1970s and 1980s Representations of British Cultural Identity in Textbooks used in ESL Education in Swedish Upper-secondary Schools

(1)

Degree Project with Specialization in English Studies

and Education

15 Credits

1970s and 1980s Representations of British

Cultural Identity in Textbooks used in ESL

Education in Swedish Upper-secondary Schools

1970- och 1980-tals representationer av brittisk

kulturell identitet i läroböcker som använts i

undervisning i engelska som andraspråk i svenska

gymnasieskolor

Jessica Olsson

Master of Arts in Upper Secondary Education English Studies and Education

2021-02-20 Examiner: Chrysogonus Siddha Malilang Supervisor: Björn Sundmark

(2)

2

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine how British culture and British cultural identity is discursively constructed and represented in two texts, including images accompanying the texts, found in two textbooks used in the foundation course for English as a second language in the Swedish upper-secondary school, the textbooks published in the 1970s and the 1980s respectively. The aim also includes to see if British cultural identity is represented in a stereotypical manner and to see which views on culture are present in the texts. The methods used in the study are discourse analysis based on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, and Hall’s visual analysis. Two theories are applied to the material, these are Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and Hall’s theory of stereotyping. The result of the present study shows that there are several representations of British cultural identity in the 1970s text and that all are stereotypical. In one of the representations, British cultural identity is understood as someone who is an Englishman which entails amongst other things being brought up in England as a real Englishman. The other representations of British cultural identity included the identities English people, Englishmen and cockneys. The identity English people includes both of the identities Englishmen and cockneys. The representation of English people is that background, class and the way you speak are important and that English people check each other’s

background and class by listening to one another’s speech. The representation of Englishmen includes that they are upper-class proper Englishmen who speak the Queens English whereas cockneys are represented as lower-class people who speak a vulgar sort of English. In the 1980s text there are two representations of British cultural identity. The first one of these, which was found to be represented in a stereotypical manner, is constituted by the group identity pupils with British cultural background within a culturally and nationally diverse class in Britain. This representation is culturally exclusive since only pupils with British cultural background are included in this representation. The second representations of British cultural identity found in the 1980s text is a British class made up by a group of pupils with culturally and nationally diverse backgrounds. This representation was deemed to be non-stereotypical and culturally inclusive since this representation of British cultural identity is culturally diverse.

Keywords: Textbook analysis, ESL education, upper-secondary school, representation, British cultural identity, discourse theory, theory of stereotyping, views on culture.

(3)

Introduction

I find equality between people and respect for others to be values that are imperative to live by. Therefore, I think that when working as a teacher with children and young people, one should strive to incorporate these values into one’s approach to the pupils. Moreover, I find it crucial that teaching material used in schools reflect these values. In the Swedish education act it is stated that the “[e]ducation shall be arranged in accordance with the fundamental democratic values and the human rights such as [---] the equal value of all human beings, equality and solidarity between people [my translation]” (Skollag 2010:800, chapter 1, §5).

As I was reading teaching material used in the upper-secondary school that I came across during the teacher education, I came to think about how people are represented in this material with regards to socio-cultural aspects such as cultural identity, ethnicity, religion, class, gender, gender expression, sexuality as well as physical and mental ability. I have since pondered if the representation of various groups of people such as these is congruent with the above stated values in the education act, and if the representation of these diverse groups in textbooks has changed over time.

These reflections developed into the idea of investigating how culture and cultural identity is represented in textbooks used in English as a second language education in the upper-secondary school, and to look at if the representation has changed during the course of 10 years, from the 1970s to the 1980s. I chose to focus on culture and cultural identity. However, the study has been delimited to investigate how British culture and British cultural identity is represented in two texts, one from each textbook.

I have chosen to focus on the representation of British cultural identity during the 1970s and 1980s because, as Claire J. Kramsch writes, “European identities have traditionally been built much more around language and national citizenship, and around folk models of ‘one nation = one language’, than around ethnicity or race” (1998, p. 68). Moreover, according to Hans Lorentz and Bosse Bergstedt, the Swedish school, from the middle of the 19th_{century until the} middle of the 20th century, had a major role in creating citizens with a Swedish homogenous national identity and thus also in creating a Swedish homogenous national culture and nation (2016, p. 18-19). However, this traditional view on identity building as an aspect of nation building found within the Swedish steering documents shifted after the end of the Second World War, between the 1950s and the 1990s. Instead of building identity around a nation, identity building increasingly became multicultural/intercultural. This was partly because the harsh line

(5)

5

between nations and between people with different national identities was challenge by the enormous migration of people in Europe that took place primarily after the war. Another reason for this shift was that the German Nazi nationalism had shown what horrendous consequences nationalism can have (ibid, p. 18-19, 32-33). I was curious to see if this shift in identity building could be found in the chosen texts. I will return to this question in the section final words.

In the following I will outline what is said about culture and cultural identity in the relevant curriculum. Between the year 1970 and 1990 only one curriculum has been in use for the subject of English as a second language in the Swedish upper-secondary school, this is found in “Läroplan för gymnasieskolan” (1970). In this curriculum from 1970 for the 3 and 4 year-long programs in the upper-secondary school it is in the content regarding culture stated that the pupil should “gain knowledge about the culture and realia of the foreign language-area” [my translation] (Läroplan för gymnasieskolan, 1970, p.176).

Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this study is to analyze how British culture and British cultural identity is discursively constructed and represented in two texts, including images accompanying the texts, found in two textbooks used in the foundation course for English as a second language in the Swedish upper-secondary school, the textbooks published in the 1970s and the 1980s respectively. Besides this, the aim includes to consider if British cultural identity is represented in a stereotypical manner in the texts. The research questions developed from this aim is:

❖ How has British culture been discursively constructed from the 1970s to the 1980s in two texts, and in the accompanying images, taken from ESL textbooks used in Swedish upper-secondary schools?

A sub-question to the main research question is to look at:

(6)

6

Previous Research

In this section, I will present previous research relevant for this study. In the conclusion and discussion section of this study I will then relate my own findings to the previous research.

National Stereotypes

In his article “Språk och läroböcker i språk – nyckeln till andra kulturer”, Frank-Michael Kirsch writes about his research on, among other themes, German stereotypes in textbooks used in German language education in Swedish upper-secondary schools. The examined textbooks were published between the 1960s and the 1990s and Kirsch´s research covers both text and images in the textbooks. Kirsch points out that the compressing and conserving of facts into textbooks as they are written can lead to the construction of stereotypes in them (2004, p. 119, 133, 134, 137).

Kirsch finds that stereotypes about Germany and Germans are frequent in the textbooks from the 1960s and 70s. He gives an example of a stereotype that reappears in many of the textbooks used in upper-secondary schools. This reoccurring stereotype is an article about the Octoberfest in Munich accompanied by pictures of Bavarian people drinking beer (2004, p.134). Another German stereotype that Kirsch finds in the material is that of the “fat German”. This stereotype is not explicit in the material, it is not stated that “Germans are fat”, but it is rather implied in various ways such as by a frequent use of the German word for “fat” in language exercises. Further examples of this implicit stereotyping are that the theme food and the German word for “to eat” are frequently used in language exercises and that texts with characters that enjoy eating food and eat food are common in textbooks (2004, p.136-137). Additionally, Kirsch gives an example of how the stereotype about the “fat German” is visible in images. A chapter called

Karl is eating in one of the textbooks is accompanied by an image of “a corpulent female

costumer dressed in folkloric clothes standing by a refrigerated counter that contains sausages” [my translation] (2004, p.136).

In the textbooks published in the 1980s and the 1990s, Kirsch finds less stereotyping than he does in the textbooks published in the 1960s and 1970s. He explains that this change is a result of changes in the curriculums for the Swedish school (2004, p. 137).

Perspectives on National Culture

In her dissertation Om språkundervisning i mellanrummet - och talet om ”kommunikation” och

(7)

7

perspectives on culture that she has found in texts concerning, or used in, language education in Swedish schools (2000, p. 85). She then uses these analytical perspectives to investigate what views on culture, or discourses about culture, are present in curriculums and teaching material used in language education in Sweden between 1962 and 2001 (Tornberg 2000, p. 25). Below I will describe each of these perspectives on culture.

The perspective on culture that Tornberg terms ‘culture as a fact fulfilled’, has to do with an understanding of culture as primarily connected to a nation. Culture is viewed as mainstream national culture and as something homogenous and unchangeable over time which can be studied by others. Tornberg writes that a dichotomy of ‘inside and outside’ or ‘us and them’ is present in this perspective on culture and that the distinction between us and them is central in it. In this perspective there is also an aspect of simplifying culture and the different characteristics that are created discursively about ‘us and them’ (Tornberg 2000, p. 59, 64, 71, 85, 282).

This perspective is similar to the second perspective on culture called ‘culture as a future competence’ in that both perspectives view culture as something mainstream which is national and homogenous. It is in this perspective central to provide pupils with knowledge about the target-language country’s culture so that they, in the future, can interact with people from the target-language culture. It is thus crucial, viewed from this perspective, that the pupils receive an inter-cultural competence in the language education in order to be able to reflect on their own culture, compare it with the target-language culture and interact with this national culture in the future. Put differently, the purpose of the learning is emphasized in the second perspective. There is an aspect of comparison and a focus on inter-cultural learning in it. Concrete examples of this inter-cultural competence are skills such as to know how to greet someone in an appropriate way and how to ask someone for directions (Tornberg 2000, p. 72, 76, 77, 85, 283, 284).

Tornberg´s third perspective on culture is ‘culture as an encounter in an open landscape’. Unlike in the previous two perspectives, culture in this perspective is seen as a process rather than a product. It is understood as something changeable and unpredictable that are created in the encounters between people with different worldviews. In this perspective on culture are thus the unique encounters between people in focus (Tornberg 2000, p. 79, 85, 86, 284). In Tornberg´s own words, “[t]he open landscape may be described as a discursive space between Self and Other, owned by nobody [---] individuals are viewed as unique persons with the ability to do the unexpected” (Tornberg 2000, p. 284).

(8)

8

In his degree project “The View of Culture in Two Textbooks for English”, Adnan Pervan examines the cultural view in texts and exercises found in two textbooks published in 2002 and 2008 respectively intended for use in English education in Swedish upper-secondary schools. He does so by doing a content analysis and by utilizing Ulrika Tornberg´s concept of three ways of viewing culture, which are described above, as a theoretical frame (2010, p. 22, 41). These three cultural perspectives include the views on culture as an accomplished fact, as a future

competence and as a meeting in a third place, (Pervan 2010, p. 14-17). The third perspective

Tornberg herself calls culture as an encounter in an open landscape.

Pervan’s result shows that the cultural views in the texts found in the two analyzed textbooks are, based on Tornberg’s three perspectives, divided as this: 27% of the text are categorized as

an accomplished fact, 12% of the text are regarded as a future competence and 61% of the text

reflects the view of culture termed culture as an encounter in an open landscape (Pervan 2010, p. 38).

Besides this, Pervan investigates to what extent there are stereotypical features in the material. He finds that there is little evidence of stereotypical representation with regards to national or collective identity such as “English” or “women” (Pervan 2010, 40).

Big and Small ‘c’ of Culture

In their study ”Treating Culture: What 11 High School EFL Conversation Textbooks in South Korea Do”, Kang-Young Lee by using content analysis investigates how culture, and the teaching of culture are treated in 11 textbooks used in English education and which were published between 1996 and 2003 (2009, p. 77, 84). The model of big ‘C’ and small ‘c’ of culture was one of the two theoretical models Lee used on the material when carrying out the study.

According to Lee, the model called the ‘big ‘C’ and small ‘c’ of culture’ is a model which distinguishes between cultural phenomenon (2009, p. 78). The big ‘C’ of culture, which has to do with visible and external facts, includes the following cultural content: “the arts, history, geography, business, education, festivals and customs of a target speech society” (Lee 2009, p. 78).

The small ‘c’ of culture however, concerns cultural phenomena that are internal and situated deeper in a target language society. Besides this, in small ‘c’ the fact that different communities with regards to socio-cultural aspects exist within a target language society is taken into account. Examples of such cultural content are values, norms, ways of thinking, behavior and

(9)

9

language use. Again, it is important to stress that in the small ‘c’ of culture there is an awareness of the diversity of socio-cultural background (such as gender, class and age) within a target language society and how this diversity is reflected in the cultural content within a target language society (Lee, 2009 p. 78-79).

The findings of the study related to the big ‘C’ and small ‘c’ of culture show that the cultural content pertaining to the big ‘C’ of culture dominated the textbooks whereas the small ‘c’ content was given limited space in the textbooks (Lee 2009, p. 83, 88). Besides this, Lee found that the treatment of the big ‘C’ cultural content was superficial, depicted without sufficient context and without regard to the socio-cultural aspects of the target-language culture (Lee 2009 p. 87). Concerning the small ‘c’ of culture in the textbooks, these themes were also depicted in a shallow manner. Socio-cultural variables were not taken into account in the small ‘c’ content (Lee 2009, p. 90). As Lee writes, “[n]o textbooks have attempted any explanation or indication that any of the values and norms might differ according to such socio-cultural variables as age, gender, ethnic groups [---] regions political orientation, and social status” (Lee 2009, p. 90).

(10)

10

Theory

In this section I present Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory and Stuart Hall’s work on representation – in particular with regard to the use of illustrations.

Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory

In the present study, Laclau and Mouffe’s theory will be utilized as a method of analyzing discourse. However, I base this section on Marianne Jørgensen and Louise Phillips’ account of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. Laclau and Mouffe outline the discourse theory in

Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985) and it is further developed in other texts written by

Laclau alone (Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, p. 24-59). In the method section of the essay, I give a step-by-step description of how the discourse theory, including concepts and terms presented in this section, as well as Hall’s theory of representation, are used methodologically in my analysis section of this study.

Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of discourse is a poststructuralist theory since it is based on the assumption that discourses construct the social world through language. In other words, the social world and society is created through discourses which are always temporary and thus society does not exist but is created temporarily in discourse. Additionally, both individual and collective identity are created through language in discourses, in the same way as society, and do therefore not exist either. They too are temporary social constructs created through discourse in language (ibid, p. 6, 25, 38-40, 43-44).

Another philosophical assumption that Laclau and Mouffe make is that no distinction between discursive and non-discursive phenomenon can be made. Even though there is a difference between social and physical objects, meaning of the objects is always created by the use of discourse. Put differently, whether it is a social or physical object that is given meaning, discourse is necessary to use in order to ascribe meaning to the object (ibid, p. 34-35).

In discourse theory Saussure´s term ‘linguistic sign’, is used to denote ‘word’. In order to create meaning, these signs are temporarily fixed in a structure. Jørgensen and Phillips write that “[t]he aim of discourse analysis is to map out the processes in which we struggle about the way in which the meaning of signs is to be fixed, and the processes by which some fixations of meaning become so conventionalized that we think of them as natural.” (ibid, p. 25-26).

Laclau and Mouffe have certain concepts in their discourse theory that are necessary to understand. They describe ‘discourse’ as a fixation of meaning in a structure. The signs that are

(11)

11

fixated in a discourse are referred to as ‘moments’ and the act of fixating the signs into a discourse is called ‘articulation’. Hence, a discourse is established through articulation of signs into moments. Signs that are not used in a particular discourse at the time are called ‘elements’. It is the way the moments are relating to each other in a discourse which gives them their meaning (ibid, p. 26).

Some of the moments in a discourse are ‘privileged signs’ called ‘nodal points’. Other moments in a discourse acquire meaning by relating to these nodal points, and vice versa. Jørgensen and Phillips show this by using the example of a medical discourse in which ‘the body’ is a nodal point. By referring to ‘the body’ moments such as ‘symptoms’ and ‘scalpel’ are given meaning, just like ‘the body’ is given meaning in this process. This can be visualized through the metaphor of knots in a fishing-net in which the nodal point ‘the body’ is a knot in the middle of the fishing-net and the other moments are knots arranged around it. When a discourse is articulated, the meaning of the moments is fixed within the discourse, they reach a ‘closure’. Since their meanings are thus fixed, other possible meanings of the signs within that same discourse are excluded (ibid, p. 26-28).

A discourse is thus “a reduction of possibilities. It is an attempt to stop the sliding of the signs in relation to one another and hence create a unified system of meaning” (ibid, p. 27). In addition, the meaning potential that is excluded from this system of meaning, through the creation of a particular discourse, resides within the ‘field of discursivity’ (ibid, p. 27).

In other words, all of the elements that are outside of the particular discourse are in the field of discursivity and carry potential meaning. Since a discourse fixes a particular meaning and excludes all other meaning, the outside of a discourse, the field of discursivity, is necessary for the discourse’s ability to exist. However, the field of discursivity also has the potential of challenging and undermining the meaning that is fixed in a discourse. Although, according to Jørgensen and Phillips, all of the potential discourses in the field of discursivity do not have the ability to undermine a specific discourse. It is only those potential discourses in the field of discursivity that pertain to the same topic as the existing discourse which have the ability to challenge the existing discourse.

Explaining this by using Jørgensen and Phillips’ example of the medical discourse again, a medical discourse of the body cannot be undermined and challenged by, for example, a potential football discourse in the field of discursivity. However, it can be undermined and challenged by a potential alternative treatment discourse in the field of discursivity since this potential

(12)

12

discourse pertains to the same topic, health and illness, as the medical discourse does (ibid, p. 27).

The concept ‘floating signifier’ is used to describe elements which are “particularly open to different ascriptions of meaning [---] signs that different discourses struggle to invest with meaning in their own particular way” in the “ongoing struggle between different discourses” (ibid, p. 28). Jørgensen and Phillips write about this ongoing struggle of constructing the social world through discourse:

Reproduction and change of meaning ascriptions are […] political acts. Politics in discourse theory is [---] a broad concept that refers to the manner in which we constantly constitute the social in ways that exclude other ways. [---] When a struggle takes place between particular discourses, it sometimes becomes clear that different [social] actors are trying to promote different ways of organizing society. At other times, our social practices can appear so natural that we can hardly see that there could be alternatives. [---] Those discourses that are so firmly established that their contingency is forgotten are called objective in discourse theory. (ibid, p. 36) Objectivity can be seen as one end of a continuum on which the other end is ‘political conflict’. Political conflict happens when discourses struggle over fixing meaning as discussed in the quote above. This phenomenon is also called antagonism between discourses. Laclau and Mouffe use the term ‘hegemonic intervention’ to describe the process that a discourse goes through when becoming naturalized and starts to dominate alone. In this process, all other competing discourses, with their particular ways of articulating elements, are undermined and the naturalized discourse becomes the only way through which we can understand the world and there is no longer antagonism between discourses (ibid, p. 36-37, 48).

As mentioned before, identity, both individual (one person) and collective (group) identity, is created through discourses and discourse analysis can thus be utilized to understand how this is done. The starting point of analyzing identity within discourse is to investigate the subject positions that discourses create for subjects/identities to fill. For instance, returning again to the example of the medical discourse, this discourse creates subject positions such as ‘doctor’ and ‘patient’ which are filled with expectations of behavior (ibid, p. 34, 41).

There are specific concepts within discourse theory which are utilized when analyzing individual and collective identity in discourses (ibid, p. 41, 50). Before I present these, I want to mention that there are two aspects that one need to take into account when analyzing

(13)

13

collective identity instead of individual identity. These are the fact that the differences between subjects in a particular group are ignored when constructing a group discursively and that other possible ways of forming groups are suppressed when specific collective identities are constructed by the discourse (ibid, p. 43-44, 50).

The moments that occupy subject positions in discourses are called ‘master signifiers’ (ibid, p. 41, 50). They are “the nodal points of identity. ‘Man’ is an example of a master signifier, and different discourses offer different content to fill this signifier” (ibid, p. 42-43). Explained differently,

[i]dentity is discursively constituted through chains of equivalence where signs are sorted and linked together in chains in opposition to other chains which thus define how the subject is, and how it is not. Identity is always relationally organized; the subject is something because it is contrasted with something that it is not. (ibid, p. 43)

Different discourses can create subject positions for the same subject. Laclau and Mouffe therefore understand subjects to be ‘overdetermined’ which means that the same subject is ‘interpellated’, positioned in, these different subject positions within different discourses at the same time. The identities that in this way are created by different discourses, and placed in the subject positions, are not mutually exclusive per definition. Put differently, not all identities that belong to different discourses are antagonistic. However, antagonistic discourses, discourses which belong to one another’s field of discursivity since they pertain to the same topic, can contain antagonistic identities/subjects. This is because, as we have seen, the colliding discourses articulate the same elements into moments in different ways, including master signifiers (ibid, p. 41, 46-48).

Furthermore, a master signifier, or identity, which belongs to a discourse that has been through the hegemonic intervention and thus has become naturalized is, just like the discourse in itself, taken for granted and the only possible alternative of understanding a particular subject (ibid, p. 37, 41).

Just like discourse and identity, society is a construct created through discourse and can thus be analyzed just as nodal points and master signifiers can be. The analytical concept used when analyzing social spaces created by discourses, such as ‘the West’ and ‘society’, is ‘myth’. Myths thus organize social spaces within discourses. Analysis is carried out by identifying myths

(14)

14

within a discourse and then investigating what other signs they are linked to, what they are contrasted to, and what meaning/s they are thus filled with (ibid, p. 39-40, 50).

I will now exemplify how one analyzes myths. Myths are often geographical areas, for instance, ‘the West’, and according to Jørgensen and Phillips, ‘the West’ is in discourse usually linked to ‘white people’, ‘liberal democratic democracies’ and ‘civilization’. On the other hand, the myth ‘the West’ is also invested with meaning through being contrasted to something that it is different from. In this example, ‘the West’ is also given meaning through being contrasted to ‘the rest of the world’ which is, in turn, linked to the moments ‘colored people’ and ‘barbarism’. In this discourse, ‘the West’ is thus included and ‘all other parts of the world’ is excluded. The construct ‘us’, which is ‘the West’, and ‘the other’, which is ‘all other parts of the world’, is created (ibid, p. 50-51).

To conclude the discussion on the concepts used to denote the three sorts of privileged signs, nodal point, master signifier and myth, which organize discourse, identity (individual and collective) and social spaces respectively within discourse, I want to mention that all of these privileged signs can be referred to as ‘key signifiers’ (ibid, p. 50).

Returning again to the phenomenon of antagonistic discourses, in order to do a conflict analysis on a text, which means investigating if a text contains antagonistic discourses, one can use the concepts floating signifiers, antagonism and hegemony, all of which I have described above (ibid, p. 50-51). Floating signifiers can be any moment in a discourse (ibid, 51). One can search for antagonistic discourses within a text, and investigating what the antagonism looks like (ibid, p. 30, 51), by asking “What signs are the objects of struggle over meaning between competing discourses? (floating signifiers)” (ibid, p. 30). Another aspect to consider when doing a conflict analysis is, if any of the discourses, through a hegemonic intervention, “wins out and hegemonically pins down the meaning of the floating signifier” (ibid, p. 51).

‘Representation’ is a key-word in discourse theory (ibid, p. 43, 45). Jørgensen and Phillips write that “[i]t is by being represented […] by a cluster of signifiers with a nodal point at its centre that one acquires an identity” (ibid, p. 43). Accordingly, a group of people comes into existence when it is discursively constructed which is when “someone talks about, or on behalf of, the group” (ibid, p. 45). The basic idea of representation is thus that a subject, or several subjects, can be represented by others even though the subject/s is/are not there at the time (ibid, p. 45). Besides this, when it comes to representation of groups, a certain group division implies a certain understanding of society since groups, that is, collective identity, are defined in

(15)

15

relation to other groups. In other words, which meaning a myth is filled with depends on which meaning the master signifiers are given by the discourse (ibid, p. 45- 46).

Stuart Hall’s Theory of Stereotyping

I will use Stuart Hall’s theory of stereotyping to examine if British cultural identity is represented in a stereotypical manner in the chosen texts and images. According to Stuart Hall, stereotyping is one specific way of representing difference (1997, p. 225, 257). This technique “reduces people to a few, simple, essential characteristics” (Hall 1997, p. 257). Techniques used to create stereotypes are the use of binary oppositions, reductionism, essentializing and naturalization (ibid, p. 258, 277).

Stereotyping draws on binary oppositions to maintain a social and symbolic order in which a distinction between that which is included and that which is excluded is made. What is included and what is excluded can be for instance ‘us’ and ‘them’ (ibid, p. 258, 277). Moreover, Hall refers to Jacques Derrida who argues that binary oppositions most often are charged in that there is an imbalance in power between the two poles in the pair. One pole in the pair is superior while the other one is inferior. Hall exemplifies this with the binary pairs upper class/lower class and British/alien in which the poles in bold font are the superior poles and the poles in regular font are the inferior poles (ibid, p.225).

The terms essentializing and reductionism have to do with the essential characteristics that are assigned to someone through the stereotyping practice. It explains the reduction of characteristics to some essentials that is done (ibid, p. 257, 277). Naturalization is when discursively created difference between people are explained by referring to nature as a way to legitimate the difference. If the difference is natural and not cultural it is static and unchangeable. The difference is thus ‘fixed’ and secured (ibid, p. 245).

Stuart Hall outlines in his text “The Spectacle of the Other” a method of analyzing how people is represented in images and more specifically, with regard to difference. Hall himself uses this method to analyze how racial and ethnic difference is represented but he points out that this method likewise can be used to analyze how other forms of difference are represented visually (ibid, p. 225-226). In his text, Hall builds his method in close connection with the theory of stereotyping that is described in the section above.

Hall points out that there are many ‘potential meanings’ in a photo. In other words, meaning ‘floats’ and is not static. However, efforts to ‘privilege’ one certain meaning of a photo are done through representational practice. Therefore, when analyzing an image, the following questions

(16)

16

can be asked; which meaning in the image is attempted to be ‘fixed’ by the publisher of the image? Put differently, which meaning in the image is the ‘preferred meaning’? Besides this, Hall refers to Barthes (1977) who argues that the caption of an image can help to determine the preferred meaning, or the fixed meaning, of an image. The caption thus ‘anchors’ the meaning by using words. In this way, two discourses, those of image and text, together fix the meaning that the two discourses also have produced (ibid, p. 228).

(17)

17

Method

Two text, taken from two textbooks published in the 1970s and the 1980s respectively along with images accompanying these texts make up the material for this study. The texts are both texts that I, based on their content, am certain is about Britain as a nation, about British culture and/or British people. I have made this choice since it is precisely the representation of British cultural identity and British culture in the texts that I investigate in this study. The textbooks will be analyzed with the help of methods based on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and Stuart Hall’s method for visual analysis. In the ensuing two sections I outline how the analysis is performed. In the third section, I discuss the reliability aspect of using discourse theory as a method.

Discourse Theory as Method

Based on the theory section about discourse theory, I here describe how the discourse analyses are carried out and presented in the analysis chapter of the essay. I will use many of Laclau and Mouffe’s concepts described in the theory section about discourse theory in the analysis chapter. However, some concepts are more central than others and these are recapitulated in the following bullet point list created by Jørgensen and Phillips. In this list it is also stated how the concepts are used in discourse analysis:

• Nodal points, master signifiers and myths, which can be collectively labelled key signifiers in the organization of discourse;

• The concept of chain of equivalence which refers to the investment of key signifiers with meaning;

• Concepts concerning identity: group formation, identity and representation; and

• Concepts for conflict analysis: floating signifiers, antagonism and hegemony. (2002 p. 50)

There are two sections in the analysis chapter, one for each of the two text with their adjacent images. In the first step of each section, I introduce the topic of the text briefly and state if there are one or more discourses present in the text. If there are more than one discourse in a text, I focus on one discourse analysis at a time. Next, I present the key signifiers that I have identified in the discourse and then move on to investigating the chains of equivalence of the different

(18)

18

master signifiers one by one. After presenting the chains of each master signifier, I discuss the meaning that is created in through the the master signifier being related to and contrasted to other moments and key signifiers in these chains. Next, I analyze the chains of equivalence of the myths in the discourse, one at a time, and also present the meaning that the myths are filled with by being linked to and contrasted to other moments and/or key signifiers. If there are more than one discourse in a text, I then address how the discourses relate to each other by using the concepts for conflict analysis.

Besides this, each discourse analysis is illustrated in a figure adjacent to the text. In the figure, it is shown how the moments and key signifiers in the discourse are related to and/or contrasted to each other, just like knots in a fishing-net as described in the theory section. In the figures, the master signifiers and the myths are in bold, the nodal points are in bold and italics and other moments in the discourse are in regular font. In the figures where some of the lines cross, lines of different colors and thickness are used in order for the reader to be able to see the different lines correctly. Furthermore, in case there are antagonistic discourses within a text, the moments that function as floating signifiers within that text are marked with blue.

I conclude each discourse analysis with describing the representation of British cultural identity or identities in the discourse and related this to Hall’s theory of stereotyping as a representational practice. After this, the visual analysis is done. How it is carried out is described in the following section.

Applying Stuart Hall’s Method of Analyzing Representation in Images

Based on Stuart Hall’s method of analyzing representation in images, I in this section outline step by step how the visual analysis of my material is done. Since the texts together with the images compose the spreads in the textbooks, I will analyze the images in the textbooks both in their own right and together with the texts. As we have seen, a preferred meaning of an image is attempted to be fixed by the publisher of the image and this can be done by using a caption. In the case of the textbook, the publisher has published a text together with an image. I have therefore chosen to treat the text as a kind of additional caption which can anchor, or fix, the otherwise floating meaning of the image.

I start of the visual analysis by looking for possible floating meanings within the image and simultaneously considering any words within the image itself to investigate if these helps anchor the meaning of the image. I then present my interpretation of what the preferred meaning

(19)

19

of the image separated from the text is and how British cultural identity and culture is represented in the image.

After that, I widen the analysis to include the main text in the analysis in order to see if the discourse of the image together with the discourse found in the main text anchors a preferred meaning of the image. If there are more than one discourse in the text, I relate each discourse to the image and analyze them together. When I have found a preferred meaning, I look at how representation within the image works and if representation in the image reflects the meaning and representation found in the main text’s discourse/s.

Using Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory as Method

In the following, I will discuss the reliability aspect of using discourse theory to analyze material. As stated in the theory section, Laclau and Mouffe´s discourse theory is a social constructionist theory and according to it, everything is socially constructed through discourses. The social constructionist foundation of the theory become an issue when discussing the reliability of discourse theory. In fact, according to Jørgensen and Phillips, Laclau and Mouffe do not deal with reliability to a large extent (Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, p. 49).

The main issue of reliability is that the person who is performing the discourse analysis is anchored in a discourse of her/his own. Moreover, it is not possible for her/him to step outside of discourse and look objectively at other discourses in order to tell ‘the truth’ about a particular discourse since truths in themselves are social constructs created through discourses. Thus, as Jørgensen and Phillips describe it, discourse analysis is ultimately about political intervention and “the specific discourse analysis [is] [---] a contingent articulation of elements which reproduces or challenges the given discourses in the never-ending struggle to define the world“ (Jørgensen & Phillips 2002, p. 49).

(20)

20

Analysis

In this section I analyze two texts, and the images accompanying them, with the help of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, Hall’s theory of stereotyping as a representational practice and Hall’s method for visual analysis. Both sections of the analysis are introduced with an image showing the textbook spread that is analyzed; the main text and the image accompanying the main text. Before presenting the discourse analysis, I give a brief introduction to the text. The same is done before the presentation of the visual analysis following the discourse analysis. The analysis of the texts and images are carried out as per described in the method chapter.

The 1970s textbook – Spin-Off

The text “How to be an Englishman” (McClintock 1977, p. 8-9), deals with the theme of what is required of a person in order to be an Englishman. The narrator of the text is a man who talks about how he and his wife reasoned when deciding how to raise their son Paul to become an Englishman, considering that they themselves are originally from France. He also tells the story of how, and why, they changed their minds about how to raise their son to become an Englishman.

(21)

21

I have identified two discourses within this text. I will present the analysis of the two discourses separately, in text and in figures, and then show how the two discourses are relating to one another.

In one of the discourses visible in the text, the nodal points are ‘born’, ‘brought up’ and ‘state school’. The master signifiers are ‘French’ and ‘Englishman’ and the myths are ‘France’, ‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’ and ‘England’.

The master signifier ‘French’ is filled with meaning through being linked in a chain of equivalence to the moments ‘born and brought up in France, and nothing can change that’, which thus include nodal points, and to the moments ‘have lived in England for the last twenty years’. Moreover, ‘French’ is linked to the myths ‘France’, ‘England’ and ‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’. Investigating the master signifier ‘Englishman’, I found that it is linked in a chain of equivalence to the moments ‘being brought up as a real Englishman’, which is another moment containing a nodal point, as well as to the moment ‘real’, and to the nodal point ‘state school’. Besides this, ‘state school’ is in itself linked to the moment ‘modern and convenient’. The myths that ‘Englishman’ is linked to are ‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’ and ‘England’.

Since the chains of equivalence of the two master signifiers ‘French’ and ‘Englishman’ are different form each other, with the exceptions of the myths ‘England’ and ‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’, the two identities are placed in opposition to each other. Thus, these identities are both group/collective identities which are discursively constructed as opposites but linked to the myths ‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’ and ‘England’. The meaning of this is that French people and Englishmen are two groups of people living within the social spaces Chelsea in London and England.

Moreover, a French person is someone who is born and brought up in France, and the fact that the person has lived in England for the last 20 years does not make him/her an Englishman. An Englishman by contrast, is someone who are being brought up as a real Englishman and who attends state school which is modern and convenient.

The myths ‘England’ and ‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’ are, in addition to being linked to ‘French’ and ‘Englishman’ as we saw, linked to each other. This is because the social space Chelsea in London is within the social space England and also since these two myths are used interchangeably in the discourse.

Looking at the myth ‘France’, I found that the only moment it is linked to is the master signifier ‘French’. This is because France is the place where French people originate from.

(22)

22

Although, as we saw above, ‘French’ is also linked to the myths ‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’ and ‘England’, since a French person can live within these social spaces. However, a French person will always be French since he or she originated from France.

I will now address the representation of British cultural identity in this discourse based on the analysis above. The discursively constructed meaning of the collective identity Englishman is that an Englishman is someone who is brought up to be a real Englishman which entails living in Chelsea, London in England and going to a state school, which is a modern sort of school and is convenient. Besides this, despite the fact that someone that is born and brought up in France has lived in England for twenty years, the person cannot be considered being an Englishman.

The second discourse that I have identified in the text will be presented in the following text and in figures 2a and 2b below. This discourse is organized around the nodal points ‘important how you speak in this country’, ‘checking the other person’s accent and background’, ‘public schools’ and ‘state schools’. Central master signifiers found in this discourse are ‘Englishman’ ‘a little cockney’1_{and ‘English people’. A myth created by the} discourse is ‘England’.

1_{A derogatory term used to describe a working-class Londoner and the accent this person speaks (“Cockney”,}

2021a; “Cockney”, 2021b).

’French’ ’Englishman’

‘born and brought up in France,

and nothing can change that’ ‘France’

‘have lived in England for the last twenty years’

‘real’

‘being brought up as a real Englishman’

‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’

‘state school’

‘modern and convenient’

Figure 1

(23)

23

The master signifier ‘Englishman’ is connected in a chain of equivalence (illustrated in figure 2a below) to the moments ‘proper’, ‘the Queen’s English’, ‘money’ and the nodal point ‘public school’. It is also contrasted to the master signifier ‘cockney’, which is filled with meaning through its own chain of equivalence (illustrated in figure 2b) which looks like this: it includes the moments ‘vulgar sort of English’, ‘broad accent’ and the nodal point ‘state school’. This is since the chains of equivalence ‘cockney’ and ‘Englishman’ are being contrasted to each other. In this process, the two collective identities, or groups, ‘Englishman’ and ‘cockney’ are created.

However, the master signifier ‘English people’ (illustrated in figures 2a and 2 b) is linked in a chain of equivalence to the two contrasting master signifiers ‘cockney’ and ‘Englishman’. The master signifier ‘English people’ thus unites these two collective identities into one collective identity; ‘English people’. Moreover, the nodal point ‘checking the other person’s accent and background’ is also linked to the master signifier ‘English people’.

My interpretation of the meaning deriving from this discourse structure is that Englishman and cockney are two different groups within the group English people. Furthermore,

Englishmen and cockneys are differentiated from each other since Englishmen are proper Englishmen who have money, speak the Queen’s English and are going to public schools. Cockneys on the other hand, are people speaking a vulgar sort of English with a broad accent and attend state schools. In addition, English people as a group check each other’s

background, and thus also social class, by listening to one another’s accents.

The nodal point ‘public school’, is linked in a chain of equivalence to the master signifier ‘Englishman’ and to the moment ‘afford’, as illustrated in figure 2a. The nodal point ‘state school’ however, stands in opposition to ‘public school’. Moreover, ‘state school’ acquires its meaning through being linked in a chain of equivalence to the master signifier ‘cockney’ and to the moments ‘grow up to be a little cockney’, as illustrated in figure 2 b. Thus, ‘public school’ and ‘state school’ are discursively constructed as contrasts in this discourse.

However, as seen in figures 2a and 2 b, the myth ‘England’ is linked in a chain of equivalence to the two contrasting nodal points ‘public school’ and ‘state school’. Therefore, ‘England’ functions as a myth which unites the two nodal points ‘public school’ and ‘state school’.

My interpretation of the meaning of this structure is that public schools and state schools are two different types of schools found within the social space of England. Cockneys attend state schools and Englishmen attend public schools. Moreover, someone attending a state

(24)

24

school grows up to be a little cockney and someone attending a public school is an Englishman who affords paying for school.

Besides this, England is also linked to the nodal point ‘important how you speak in this country’ and the master signifier ‘English people’. The relationally created meaning of this is that to English people as a group, that is Englishmen and cockneys, how you speak is crucial.

’Englishman’

’proper’

’public school’

’the Queen’s English’

’cockney’

’broad accent’ ’vulgar sort of English’

’state school’ ’grow up to be a _{little cockney’}

’afford’

’money’

’England’ ’English people’

‘important how you speak in this country’

‘checking the other person’s accent and background’

Figure 2a

’England’ ’English people’ ‘checking the other person’s accent and background’

‘important how you speak in this country’

(25)

25

In the following, I will discuss the representation of British cultural identity created in this second discourse. There are three representations of British cultural identity within this discourse. These are English people, Englishmen and cockneys.

The group of English people are people who live in England and are either Englishmen or cockneys. How one speaks is important to English people. This is because they check each other’s background and social class by listening to one another’s accents.

The group of Englishmen is constituted by proper Englishmen who speak the Queen’s English and have money to afford attending public schools. The cockneys on the other hand are a group of people with a broad accent, who are speaking a vulgar sort of English and are going to a state school where they grow up to become little cockneys.

I will now address how these two discourses presented above relate to each other. The two discourses are in an antagonistic position to each other since they deal with the same topic; what it means to be an Englishman. Therefore, they belong to each other’s field of discursivity and articulate some of the same elements in different ways. These elements are floating signifiers. Within this text the master signifier ‘Englishman’ and the nodal point ‘state school’ function as floating signifiers and as mentioned before, they are marked with blue in figure 1 and 2.

However, there is a hegemonic intervention in the text in favor of the second discourse (the one presented in figure 2). This hegemonic intervention takes place when Paul’s parents change their minds about what it means to be an Englishman as well as their opinion about state schools. Thus, the second discourse in the text is the hegemonic discourse that undermines the first discourse. The meaning that the second discourse ascribes to the master signifier ‘Englishman’ and the nodal point ‘state school’ is therefore the one that is fixed in the end, dominates the text and becomes objective.

In the following, I will apply Hall’s theory of stereotyping to the representation of British cultural identity in the discourses. Looking at the representation of British identity in the first discourse, I find that British identity is represented in a stereotypical manner since the master signifiers ‘Englishman’ and ‘French’ are positioned in a binary relation to each other. Hall’s example of the power imbalance between British/alien is relevant here; In this binary pair, I find the British ‘Englishman’ to be the superior pole while cultural other, or alien, ‘French’ is the inferior pole.

Besides this, the characteristics of ‘Englishman’ is reduced to the essentials ‘being brought

up as a real Englishman’ in ‘a very nice part of London called Chelsea’ in ’England’ and

(26)

26

The three representations of British cultural identity found in the second discourse I find stereotypical too. The identity ‘cockney’ is positioned in a binary position to ‘Englishman’, the characteristics of these two identities are reduced to a few essentials; ‘Englishman’ is reduced to being a proper Englishman which require speaking the Queen’s English and having money to afford attending a public school. The few characteristics of a cockney are to speak a vulgar sort of English with a broad accent and attending a state school. There is an imbalance of power in this binary pair; ‘Englishman’ represents the upper class while ‘cockney’ represents lower class. As we saw in the theory section about binary pairs, in the binary pair upper class/lower class, upper class is superior to lower class and therefore ‘Englishman’ is superior to the inferior ‘cockney’.

Moreover, ‘English people’ is reduced to the essentials being people living in England who checks each other’s accent, background and thus social class. Besides this, they are indirectly placed in opposition to people who are not English.

Adjacent to the text is a picture of two cups of what appears to be hot tea. The British flag is printed on each of them and so is the text “Be British Drink Tea”. The preferred meaning of this image on its own, and thus also the representation of British cultural identity, is that in order to be British you need only drink tea. Looking at the representation of British cultural identity within the image alone from the perspective of Hall’s theory of stereotyping, I argue that this representation is stereotypical. since being British is reduced to the essentials drinking tea and indirectly placed in a binary position to “not being British”.

When taking into account the representation of British cultural identity in the first discourse (figure 1) found in the text when analyzing the image, one could say that drinking tea is one more criterion, in addition to the others, that one needs fulfill in order to be considered a real Englishman. However, considering the representation of British cultural identity within the second discourse found in the text together with the image, one could argue that since there are two cups of tea in the image, one can be British in two ways as long as you also drink tea. The preferred meaning of the image and the text together is thus that one could either be a proper Englishman or a cockney and what unites them is that they are English people who also drink tea.

Applying the theory of stereotyping to these two other preferred meanings of the image, I view them both as stereotypical since the stereotyping in the discourses presented above together with the stereotypical representation within the image alone, only adds one characteristic, drink tea, to the British cultural identities represented in the discourses.

(27)

27

The 1980s textbook – Action 1

In the text “How one small step forward in a Camden school could become a giant step forward for mankind” (Jägfeldt & Jägfeldt 1983, p.4-5), a school class in Camden, London is in focus. The text talks about the cultural diversity of the pupils in the class and that they, by together learning about each other’s cultural backgrounds, have overcome the problem that the fact that they have different cultural background and roots poses. In addition, it is implied in the text that this work that the pupils do together is a way to overcome this problem in order to build a better Britain.

In this text I found one objective discourse. As illustrated in the figures below, the nodal point that organizes this discourse is ‘cultural background’. The master signifiers in the discourse are ‘class’, ‘children’, ‘the pupils’, ‘Pakistani’, ‘Chinese’, ‘British’, ‘Indian’, ‘Spanish’, ‘Greek’, ‘Turkish’ and ‘Cypriot’, ‘people in different parts of the world’ and ‘mankind’. Myths found in the text are ‘the classroom’, ‘St. Michael’s School’, ‘a school in Camden Town, London’, ‘Britain’ and ‘different parts of the world’.

The master signifiers ‘children’, ‘the pupils’ and ‘class’ are being used interchangeably in the text to denote all of the pupils in the class as a collective identity. Therefore, these master signifiers are all analyzed as the same master signifier, as shown in figure 3a. Because of this,

(28)

28

I will in the following use the master signifier ‘class’ when I refer to all of these three master signifiers as one.

Investigating the ‘class’ as a collective identity, I found that it is linked in a chain of equivalence (illustrated in figure 3a) to the nodal point ’cultural background’ and to the moments ’different roots’, ’problem’, ’tried to solve the problem’, ’work together’, ’a project where they had to find out about their own cultural background’, ’differences and similarities in food, writing, dress, religion, music and art’, ’accept both themselves and the others as individuals’, ‘becoming proud of themselves, of their identity’, ’The interest of the class has grown, and so has their understanding of people in different parts of the world’ and ‘one small step forward in a Camden school could become a giant step forward for mankind’. Besides this, the class is linked to the myths ‘the classroom’, ‘St. Michael’s school’, ‘a school in Camden Town, London’ and ‘Britain’. The class is also linked directly to the master signifiers that denote the collective groups ‘mankind’ and the master signifiers for the nationalities ‘Pakistani’, ‘Chinese’, ‘British’, ‘Indian’, ‘Spanish’, ‘Greek’, ‘Turkish’ and ‘Cypriot’. Furthermore, the class as a group is contrasted to the collective identity 'people in different parts of the world’ (its chains are illustrated in figure 3b) but also linked to it indirectly as the chains of equivalence of ‘class’ and of ‘people in different parts of the world’, intersect in some other moments.

I found that the meaning created in this structure is that the diversity of cultural backgrounds and roots within the class, the nationalities of the children and thus also the different collective identities of the children; Pakistani, Chinese, British, Indian, Spanish, Greek, Turkish and Cypriot, is seen as a problem that the class tried to solve by working together on a project through which they were learning about, and accepting, each other’s and one’s own cultural background with regard to food, writing, dress, religion, music and art. The class studied differences and similarities between each other with respect to these aspects. Through this process, the pupils in the class got to know themselves and others as individuals and also became proud of their identities. Besides this, by working on this project, the children got to increase their understanding of people in different parts of the world since the pupils in the class studied their own cultural backgrounds from different parts of the world. This work took place within the social spaces of the classroom, St. Michael’s school, a school located in Camden Town, London in Britain.

As described in the theory section, according to Laclau and Mouffe, differences between subjects in a particular group are ignored when constructing a group discursively. Applying this

(29)

29

theoretical assumption on the class as a collective identity, I find that the differences in the group of children are not ignored but rather made into something that all of the children share. It is made into a similarity. Furthermore, focus is on working together to overcome the problem that the cultural diversity in the class poses as well as on accepting each other despite one another’s different cultural backgrounds and nationalities. Thus, the pupils are all working together towards the same goal. In the light of this, I claim that there is an attempt in the discourse to homogenize the pupils in the class and thus diminish their differences but that the attempt is not successful in constructing the class as a homogenous group. Instead, the group is diverse and heterogeneous.

Moreover, as explained in the theory section about discourse theory, collective identity is defined in relation to other groups, and in case of the class as a group this master signifier’s chain of equivalence is contrasted to, but also intersect with, the chain of equivalence of the master signifier and collective identity ‘people in different parts of the world’. These two master signifier’s chains intersect in the master signifier ‘mankind’, which also is a collective identity, and in the master signifiers ‘Pakistani’, ‘Chinese’, ‘British’, ‘Indian’, ‘Spanish’, ‘Greek’, ‘Turkish’, ‘Cypriot’, as well as in the moments ’differences and similarities in food, writing, dress, religion, music and art’ and the nodal point ‘cultural background’.

This means that there are similarities between the two collective identities of the ‘class’ and of ‘people in different parts of the world’ even though they are discursively constructed as two groups. These similarities include being part of the collective identity ‘mankind’, which unites them, and that they are constituted by different collective national identities that thus are represented within in the two groups and that there are differences and similarities between the members of both groups with regard to food, writing, dress, religion, music and art and that there are focus on cultural background in both groups. Put differently, both groups are multicultural and multinational.

Besides being linked to the moments it shares with the master signifier ‘the class’, the chain of equivalence of the master signifier ‘people in different parts of the world’ also include the myth ‘different parts of the world’. The meaning of this is that the collective identity ‘people in different part of the world’ is placed in the social space of ‘different parts of the world’. In addition, the master signifiers ‘mankind’ is linked to the myth ‘different parts of the world’ which means that ‘mankind’ as a group is situated in the social space of different parts of the world.

(30)

30

The myths ‘the classroom’ and ‘Britain’ are both linked to the moments ‘building a fair and tolerate’. This is since the work that the class does in the classroom is a step towards building a fair and tolerate Britain.

As we have seen, the master signifiers ‘class’ and ‘people in different parts of the world’ are constructed as two different groups in the discourse but are united through the master signifier ‘mankind’ and through being made up of different collective national identities. Now I will present how the myths, or social spaces, which these two master signifiers are placed within, relate to each other in the discourse. This is illustrated in figure 3c.

The myths ‘the classroom’, ‘St. Michael’s school’, ‘a school in Camden Town, London’ and ‘Britain’, which is shown as one in the figures, is linked to the myth ‘different parts of the world’. Thus, the myths and social spaces of the two separate master signifiers ‘class’ and ‘people in different parts of the world’, as well as of the master signifier ‘mankind’ that unites them, are situated within the geographical area, or social space, ‘different parts of the world’. In addition to being united in the collective identity ‘mankind’, the ‘class’ and ‘people in different parts of the world’ are bound together by the fact that they all live in different parts of the world.

In the following, I will discuss the two different representations of British cultural identity that I have found in the discourse. One representation of British cultural identity in the discourse is the children within the collective identity of the ‘class’ which also belong to the collective identity ‘British’ within the ‘class’. Put differently, the children that have their cultural background in Britain exclusively, become representatives for, the ‘British’. Children which are part of any of the collective identities ‘Pakistani’, ‘Chinese’, ‘Indian’, ‘Spanish’, ‘Greek’, ‘Turkish’ or ‘Cypriot’, that together make up the collective identity the ‘class’ and thus are assigned another ‘cultural background’ than the ‘British’, are excluded from representing British cultural identity and instead represent the cultural identity of the country that the discourse articulate as the country where they have their ‘cultural background’. Therefore, British cultural identity in the collective identity ‘British’ can be said to be represented as a group which excludes people of other cultural backgrounds.

At the same time however, all of the children, despite their cultural background, are included as ‘pupils’ and ‘children’ working together to create a ‘fair and tolerate’ Britain in the diverse and heterogeneous ’class’ within the social space of ‘Britain’. The collective identity of the ‘class’ can thus be said to be another a representation of British cultural identity. As we have seen, in this collective identity, pupils of different cultural and national backgrounds, which