Did the First World War Fundamentally Change British Society?

Siegfried Sassoon

You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye

Who cheer when soldier lads march by,

Sneak home and pray you'll never know

The hell where youth and laughter go.

  In any essay dealing with a change to society caused by a significant event, care must be taken in appreciating the subjectivity of perceived changes, long term and short term trends surrounding the event, and the difficulties of reaching a satisfactory definition of 'society'. This essay will look at both internal changes to British society in terms of shifting class boundaries through the distribution of economic and political power, and also external changes to a society through its views, self-definition, and the role of empire.

Benjamin Disraeli - The UK's only Prime Minister
to date born into a Jewish family.

  In defining society it is best to judge changes on both an international and a domestic level. On an international level, British society within this period is clearly defined by its empire and its imperial outlook. 

  Disraeli had set out in 1867 to popularise empire and place it at the heart of British politics, and the necessity and maintenance of empire became a ground on which Conservatives and Fabians alike could 'find common cause'. By the 1890s 'intellectual and popular tastes had converged' under the cross-party cross-class issue of national imperialism, and even if this were a mere semblance of unity, in reaching an encompassing external definition of British society, judging any fundamental changes to that society by any fundamental changes within it of its views towards empire is both convenient and apt.

  Imperialism gained a fervent popular tinge after the Abyssinian campaign of 1867 that can be seen bubbling to the surface in public sentiments towards the 1874 Ashanti Campaign, the calls for sharp reprisals towards the Egyptian crisis of 1882, right up to popular support for the Boer War of 1899-1902. And though one should not ignore Pro-Boer groups within British society, one should also not forget the terms useage as a politically tarring slur. Dickens, a highly regarded and publicly popular author of the nineteenth-century, perhaps reflected the growing opinion of society in 1853 when he wrote that a savage was something 'highly desirable to be civilised off the face of the earth', which reflects much of his society's imperialistic outlook.

   However, there is an argument that this imperialistic view of British society underwent a fundamental change after the First World War. Britain's war debts, and inability to reclaim the $11.1m (equivalent) it had lent out to support its allies, knocked international confidence in the gold standard, and Britain was forced off it in 1919. British industry struggled to recover markets lost to rival US and Japanese competitors during the war, causing slumps in industry in the 1920s which were acutely felt by the general society, and the general rise of agitation in India and the dependant territories all equated to an 'atmosphere of failure' which severely knocked British society's self-confidence.

Rudyard Kipling used to sign many of his
books with the Indian religious symbol
'the swastika', leading many people with
no sense of chronology to deride him as
a nazi-sympathiser.

  The reverence of society for military leaders such as Kitchener, 'the victor of Omdurman and the Boer War', who in this sense can be seen to reflect a form of imperialist militarism, was fundamentally changed by the horrors and diabolical leadership of the war; which is reflected in most WW1 poetry post-1917, as in Kipling's epitaph, 'If any question why we died,/Tell them, because our fathers lied.', or Sassoon's ridiculing caricature of 'fierce bold... scarlet majors'.

  The 'atmosphere of failure', coupled with this rejection of the imperialist militarism, which had 'produced the war', suggests that the First World War and its consequences constitute a fundamental change within British society in its outlook, self-confidence, and views towards empire.

  However, the Boer War is commonly cited as representing the accumulative 'final bout of popular imperial fervour', and that the First World War simply finished off society's interest in imperialism would imply that its decline forms a part of a longer-term shift that culminated in the first World War, meaning the roots of this fundamental change would precede the war, and hence not be attributable to it.

  Also, whilst the effectiveness of propaganda upon society is debatable, it is evident that the 'imperialists were propagandizing [sic]' increasingly from c.1890 onwards with the establishment of imperialistically orientated groups such as the Imperial Federation League in 1884,  the League of the Empire in 1901, and the Overseas Club in 1910, amongst others. This imposition of empire survived the war and manifested itself in propaganda in the cinemas and other forms that influenced society, such as the Wembley Exhibition of 1924-5, Empire Day, and the survival of the 'new history and geography' taught in schools which emphasised empire and its heroes. The fact that at the outbreak of the Second World War, Orwell was still arguing that imperialism needed to be separated from nationalism suggests its continued role in society's collective consciousness after 1918.

  Based on this evidence, and looking at British society as being externally defined by its imperialistic outlook pre-1914, one may draw the conclusion that if the First World War did fundamentally change society, it was, in this sense, a temporary change, that was rekindled as Britain recovered and reasserted itself on the international stage. After an 'inevitable period of post-war instability', Britain's empire was again relatively stable by 1922, Britain returned to the Gold Standard in 1925, and, whilst domestic markets still suffered, Britain's international position with regards to empire was perhaps stable enough again for its society to revert back to its pre-1914 imperial self-identity.

  However, if there is something to be said for the First World War's long term effect upon this element of British society, it would be that perhaps by 1920s, with inter-war depression taking its hold, society now realised that Britain was dependent on its empire for resources and man-power in order to avoid absolute dependence on the growing power of the USA. The fundamental change is evident in the shift of perceptions towards empire as an indispensable crutch, which would explain the government's increased investment in imperial propaganda, as increasingly the 'empire and society began to need each other',  and away from Dickens' Orientalist, superior view of the empire needing civilising.

Men Whose Fate is Linked with Coal and Cotton - Kurt Hutton, 1939.
The grandeur of the Empire seems a world away from the unemployment of Wigan. Orwell saw both, and knew which one Britain was on the road to.

  Having looked at the effect of the First World War in changing British society in terms of its international, external definition by attitudes towards empire, the remainder of this essay will examine the effects of the First World War at a domestic and internal level, as defined by society's attitude towards itself, and the distribution of economic and political power between the classes.

  One of the most obvious changes to British society brought about by the First World War was the increased prominence of working and middle class women within industry, and the political and economic leverage that created. When the call for volunteers went up in 1914, the Foreign Office was overwhelmed by the sudden rush to enlist from manual labours, clearly drawn by the promise of a guaranteed wage and a better diet; and at its peak the armed forces contained 'one in three of the entire male labour force'. Initially resistant to conscription, the Liberal government were increasingly pushed towards it initially not by a need for troops, but by a need to introduce some measure with which they could limit the amount of volunteers signing up, whose presence on the western front would produce a deficit in essential industry.

  The answer to this deficit however, lay in women. The amount of women in metal and chemical trades rose from 200,000 in 1914 to 'nearly a million by the Armistice', mostly from the working classes, but with spill overs from the middle classes. This in the long term however, did not cause a redistribution of power or fundamental change; women still did not hold the vote and by 1921 the female work force had virtually seen no net change from its 1911 level.

Photos such as this became popular sights, but in cases such as these the allure was more one of novelty
than of an acceptance of the new role of women in British society. Women over 30 may have won the vote
when the war ended, but it was a further decade until women were granted equal voting rights.

  The First World War had created a temporary fundamental change in the constructs of British society, but it had been purposefully reverted back again at its conclusion, as promised under the Treasury Agreements. However, women now played an increased role in Labour and trade unions, whose position was strengthened by labour shortages, with trade union membership peaking  at 8 million in 1919-20. Whilst trade union membership had been rising since before the war, and promises for electoral reform had been made before August in 1914, it was the war itself that brought about the calls that led to the 1918 reform bill. Whereas before, Conservative politicians had held reservations as to enfranchising the proletariat, they now held no reservations in enfranchising 'our soldier lads', and this sudden influx in the amount of enfranchised males, with the working classes in its broadest definition comprising 80% of the population, Labour now firmly established itself in Opposition.

Ramsay Macdonald - Britain's first Labour PM, though not for very
long first time round.

  This suggests a change in the political structure of society that, whilst not radical, can be seen in the general election of 1918 to signal the imminent rise of Labour, and the decline of the Liberal party in what has been termed, 'the strange death of Liberal England', and further suggests the rising political prominence of working class concerns within society, as reflected in the work of writers and journalists such as Orwell.

  In conclusion, as a whole, perhaps the war did not fundamentally change British society. Imperialism survived the war, but was now more defensive in nature than expansive, and whilst this does reflect the changing views of society, it cannot, I think, be termed a 'fundamental change', as the theme remained important and still informed politics and culture alike. However, Britain was now plagued with debts and un-reclaimable loans as a result of the war which would hamper plans for wide spread social welfare reform for another forty years. This, coupled with the emergence of the USA as a new 'economic empire', perhaps spoke of a longer term fundamental change in the way British society perceived itself on the world stage that found its causes in the First World War. 

  Issues on a more domestic level within society; such as women's suffrage movements, growth of the trade unions and of labour; had already been on the rise before 1914, but after the war grew exponentially in membership, or gained more widespread support. The war served to erode craft elitism in trade unions due to severe labour shortages in specialised trades, causing a fundamental shift in society towards a more united and encompassing trade union network which served to bring the working classes a much increased political leverage in settling trade disputes. 

  As to whether or not this constituted a fundamental change in British society depends upon how much weight one would place upon the First World War's ability to radically alter perceptions, views and ideologies. And whilst its role in this is evident (one need only think of the changing sentiments and optimism of the War's poetry, or of the resurrection of Socialist movements), one cannot dismiss that a lot of the themes, perceptions, and ideologies that define post-WW1 society were simply continuations, diminutions, or amplifications of pre-existing movements, and of pre-existing trends.

The Microwaveable Heart

Untitled - Tetsuya Ishida, 1997

She's got a microwaveable heart,

If it goes cold, stick it in, 2 minutes, press start;

Pirouetting like a ballerina in a tin-foil dish,

Amongst the bean stains, grease stains, dried up fish.

She's got a microwaveable heart,

Selling it on discount in Tesco car-park;

Marinate it in Strongbow for about an hour,

Then chuck it in, 2 minutes, stick it on full-power.

She's got a microwaveable heart,

With instructions tattooed on her left arm.

"This too shall pass" the warning reads;

Permanent ink for ephemeral dreams.

There's a junk-food romance in a ready-meal culture,

Where convenience is king and celebrity is vulture;

Where love is empty and undernourished,

And the land-fill festers where the flower once flourished.

But, disposable love leads not to pain,

There's no fear in immediate mutual self-gain,

Love is hurtful and full of distress,

But not when you buy it Tesco Express.

So head these words as consumer advice,
You only live once and you seldom love twice;

Because the only love with which none can compete,

Is the type of love that you can re-heat.

In Defence of English Humour

Monty Python - (from left to right: Robert de Niro; Peter Cook; Douglas Adams; Richard Hammond; Ian Brown; Katharine, Duchess of Kent)

        In 1941, George Orwell, in his essay The Lion and the Unicorn, attempted a definition of the English people; arguing that, 'it is important to determine what England is, before guessing what part England can play in the huge events that are happening'. His definition characterised us as a nation of hobbyists, of gentle and private paradoxes, with a fear of abstract thought, a belief in the law as something 'cruel and stupid' but 'incorruptible', un-artistic in comparison to the rest of Europe, with no need for the conventions of logic or an ordered system of thought, and insular.

       Obviously there is much there with which some would find fault, if not counter-examples. There is also much which is not there, which I have left out, which is crucial to his case, and to his tone. Orwell's description, as shown in its highly abridged form here, seems disparaging and almost on some level cruel. But it is not, and in reading his own words the sense one gleans is one of self-mockery and a mock-defeatist attitude, yet paradoxically proud and twee. He manages to work the endearingly mundane and trivial, such as sentences talking of the quintessentially English love of flowers and of stamp collectors and crossword enthusiasts, into an essay that calls for a Socialist revolution in order to win the war on Fascism. It seems in some ways almost humorous, and this, I think, is the crucial characteristic which Orwell does not quite overtly express; namely the role that humour plays in not just characterising, but in some respects defining the English throughout modern history.

       In this vein I wish to look briefly at the historical role of comedy in reflecting the attitudes and sense of identity of the English people, and its importance within society, within a relatively short time frame, from the music-hall tradition and light relief entertainment, through the satirical revival of the 1970s, up until the present day, focusing on comedy's development into an art-form, and from there into the realms of intellectualism, filling a vacuum that is perhaps created by modern culture, or its lack thereof.

Rowan Atkinson - seems irrelevant now,
but there's a bit in about 1000 words time
where I talk about him.

       Historically, humour has always played some role in society that is recognised as stretching beyond its ability to make us laugh. Around 35 BC, Horace's Satires not only gave name to a popular form of satire concerned with pointing to society's faults and mistakes through light-humour and wit, as well as containing the modern day equivalent of an excellent fart joke, but they also established him as one of the great Augustan poets. Among the Peublo Indians of southwestern Arizona the Peublo clowns have long been revered as an intrinsic part of their sacred religious festival that dates back for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. Their role in making old people laugh and small children cry, in pushing the boundaries of what is taboo, in offending sensibilities and attacking prejudices, is seen within the community as taking on an almost spiritual, and cathartic role.

       In Britain the role of comedy within society, whether it be satire, wit, or bawdy slap-stick, has also played a vital role in the social, political, and cultural spheres, and is, I feel, inherent to our ideas of freedom of speech, democracy, and national identity.

       Throughout the eighteenth century the satirical ballad opera was an extremely popular art form, the most notable example today being John Gay's The Beggar's Opera, which satirised the hypocrisy and decadency of the Walpolean government, whose fear of the power of satire and its hold on public opinion culminated in the Licensing Act of 1737, which granted the Lord Chamberlain sole power of licensing, and thereby censoring plays for stage; a role which persisted right up until 1968.

       The popularity of music-hall during World War One formed a key part of rallying patriotism and recruiting troops, and also served as an example of comedy in not only reflecting public opinion, but of defining the British character. As Orwell points out in The Lion and the Unicorn, 'the songs which the soldiers made up and sang of their own accord were not vengeful but humorous and mock-defeatist. The only enemy they ever named was the sergeant-major'. It is crucial to note that the morale boosting songs of the war were not the state sanctioned, state written, glorious and triumphant displays of might that were seen in Germany during World War Two, or Russia after the revolution. They were humorous, twee, quaint little ditties that didn't just reflect the attitudes of the war, but, much on the same level as the poetry of Graves, Sassoon, Owen, and Brooke, came to be the voices that spoke through history to define them.

Orwell - Nutter?

       One can hardly ignore the cathartic effect humour had on rallying great swathes of patriotism and reserve as the deadly shadow of Nazism spread across Europe. One can hardly ignore the importance of ridiculing Hitler through belittling caricatures in Punch magazine (just as one cannot ignore that the typically British humour of Punch has been drawn from relentlessly by Historians wishing to pithily convey public reaction to historical events). Mostly, one cannot ignore that a prime example of war-time Britain's answer to the manipulative propaganda of Goebbels was the popular refrain, Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. All of this speaks of a character indigenous to Britain, and it was around the time that the war ended that comedy started to become truly committed to reflecting a sense of British identity.

       The 1950s saw the emergence of, most notably, two different, but related streams of comedy. One was the situation comedy of Hancock's Half Hour, a genre which came to define through observational comedy much of the realities of British working class life; (see Only Fools & Horses, Steptoe and Son, etc.). The second was in the more surrealist, escapist style exemplified by The Goons, which could be seen as a precursor to the re-emergence of satire a decade later, with its parodies of elements of British society and class. Along with Hancock's Half Hour, they were two of the only shows of that decade that arguably dealt with the satire and ridicule of politicians, such as MacMillan and Churchill, before the satire boom of the 1960s.

       Peter Sellers, of The Goons, himself came in some ways to be a satire of British society in his own life; a character that portrayed, as Orwell put it, 'their refusal to take foreigners seriously', with Clueso; the satirical relationship of America and Britain with Group Captain Mandrake in Doctor Strangelove; and yet this was a man deeply troubled and torn apart underneath the surface, trying to keep his troubles private, and ending up subverting them through other vices.

Peter Cook - 'The funniest man who ever drew breath'.

       In 1960, Peter Cook, still studying at Cambridge at the time, went to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and put on, with his fellow Footlights, Beyond the Fringe, and satire in England was reborn. Adopting the surrealist tone that had been missing from practically all English art, with its Protestant influenced Naturalism, it paved the way for the new breed of comedians, the Oxbridge Mafia. On the one hand there was Monty Python, relentlessly pushing the boundaries of bad taste and redefining comic form, (the Undertaker's Sketch was only allowed to be performed under the stipulation that the audience stage a mass-revolt in disgust, so as to preempt public response and assuage the BBC of supporting such filth). On the other, following on from that in the 70s and 80s there was the Rowan Atkinson led news satire show of Not the Nine o'Clock News, which helped open up comedy and expand its role from 'comedy for the sake of comedy' into more of a moral gauge, calling out politicians, ridiculing religion, and making comedy feel more current through satirising popular news events. Of course there were no boundaries and both frequently crossed over, with Python causing a religious backlash over The Life of Brian, whilst Atkinson, many years later, created the character of Mr. Bean, in which he could explore comic form and the role of character acting in a way that to some seems childish, and to others seems almost like an intellectual thesis.

       It is along this road I now believe comedy to be travelling, and in these times I believe the role comedy has to play within British society, (though I do not deny its intrinsic importance within others), is to fill the gap left by the vacuum of modern society. In the 1980s, Spitting Image had opened up a whole new world of ridiculing authority, and its memorable depictions of the Thatcher Government were reportedly highly influential in the dismissal of 8 members of her cabinet. The Long Johns became an informative source for the public in explaining through satire the goings on of big business and government whilst others sort to over-complicate the issues. Satirical shows and publications, such as The Bugle, and Private Eye, continued to be a more trustworthy and informative source of news journalism long after news channels and papers had stretched themselves too thinly in a battle for dramatic, attention-retaining 'content' in a new digital age. Comedians such as Stewart Lee, continued the important role of commenting on religion, with shows such as Jerry Springer the Opera causing significant back-lash from right-wing fundamentalist groups, long after popular art had lost its ability to be relevant. And countless observational humorists, situational comedies, news satire shows and others continue to form and reflect as much of an inherent part of British identity as a culture, as they have always done.

       This is by no means to suggest that comedy is the sole arbiter of morality or taste in politics, society, and culture. Literature, art, drama and poetry have been sidelined and for the most part just brutally ignored in this essay in order to avoid becoming bogged down in fruitless side-tracks and to avoid losing sight of the topic in focus. This has also by no means been an attempt to provide any form of a comprehensive history of modern comedy. There are whole side-routes, under-ground movements, and even crucial figures, which have not been touched upon by this essay simply because I did not want to merely produce a narrative.

Stewart Lee - Eunuch Content Provider

       This essay, I hope, has been a look, using sparing examples, at the role comedy has played within society, and even in forming part of our national identity, throughout history. Right through from the satirical ballad-operas of the eighteenth century, up to present day satirical publications and even news  panel quiz shows, comedy may have lost some of its high-brow artistic worth, but has not lost sight of its objective in both raising questions and pushing boundaries, but also quite simply in making us laugh.

       Because of comedy's need to interact with the audience; to stimulate them into laughter; and in that vein to be constantly adapting and associating with them on some level, I believe it always has, and will continue to play a vital role in reflecting and to some degrees defining British culture. It's role in commenting on institutions such as the government, or religion, will continue long after the recognisable artists of modern society have self-referenced and deconstructed themselves into a post-modern coma. The presence of the Oxbridge Mafia in comedy brings a tinge of intellectualism to their humour largely missing in the popular domain from the comedic repertoire of, for example, America, (though one should not forget The Daily Show, or, The Colbert Report). It is a cliché, but it is also aphoristic, that 'you can tell a lot about a man's character from what he laughs at', and it is in the same vein that perhaps you can tell a lot about a nation's characteristics from what we, collectively, laugh, and have laughed at. Punch archives have always been a sure fire indicator of how the working classes, or politicians, were faring in middle-class public opinion; music-halls parodied and commented upon much of what felt socially relevant to a contemporary audience; and television sit-coms to an extent picked up that role after the Second World War.

       I heard it protested once that “British Humour” was not an oxymoron, and in defence of this I would say that we have revealed and documented as much about ourselves throughout our recent history; our mannerisms, ways of life, and taboos; through comedy, as we have done through literature, art, drama, film, sculpture, poetry, or any other art form that reflects a part of British society that perhaps, through history, has come to define it.

The Helter-Skelter

Stanley Spencer - Helter-Skelter, Hampstead Heath 1937

By the helter-skelter at Southend-on-Sea; 

          just next to the ring-toss, 

listlessly twirling your candy-floss stick,
like it was my heart.

You looked at the ground; 

your words echoing back up to me from between the sweet wrappers, 

       condom wrappers, 

               and discarded raffle tickets. 

I stared intently too, as though, 

              through this mutual perusal of the individual blades of grass,

we would come across some solution,

                        scrawled on the back of a packet of crisps,

that would make up for the deficit on our own part,

        to come to an amicable conclusion of this sorry state of affairs.

Whilst I was dissolving a bite of your candy floss,

                   (which I had swiped in an attempt to turn an awkward void

       into an endearingly content silence,

                              but which had served only to seemingly rile you,

                                                                  and make my fingers unbearably sticky),

my own name pierced the air.

       Like a pin to a goldfish in a plastic bag,

having been punctured,

     now let forth an unstoppable stream that,

                                          despite my best attempts to remedy the situation,

             through clasping hands slipping at his rapidly deflating world,

was slowly suffocating him.

As you spoke,

I was all too aware of the congealed lump

      of sticky, sickly, sugary substance,

      wedged to the palate of my mouth;

                       and I regretted having taken the preventative action some 30 seconds previous,

as it seemed to have achieved little,

and I hate the taste of candy floss.

"It won't hurt forever".

But it did. 

                          For a while,

                                                  at least.