汤姆·福迪：伊丽莎白二世去世，也带走了大英帝国的余晖

汤姆·福迪：伊丽莎白二世去世，也带走了大英帝国的余晖

导读：除了英国衍生的其他盎格鲁国家外，英国的国家认同是很特别的，因为它是在帝国主义的外衣下锻造的，具有一种排他性的普遍主义特征。

【文/汤姆·福迪 译/观察者网 宁栎】

英国女王伊丽莎白二世的葬礼，几乎可以肯定地宣告了英国一个时代的结束。伊丽莎白二世在位70年，这是一个见证英国社会、政治和经济发生深刻变化的时代，见证大英帝国的解体和英国在世界上地位的改变。这些都成为此后70年英国国内政治压倒一切的主题，“现实主义”和“帝国认同”之间的拉锯战，就相当于围绕英国“身份”的激烈斗争和冲突。特别是在欧盟问题上，英国从否认到接受，最后又以英国退欧的形式再次拒绝。

因此，伊丽莎白二世的去世，正值英国未来面临前所未有的不确定性之时。这些挥之不去的不安全感来自英国的身份危机，产生了社会和经济的多方面压力，不仅导致英国退欧，也导致现在的外交政策完全倒向身份和意识形态，而不是现实或常识。 与此同时，国内政治也急剧右倾。 可以说，“战后共识”已随君主而去，未来似乎并不乐观。

女王葬礼时威斯敏斯特教堂下半旗（来源：法新社）

除了英国衍生的其他盎格鲁国家外，英国的国家认同是很特别的，因为它是在帝国主义的外衣下锻造的，具有一种排他性的普遍主义特征。英国并不像越南或韩国这样的国家，以非常具体的民族概念来确定其身份，而是通过在全球范围内投射价值观来确定，这当然是帝国和资本主义的合法化。 如果用特拉斯首相的说辞，就会发现它被广泛地定义为“自由市场”、“民主”和“法治”。 英国支持一种依托在全球霸权地位遗产上的例外论。

但是，当这个帝国不复存在，或者英国越来越无法为大部分本国人民提供服务时，会发生什么呢？ 这就是英国今天面临的困境。 帝国在领土和声望方面的衰落也反映了全球范围内的经济变化，这些变化削弱了英国的竞争力，侵蚀了其工业基础，导致了20世纪70年代和80年代的动荡。 然而，正如撒切尔夫人的政策，解决办法是积极地把英国推上新自由主义的道路，这不仅摧毁了英国在帝国时代残余的工业基础，而且以纯粹的、不受约束的资本主义的名义撕裂了英国社会的和谐结构。

结果，支撑英国国家政治体制的“经济基础”也随之瓦解，其政治认同和共识也会随之崩溃。 从意识和目标来看，苏格兰是一个独立的国家，为了经济上的利益，苏格兰在18世纪同意与英格兰合并。 在英帝国蓬勃发展的同时，苏格兰与英格兰联合的政治意愿也很强。 然而，随着大英帝国的衰落，苏格兰赖以繁荣的工业基础也衰落了，民族主义的支持率大幅上升，最后在2008年全球经济衰退和随后卡梅隆首相力推紧缩计划时爆发了。

虽然2014年苏格兰独立公投没有成功，但苏格兰民族主义的支持率仍然很高，这与英国的帝国怀旧思潮和英国脱欧的政治潮流形成了鲜明对比，这也是在帝国衰落和随后经济潮流中处于不利地位的“落后”社区的倾向。英国经济从未真正从金融危机中复苏，自那以来，英国以国家身份认同的名义，做出越来越多灾难性的经济选择，宣布了侵略性的外交政策，其中包括英国退欧、新冠疫情危机和升级乌克兰战争，使英国陷入政治两极分化和不稳定的恶性循环。

伊丽莎白二世去世前几天，特拉斯当了首相，再也没有比这更好的象征了。它代表着一个时代的结束，一个新时代的开启。 伊丽莎白二世是英国战后转型和帝国衰落的象征。 然而，总的来说，两者都很惨淡。 英国是一个还没有接受帝国衰落的国家，还在激烈地试图复辟。同样不用说，伊丽莎白二世的个人声望、遗产和软实力永远不会被查尔斯三世真正实现。在查尔斯三世治下，英国将继续看不到未来、在当下陷入停滞、将继续梦想过去的辉煌。

（本文系作者赐稿，英文原文见下页。）

Britain's New Uncertain Era

By Tom Fowdy

The funeral of Queen Elizabeth II yesterday almost certainly formalized the end of an era for Britain, one which through her reign spanned 70 years. It is an era which marked a profound social, political and economic shift in Britain, marking the dismantling of an Empire and a change in its place in the world. All of this become an overriding theme of domestic politics in the seven decades that followed, which might be described as a tug of war between “pragmatism” and the lingering of “Imperial identity”, amounting to intense struggles and conflict over where Britain “belongs”, particularly in reference to Europe, swinging from denial, to acceptance, and even outright rejection in the form of Brexit.

It is such that Elizabeth’s passing has come at a time where uncertainties surrounding Britain’s future are in fact higher than ever before, because these lingering insecurities that have arose within the country’s identity have become manifold through social and economic pressures, leading to not only Britain’s departure from the European Union, but also a foreign policy now based purely on identity and ideology, than pragmatism or common sense. In conjunction with this, domestic politics has swerved sharply to the right. The “post-war consensus” so to speak, has figuratively passed away with the Monarch, and the future doesn’t seem optimistic.

Britain’s national identity is unique from many other countries (excluding the other Anglosphere states it created) in that was forged in the mantle of Imperialism itself, and has a result, an exclusively universalist character. Britain does not categorize its belonging in very specific ethnic terms, in the way a nation such as Vietnam or Korea might, but through a projection of values on a global scale which of course were a legitimation of Empire and capitalism. If you follow the rhetoric of Liz Truss, it is broadly defined in terms of “free markets”, “democracy” and “the rule of law”. Britain espouses a form of exceptionalism attached to a legacy of global dominance.

But what happens of course, when that empire no longer exists, or for that matter Britain becomes increasingly unable to deliver for large portions of its own people? This is the dilemma that the UK faces today. The decline of the Empire in terms of territory and prestige also mirrored economic changes on a global scale which diminished Britain’s competitiveness and eroded its industrial base, leading to the upheavals of the 1970s and 1980s. The solution, however, as embodied by Margaret Thatcher, was to aggressively shoehorn the country onto the pathway of neoliberalism which not only destroyed the remnants Britain’s Imperial era industrial base, but also torn up the fabric of social harmony in the name of pure, unbridled capitalism.

And it is such that the “economic foundations” which underpin a given country’s ruling regime unravels, that its political identity and consensus also start to unravel with it. Take for example, Scotland. For all intents and purposes, Scotland is a separate nation, which for economic practicality, agreed to become a single-state with England in the 18th century. Whilst the Empire boomed, political consent for the union with England was strong. However, as the British Empire declined, and the industrial underpinning which Scotland thrived on also declined, support for Scottish nationalism surged existentially, and especially so given the turning points of the global recession of 2008 and the David Camera era austerity program which followed.

Whilst the initial Scottish independence referendum in 2014 did not succeed, support for Scottish Nationalism has nonetheless remained high, and comes in contrast to the polar opposite political current of British Imperial nostalgia and Brexit within England itself, again a product of “left behind” communities who have been on the disadvantageous end of Britain’s Imperial decline and its subsequent economic choices. As Britain’s economy has never truly recovered from the financial crisis, and has made more and more disastrous economic choices since, made of course in the name of identity which promulgates an aggressive foreign policy, of which include Brexit, covid-19 mismanagement and choosing to escalate the war in Ukraine, locking the country in a vicious cycle of more political polarization and destabilization.

Never was this better symbolized by the fact that Liz Truss is now Prime Minister, and Queen Elizabeth II happened to die just days later. It represents the end of one era, and the opening of a new one. Queen Elizabeth was a symbol of Britain’s post-war transformation and Imperial decline. Yet all in all, none of it is for the better. The United Kingdom is a nation that has not come to terms with the decline of empire and is drastically attempting to compensate for such. It also goes without saying that the Elizabeth’s personal popularity, legacy and soft-power will never be truly fulfilled by her son Charles III, which will entrench a nation who unable to look forwards and nothing going for it in the present, will continue to dream of past glories.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。