David Cannadine's acclaimed 2001 study of British attitudes to empire is a fascinating counterpoint to the accepted wisdom of works such as Edward Said's _Orientalism_ - but, hampered by its popular history format, it is too brief, and at times frustratingly short on detail.
It has become a truism that the British empire was an embarrassing edifice of institutionalised cultural hegemony and racism, aimed at civilising a world that is fundamentally uncivilised (seen so because since it lacked great British virtues like honour, cricket, tea and stiff upper lips). Of course, even the most cursory look at the period will tell you that a) such a judgement is, if not without foundation, vastly unfair, and b) seeing an empire of three and a half (or so) centuries as one unified 'period' ruled by unified attitudes is a touch on the silly side anyway.
Cannadine, whose primary scholarly interest is in the nineteenth century social class system in Britain, advances an interestingly different take on Empire: that, far from seeing the exotically-distasteful Other - degenerate examples of uncivilised, different people - everywhere they looked, the British were much more inclined to seek correspondance in the societies they encountered. Fundamentally, Britain was a deeply hierarchical society, and it was in such milieux that the British felt comfortable. They were enormous snobs, essentially. Thus, the Englishman Abroad, far from feeling a lofty superiority on racial grounds, sought (what he perceived as) his social equivalents and betters, and treated them accordingly. As the author puts it:
"They exported social perceptions on the presumption of sameness as much as they exported social perceptions on the assumption of difference. [...] Their empire existed overseas: but the British tried to make it seem like home. They saw what they were conditioned, what they wanted, and what they expected, to see."
Across the world, the British looked for (and expected to see) a class system. Expecting to see it, they saw it, however misguidedly - in the Indian caste system, for example, or the institution of the zamindar, both of which they gravely misunderstood as a result. When the British ruling classes looked to India (and elsewhere), they saw there a mirror of Britain. Their assessment was flawed, but it shaped the way in which they dealt with the society: through elaborate social rituals aimed at reinforcing hierarchies, and bolstering the power of local authorities - whom they saw as their equals. These rituals are what Cannadine calls 'ornamentalism'. ("For ornamentalism was hierarchy made visible, immanent and actual.")
Cannadine makes an interesting case, but the book is rather too short (200 pages) to provide enough detail to back up the argument fully. Certain counter-examples are skimmed over very abruptly: Cecil Rhodes, surely one of the biggest arguments to the contrary, gets barely a mention. As Cannadine admits in his concluding chapter, ornamentalism was only one way in which the British viewed their empire; it existed _alongside_ the aspects we're more accustomed to, including hierarchy on racial lines which put British society and values at the centre of the world, to be evangelised at the cost of all else.
Nevertheless, a useful re-examination.