‘Isles of Wonder’: performing the mythopoeia of utopic multi-ethnic Britain

Abstract

Be not afeard: the Isle is full of noises (The Tempest, Act III)The modern Olympics Games have always been closely sutured with various historical socio-political-economic trajectories; most recently inextricably tied to the global rhythms and regimes of an expanding media-industrial and deeply militarized complex (see e.g. Andrews, 2006; author a/b;Denzin, 2012). In our present, the Games operates as a highly affective, and extremely public, political, pedagogic, corporate and powerful media spectacle through which to define the parameters of the 'sanctioned' nation, its citizenry, its politics, the 'other', and the geopolitical-imperial-military trajectories of the market and the state (author b). Within this paper, the very particular 'narratives of nation ' (Hall, 1992) told through the mediation of the London 2012 Opening Ceremony are interrogated. These are extremely 'popular'-in Stuart Hall's use of the word-and potent spaces for various invocations of (supra)national performance-what else might we expect from an Olympic spectacle (see e.g. Hogan, 2003;Tomlinson, 1996). Concretely grounded in material relations of the temporal juncture, these performative aspects of sporting spectacles often simplify, amplify, (de)politicalize, and (re)invent nation; acting as spaces for the assertion and affirmation of particular discursive constructions of nation that readily reflect and reproduce social hierarchies, are often highly gendered, and, offer particular constructions of the character, culture and the historical trajectory of people-constructions that by their very nature are acts of inclusion and exclusion (e.g. Hogan, 2003;Tzanelli, 2008). In this paper, the focus is and which are forgotten, who selects these noises, which are given weight, and which noises are silenced? Boyle's ceremony is thus an important space for a powerful and spectacularised performance of a particular form of British national fantasy for global positoning and consumption, and raises important questions over the power to disseminate the past and the distortion, disappearance, or staging, of the 'authentic' in the name of capital (Chhabra et. al., 2003). In the balance of this article then, London 2012 is excavated as a powerful mnemonic that educates us in our present, and thus raise important questions over "the complex strategies of cultural identification, belonging and discursive address that function in the name of 'the people' or 'the nation' and make them immanent subjects and objects of a range of social and literary narratives" (Bhabba 1990: 292).Somewhat in line with the pre-existing narrative of the Games that stretches back to the bid documentation, and which was centered on the global advantages of diversity, harmony and multiculturalism (see author c), Boyle's emplotment was a "slightly critical" focus on "the best of us [Britishness]"? (Boyle, interviewed on the BBC's opening ceremony countdown programme, 27 th July, 2012). Cognisant of an international audience, he continued, suggesting the performance had to be "trut...

Celebrating British multiculturalism, lamenting England/Britain's past

“…In accordance with Silk's () analysis, the undermining of Britain's ‘multiethnic’ history presented a narrative whereby members of its diverse population were simply ‘added on’ to the story of Britain. Echoing De Chickera (), this failed to portray England/Britain's ‘multiethnic’ heritage, and, arguably, served to bolster Britain's ‘multiculturalism’ as a present‐centred achievement, ‘moored within a portrayal of a simple, safe, stable and pure Anglicized national narrative’ (Silk : 76). By delineating between a ‘past’, based upon tradition (Phillips ), and a ‘present’, that was decidedly modern, ‘quirky’ and cool (Freedland ; Izzard ; White ), a clear disparity in the English press' framing of Britain's ‘past’ and ‘present’ could be found (Littler and Naidoo , ).…”

“…For multi-ethnic Britons, the histories presented were not common; there was no opportunity to travel through history together. (2014: 76) In accordance with Silk's (2014) analysis, the undermining of Britain's 'multiethnic' history presented a narrative whereby members of its diverse population were simply 'added on' to the story of Britain. Echoing De Chickera (2012), this failed to portray England/Britain's 'multiethnic' heritage, and, arguably, served to bolster Britain's 'multiculturalism' as a present-centred achievement, 'moored within a portrayal of a simple, safe, stable and pure Anglicized national narrative' (Silk 2014: 76).…”

“…This was echoed by Freedland ( [italics added]) who noted that ‘the opening ceremony set the tone, suggesting that we should love the country we have become – informal, mixed, quirky – rather than the one we used to be’. The effect of such rhetoric is highlighted by Silk () who, in comments relating to the Olympic Opening Ceremony, argued that:

Multi‐ethnic Britain was given no past: differential legitimating discourses, histories, belongings and identities were simply absent or silenced. The legitimated past – the supposed ‘common’ values of the ‘Green and Pleasant Land’ and ‘Pandemonium’ – provided the foundation for Boyle's multi‐ethnic present.

…”

“…This was echoed by Freedland (2012 [italics added]) who noted that 'the opening ceremony set the tone, suggesting that we should love the country we have becomeinformal, mixed, quirkyrather than the one we used to be'. The effect of such rhetoric is highlighted by Silk (2014) who, in comments relating to the Olympic Opening Ceremony, argued that:…”

One Guy Named Mo: Race, Nation and the London 2012 Olympic Games

“…Evidence also points to the negligible number of minority ethnic organisations in east London that held contracts to deliver aspects of the Games, with certain barriers restricting their capacity to win tenders (Calvo, 2014). Moreover, critical commentators have highlighted the limited and tokenistic references to British multiculture in the opening and closing ceremonies (Silk, 2015;Winter, 2013), with minority ethnic communities' contributions confined to narrow, predictable themes of empire, immigration and popular music. The assorted biographies of the participating British athletes (Ford, Jolley, Katwala & Mehta, 2012) (Ngai, 2004), with corporeal and cultural differences deemed out-of-sync and irreconcilable with this particular dominant interpretation of (sporting) Britishness.…”