Brexit Britain Ethnography of a Rupture Gabriel Popham | 5821568 MSc Cultural Anthropology: Sustainable Citizenship Supervisor: Dr. Diederick Raven Word count: 19,752 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Haunted by collapse 4 ‘Betwixt and between’ 5 June 24, 2016: A city concussed 7 Research objectives and Structure 9 1 – Conceptual framework 12 #BrexitShambles 12 Theorising mess 14 Fieldwork overview 20 Citizen ethnography: Methodology and ethics 22 2 – A tale of two countries 26 Political ecology: Clashing scales in Brexit Britain 26 #UniteforEurope 30 A cosmopolitan vision 33 3 – Rethinking control 37 Fast-capitalism 37 ‘Europe will be built on its crises’ 44 4 – Technological affordances 47 #1DayWithoutUs 47 Mediating the Public 51 Conclusion 56 Bibliography 58 Appendix I 70 Appendix 2 72 Ethnography of a Rupture A sense of belonging to what-has-been and to the yet-to come is what distinguishes man from other animals. John Berger 1 Brexit Britain Acknowledgements This project would never have happened had it not been for the help, support and encouragement of those around me. But more importantly, this project would literally never have come together without the amazing energy of the people in DiEM25 UK. In particular, I am hugely grateful to those who found the time to sit down for a chat with me, and although I wasn’t able to include as much material from our interviews as I would have liked, I hope that I have managed to convey the kind of collaborative ethic that – as I see it – is at the heart of DiEM25. A special word of thanks to Jon for getting me involved in the first place, and to Rosemary for always being supportive of my ideas, even when they led to nothing. My interest in many of the issues covered below began when I was an undergraduate student at SOAS thanks to the intellectual generosity of my professors, in particular Mahnaz Marashi, Caroline Osella and David Mosse. However, it is mainly thanks to my supervisor, Diederick Raven, that I felt encouraged enough to try and put these ideas into practice. At key junctures of my research, I was fortunate enough to be able to speak to Cathrine Thorleifsson, Jeremy Gilbert, and Robert Wallis, whom I thank for sharing some thoughts on their own work and for showing me how to think through some of the crucial issues in this project. Coming to the end of this degree was definitely the most difficult thing I’ve ever done, and I don’t know how I could have done it without my friends and family. I could not possibly thank my parents enough for always believing in me, for always challenging me to push a little bit harder, and also, crucially, for the invaluable comments and feedback on the final draft of this thesis. Thank you also to Oli and Anto for sharing the difficulties of research and for being such great friends. Last, but by no means least, thank you to my partner Sara for always being there for me and for giving me such incredible support, especially in the hectic last few weeks when it felt like this thesis would never come to an end. Now, hopefully, we can find the time to be slow. 2 Ethnography of a Rupture Abstract This thesis is the outcome of three months of ethnographic fieldwork in London, the year after the Brexit referendum. By conceptualising the referendum as a moment of rupture, as the beginning of an in-between period in British society, the central aim of this thesis is to trace some of the ways in which individuals and collectives have started to come together and shape strategic narratives about contemporary British society, articulating different scale-making projects within technological and political assemblages. The fieldwork upon which this thesis is based is defined as a multi-speed approach to ethnographic research: on the one hand, it consists of embedded and embodied knowledge drawn from participant-observation and from interviews with politically active individuals; on the other hand, it consists of mediated knowledge drawn from research in and of cyberspace. A secondary aim of this thesis is to account for the role of digital technologies in political discourse and practice. In terms of theory, this thesis aims for a relational understanding of Brexit, both as a process caught up in multiple flows and relations, and as a force that actively produces relations among different groups in British society. In other words, Brexit is here understood as a problem that catalyses the emergence of different (and divergent) publics, which in turn frame Brexit within specific scale-making projects. In the final instance, these scale-making projects can be understood as horizons of public intervention, that is, as alignments of temporalities, spatial scales, and technologies that enact meaningful and intentional public interventions at specific junctures of society. By paying attention to these horizons, this thesis aims to bring into focus some of the potential social formations and cultural becomings that are currently emerging in Brexit Britain, trying as far as possible not to speculate on what will actually happen after Britain leaves the European Union. 3 Brexit Britain Introduction Haunted by collapse For many people living in the United Kingdom and abroad, Brexit was felt like a sudden rupture in the normal state of affairs: after forty years of membership, the British people voted (by the smallest of majorities) to leave the European Union. Beyond the anxieties over what this would mean in practice, some also saw in Brexit the spectre of how previous supra-national blocs, such as Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, began their collapse seemingly out of nowhere. As Sarah Green writes in her introduction to the collected thoughts of twenty-four anthropologists in the days following Brexit, “my immediate reaction to the results […] was to remember Alexei Yurchak’s book, Everything was forever, until it was no more (Yurchak 2005). In the book, Yurchak describes the feeling of many people in Russia when the Soviet Union broke up: it came as a complete shock because they thought it would never happen; but once it had happened, it was not really a surprise at all” (Green et al. 2016, 478). This theme of sudden, unexpected (and yet, in hindsight, wholly predictable) collapse came back time and again during the three months that I spent conducting ethnographic fieldwork in London. On my very first night, I went to an event in Central London titled Brexit: An Unorthodox View1. Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, Turkish novelist Elif Şafak, and Croatian philosopher Srećko Horvat were there to present a European perspective on Brexit and publicise the nascent Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), a pan-European political movement in which they work as coordinators, and within which I conducted a part of my fieldwork. Horvat in 1 DiEM25.official. “Brexit: An Unorthodox View.” Accessed August 8, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=AraqxOnOS64&t=553s 4 Ethnography of a Rupture particular drew similarities between Yugoslavia and the European Union2, arguing that the toxic combination of rising nationalism, labour reforms, and IMF-mandated structural adjustment programmes that contributed to the disintegration of Yugoslavia could also be perceived — albeit in different ways — across Europe today, from the Greek debt crisis to the rise of populist, often ethno-nationalist parties in various European countries. A few weeks later, one of my interlocutors, a Greek woman called Eleni who has been living in London for years and whom I met at one of DiEM25’s meetings, told me that she shared very similar fears: I was born in Georgia, and I lived in the Soviet Union… after the Soviet Union collapsed there was a war, it was a really bad situation… the financial system collapsed completely, and it was literally – one of the reasons why I’m in DiEM25, I can see that happening again, the EU is literally following the steps of the Soviet Union… I’ve been thinking about it since everything started with Greece, I was sure that we’re headed towards that, and I think Britain will be the first country. The very first one [in the USSR] was either Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania… then it was Poland and then Ukraine, and then it was a domino. Shortly after the Brexit referendum, many were concerned that if the Netherlands, France, and Germany were to elect populist right-wing governments, Brexit might turn out to be the beginning of the end for the EU, especially given Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States (Follain 2016). After twelve months of government mismanagement, gaffes and general confusion about Brexit, that ‘worst-case-scenario’ no longer seemed as likely, so much that Brexit has apparently “vaccinated Europe against populism” (Quatremer 2017). Meanwhile, many of those who voted Remain in the referendum have turned their attention to the implications of Brexit, and have begun articulating public responses to many of the issues involved, such as neoliberalism, austerity, immigration, populism, democracy, and the future of citizenship. In the months following the referendum, there was almost an explosion of linkages between the embodied and embedded dimension of Brexit, and its past and future ramifications, both in the UK and elsewhere. Betwixt and between If these linkages have any significance at all, it is because they have been made from a position of liminality3, caught “betwixt and between” Britain’s European past and whatever 2 Collected in an edited volume on post-socialist transition in Yugoslavia (Horvat and Štiks 2013). 3 Although initially coined by Arnold van Gennep in The Rites of Passage (2013) [1909], liminality only became a 5 Brexit Britain the future may hold (Turner 1967). Reflecting on the significance of Brexit, a number of anthropologists have noted that, had the result gone the other way, there would not have been the same “urgency to discuss or debate why 48 percent of voters preferred to leave the European Union” (Edwards, Haugerud and Parikh 2017, 196). Instead, in the months following the referendum, there has been a remarkable amount of discussion – not only amongst anthropologists but in wider society as well – about the impact of de- industrialisation and neoliberalism on British society, and especially about how working- class communities in post-industrial regions expressed their frustration against the political establishment by voting Brexit. Whether the Brexit vote was misguided or not is beside the point. What matters is that even after a year, Britain still feels like it’s in a liminal position, because the shape of post-Brexit Britain is far from crystallising. As Thomassen argues, “if historical periods can be considered liminal, it follows that the crystallization of ideas and practices that take place during this period must be given special attention” (Thomassen 2009, 20), for they open up “lines of flight” in which the question of what the UK might become gains a fundamental importance (Deleuze and Guattari 1987), especially from the perspective of subjectivity and the social relations and imaginaries that support it (Braidotti 2012, 245). This thesis was researched and written at a time when Britain was in a dramatic flux: my fieldwork began with the landmark court case that ruled in favour of Parliamentary scrutiny over Brexit (Rayner 2017). It reached a high-watermark with the triggering of Article 50 that formally set Brexit in motion (Heffer 2017). The writing process began as the British electorate was asked once again to go to the polls, this time for a ‘snap’ general election that was called three years early (Ferguson 2017), and it was concluded as Britain and the EU came to their first impasse in the Brexit negotiations (Foster 2017). This thesis is about what happened in the twelve months between the Brexit referendum of June 2016 and the start of the Brexit negotiations in June 2017, between the moment when the central keyword in social anthropology following Victor Turner’s seminal essay “Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites of Passage” (1967), in which he identified “the importance of in-between periods” and also of “the human reactions to liminal experiences: the way in which personality was shaped by liminality, the sudden foregrounding of agency, and the sometimes dramatic tying together of thought and experience” (Thomassen 2009, 14). More recently, liminality has also been used to study large-scale societies (Eisenstadt 1995; Szakolczai 2000); Szakolcai in particular has asserted that modernity itself can be understood as a condition of “permanent liminality” (Szakolczai 2000, 215-227). While this concept is evocative for reading contemporary societies, it is important to resist “universalising definitions” of liminality and instead “discuss the limits and modalities of its application” (Thomassen 2009, 20). The kind of transition that has been initiated after the Brexit referendum does suggest a certain usefulness for thinking in terms of liminality, in particular because the outcome of Brexit and its definitive consequences for British society are still effectively unknowable. 6