After the British World

Rachel K. Bright, Andrew R. Dilley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)
8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Within the expanding field of global history, historians often conceive of distinct integrated ‘worlds’: discrete if permeable cultural units capable of coherent study. Some are defined exogenously through factors such as oceanic geography, others are conceived of endogenously through the cultures and identities of their adherents. In this context this article critically assesses the recent voluminous literature on the British world: a unit increasingly distinguished from British imperial history and defined by the networks and identities of global Britishness. The article argues that the British world, while making valuable contributions to the historiography of empire and of individual nations, fails ultimately to achieve sufficiently clear definition to constitute a distinctive field of study and neglects the crucial concerns of imperial history with politics and power, while flattening time, space and neglecting diversity. A more expansive and inclusive conception of imperial history or Whiteness Studies would more fruitfully have captured the British world’s concerns. Moreover, an analysis of the British world highlights the problems inherent in attempting to define a field through a focus on identity.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)547-568
Number of pages22
JournalThe Historical Journal
Volume60
Issue number2
Early online date13 Feb 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2017

Fingerprint

History
Britishness
Whiteness Studies
Neglect
Conception
Historiography
Historian
Geography
Field of Study
Worldmaking
Global History

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

After the British World. / Bright, Rachel K.; Dilley, Andrew R.

In: The Historical Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2, 01.06.2017, p. 547-568.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bright, Rachel K. ; Dilley, Andrew R. / After the British World. In: The Historical Journal. 2017 ; Vol. 60, No. 2. pp. 547-568.
@article{c102582c722b4b95b1bb29379188259e,
title = "After the British World",
abstract = "Within the expanding field of global history, historians often conceive of distinct integrated ‘worlds’: discrete if permeable cultural units capable of coherent study. Some are defined exogenously through factors such as oceanic geography, others are conceived of endogenously through the cultures and identities of their adherents. In this context this article critically assesses the recent voluminous literature on the British world: a unit increasingly distinguished from British imperial history and defined by the networks and identities of global Britishness. The article argues that the British world, while making valuable contributions to the historiography of empire and of individual nations, fails ultimately to achieve sufficiently clear definition to constitute a distinctive field of study and neglects the crucial concerns of imperial history with politics and power, while flattening time, space and neglecting diversity. A more expansive and inclusive conception of imperial history or Whiteness Studies would more fruitfully have captured the British world’s concerns. Moreover, an analysis of the British world highlights the problems inherent in attempting to define a field through a focus on identity.",
author = "Bright, {Rachel K.} and Dilley, {Andrew R.}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0018246X16000510",
language = "English",
volume = "60",
pages = "547--568",
journal = "The Historical Journal",
issn = "0018-246X",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - After the British World

AU - Bright, Rachel K.

AU - Dilley, Andrew R.

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - Within the expanding field of global history, historians often conceive of distinct integrated ‘worlds’: discrete if permeable cultural units capable of coherent study. Some are defined exogenously through factors such as oceanic geography, others are conceived of endogenously through the cultures and identities of their adherents. In this context this article critically assesses the recent voluminous literature on the British world: a unit increasingly distinguished from British imperial history and defined by the networks and identities of global Britishness. The article argues that the British world, while making valuable contributions to the historiography of empire and of individual nations, fails ultimately to achieve sufficiently clear definition to constitute a distinctive field of study and neglects the crucial concerns of imperial history with politics and power, while flattening time, space and neglecting diversity. A more expansive and inclusive conception of imperial history or Whiteness Studies would more fruitfully have captured the British world’s concerns. Moreover, an analysis of the British world highlights the problems inherent in attempting to define a field through a focus on identity.

AB - Within the expanding field of global history, historians often conceive of distinct integrated ‘worlds’: discrete if permeable cultural units capable of coherent study. Some are defined exogenously through factors such as oceanic geography, others are conceived of endogenously through the cultures and identities of their adherents. In this context this article critically assesses the recent voluminous literature on the British world: a unit increasingly distinguished from British imperial history and defined by the networks and identities of global Britishness. The article argues that the British world, while making valuable contributions to the historiography of empire and of individual nations, fails ultimately to achieve sufficiently clear definition to constitute a distinctive field of study and neglects the crucial concerns of imperial history with politics and power, while flattening time, space and neglecting diversity. A more expansive and inclusive conception of imperial history or Whiteness Studies would more fruitfully have captured the British world’s concerns. Moreover, an analysis of the British world highlights the problems inherent in attempting to define a field through a focus on identity.

U2 - 10.1017/S0018246X16000510

DO - 10.1017/S0018246X16000510

M3 - Article

VL - 60

SP - 547

EP - 568

JO - The Historical Journal

JF - The Historical Journal

SN - 0018-246X

IS - 2

ER -