmes without the free agreement of the population.
Green politics, human abuse of the earth, and mistreatment of other life forms could be analysed and critiqued using intellectual tools previously applied to sexism, racism, and imperialism. This connected environmental concerns with broader social justice movements.
The Green Party struggled to achieve representation in Parliament because of the first-past-the-post system. Its first MP came in the 2010 general election. Even in the 1989 European elections, where it achieved 15% of the vote—making it the third largest party—it was still left without an MEP. Its first MEPs came in the 1999 European elections. From 1993 it began winning seats in local councils.
Thatcherism: Anti-establishment from within?
Understanding anti-establishment culture requires care not to associate it purely with left-wing politics. Thatcherite politics had been an attack on the establishment. Nigel Lawson didn't subtitle his autobiography "memoirs of a Tory radical" without reason. We should not mistake political satirists as anti-establishment simply because they had the same education as establishment politicians and civil servants.
By contrast, Thatcher and Major demonstrated anti-establishment characteristics. Thatcher was a lower-middle-class woman, not an upper-middle-class man. She was state-school educated, never attended university, was once turned down in her application to be a bus conductor, and had experience of unemployment. These biographical details distinguished her from the traditional establishment figure.
The position of women: Change and continuity
The 20th century witnessed considerable changes in women's public and private lives, though it is important not to overstate the rate or extent of change. Legislative progress existed alongside persistent practical barriers.
Legislative advances
Legislation in 1918 and 1928 gave women the vote and the right to stand for parliament, treating them the same as men in national and local elections. Legislation in the 1970s made discriminating on the basis of gender illegal, including paying men and women differently for performing the same work.
Persistent barriers
Despite legal equality, women were not treated equally in the choosing of parliamentary candidates. Selection committees largely preferred male candidates, making it difficult for women to enter parliament. Similarly, women were not treated equally in employment. They did not earn the same as men for comparable work, despite anti-discrimination legislation.
Understanding Change and Continuity
The table below illustrates how legislative victories for women's rights coexisted with ongoing discrimination in practice. This pattern demonstrates a key characteristic of anti-establishment challenges: formal legal changes do not automatically translate into substantive social equality.
| Change | Continuity |
|---|---|
| Legislation in 1918 and 1928 gave women the vote and the right to stand for parliament, so they were treated the same as men in national and local elections. | Women were not treated equally in the choosing of parliamentary candidates. Selection committees largely preferred male candidates, making it difficult for women to enter parliament. |
| Legislation in the 1970s had made discriminating on the basis of gender illegal, including paying men and women differently if they were doing the same work. | Women were not treated equally in employment. They did not earn the same as men for comparable work. |
This pattern of change and continuity illustrates how anti-establishment challenges (like feminism) could achieve legislative victories while facing ongoing resistance in practice.
Key terms and concepts
Meritocracy was a term popularised by the 1958 book The Rise of the Meritocracy. The book was actually a warning that an elite which had reached power through personal achievement would feel little loyalty to, or responsibility for, those who had achieved less. Its author, Michael Young, was disappointed to see the word acquire a positive meaning and become part of the vocabulary of the Blair government, contrary to his original critical intent.
Young's satirical warning was misunderstood and adopted as an ideal—a perfect example of how anti-establishment critique can be co-opted by the very systems it seeks to challenge.
Key Points to Remember:
- Anti-establishment culture in the 1990s involved challenging traditional institutions including the royal family, the Church of England, and Westminster political structures.
- The establishment comprised politicians, senior civil servants, military leaders, judges, bishops, wealthy industrialists, royalty, and aristocracy, often sharing similar educational and social backgrounds.
- Anti-establishment movements included feminism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, and green politics, each challenging different aspects of traditional power structures.
- The distinction between establishment and anti-establishment was subtle and complex—even establishment figures like Thatcher could display anti-establishment characteristics through their background and approach.
- Legislative changes advancing equality (voting rights, anti-discrimination laws) did not automatically translate into practical equality, as persistent barriers in employment and political representation demonstrated.