Professor Alex Thomson Inaugural Lecture

Thank  you,  Sarah.  For  that  kind  introduction. I  didn't  really  recognise  myself  in  that, but  I  appreciate  your  kind  words, and  I'd  just  like  to  thank everybody  for  being  here  today. It's  a  great  honour  to  give  this  lecture. I'd  like  to  thank  a  couple of  people  in  particular. So  first  of  all,  I'd  like  to  thank my  parents  for  their  support  and encouragement  over  many  years and  for  joining  me  here  today. I'd  like  to  thank  my  wife, Anna  for  her continuing  and  ongoing  support  and encouragement  and  for basically  making  everything  possible. And  for  being  a  great  colleague  as  well. I'd  like  to  thank  the  colleagues  in the  school  office  who  helped  set  this  up, particularly  Emma  and  then Hannah  who  did  this  amazing  visual, which  I'm  sure  you'll  agree, is  why  I'm  here  today.  Is  that  enticing. So  I'll  get  on  the  thing. I'm  delighted  to  have  this  opportunity to  say  a  little  bit  about  my  work and  how  it  fits  into the  development  of  Scottish  literary, cultural,  and  historical  studies here  at  the  University  of  Edinburgh. This  is  my  pitch  to the  head  of  college,  by  the  way. There  is  no  university  with a  greater  concentration  of research  in  these  fields  in  the  world. Although  for  reasons  which I  begin  to  touch  on  in  my  talk, this  has  rarely  been  explored  in fully  joined  up  ways. Great  opportunity  for  investment, you  might  think. One  of  the  privileges  of age  is  a  greater  sense  of  perspective. Writing  this  lecture,  which  reflects essentially  on  the  period leading  up  to  when  I  come  into  the  story, when  I  first  arrived here  at  the  University  of  Ed. He  says  modestly,  by  the  way, leading  up  to my  first  entry  of  the  university. I  came  to  understand  better not  only  my  debts  to the  people  who  first  taught  me  here, but  also  I  began  to  re  evaluate, I  guess  how  recent,  how  original, and  how  contemporary  what I  was  being  taught  at  the  time  was, because,  of  course,  he  just  don't know  how  brilliant  the  people teaching  you  are  because  it's  all  you know  until  you  look  back  later. In  the  30  years  since I  started  at  university, don't  do  the  maths  in  your  head. I've  acquired  many  more  debts to  colleagues,  friends,  students, and  collaborators  than  I can  possibly  acknowledge, and  that  includes  many  people in  this  room  tonight. But  I  felt  it  would  be  right  to dedicate  this  lecture  to those  people  who  were  teaching Scottish  literature here  when  I  first  arrived, so  that  sense  that  there's  a  succession  and having  desperately  searched  in the  wreckage  of  my  office for  my  first  election  notes, which  I  think  I  do  still  have  somewhere. I  couldn't  find  them.  I'm  hoping I'm  going  to  capture  everybody. But  this  is  all  people  who've moved  on  from  the  university. There  are  people  here  in  the  room who  did  teach  me  later, but  deliberately  choosing  to honour  and  to  thank  In  Campbell, Alien  Christianson,  Kearns  Craig, Ronnie  Jack,  Sarah  Carpenter, and  Randall  Stephenson. Introduction. This  starts  like  a  student  essay. The  last  two  decades  of  the  20th  century  saw significant  changes  in Scottish  culture  and  society. I  know.  Study  of  the  period  has tended  to  emphasise two  of  these  in  particular, one  in  politics  and  one  in  culture. The  first  is  obvious  when  we  look  for  it. It's  exemplified  by  the  different  outcome  of the  two  referenda  held  on  devolution  in  1979, and  then  in  1997,  and  of  course, the  opening  of  the  Scottish Parliament  in  1999. So  what  we  sometimes called  the  evolutionary  period between  these  two  dates, sees  the  formation  of a  broad  alliance  across  Civic  Scotland, premised  on  a  shared  opposition  to  thaterism, and  based  on  the  claim  that  there  are fundamental  differences  in  values between  Scottish  and  English  culture, that  a  greater  degree  of  political  autonomy would  foster  and  safeguard. That's  the  political  outcome. Second  is  what  has  been seen  as  a  renaissance  of Scottish  literature  and arts  in  the  same  period. Now,  like  all  cultural  things, this  is  much  harder  to  demonstrate. Elections  and  referendum  results give  tangible  indicators  of  change. But  cultural  history  will  always seem  inevitably  less  concrete because  it  depends  on  prior critical  judgments and  evaluations  of  what  could  be considered  a  significant  or a  successful  work  rather  than simply  the  piling  up  of  empirical  data. If  we  want  some  indicative  markers, you  can  choose  your  own,  of  course, but  we  might  flag  the  publication  of significant  works  by  writers whose  careers  had  begun earlier  in  the  century, like  Aliste  Grey  or  Edwin  Morgan, the  emergence  of  powerful and  exciting  new  voices, such  as  those  of  Tom  Lenard,  James  Kelman, Al  Kennedy,  and  Janice  Galloway, and  then  the  international  recognition of  writers  such  as  Ian  Banks, and  then  later  Ervin  Welch  as  well. Change  in  these  two  separate  series of  events  in  the  realm  of  politics and  the  arts  have  been  widely understood  in  terms  of increased  autonomy  and  self  determination. We've  used  the  political  narrative to  understand  the  cultural  narrative. They're  both  taken  as  providing  evidence, which  I  think  still  underpins  dominant  ways of  talking  about  Scotland  in the  tie  first  century. You  heard  a  lot  of  this  at  the  time  of the  Independence  Referendum  in  2014. Both  in  politics  and  the  culture, we  see  signs  of  what's described  as  self  confidence, and  cultural  analysis  in Scotland  has  been  and  remains dominated  by  the  assumption  that these  two  phenomena  are  linked  together. On  one  account,  both political  and  cultural  developments are  parallel  responses  to social  and  political  crisis. A  strong  variant  of this  argument  sees  cultural  change  as national  revival  as the  necessary  forerunner  of  political  change, such  that  the  increasing  self  recognition  of Scottish  cultural  power  underpins the  political  expression  of  nationhood. There  is  a  more  analytical  account, which  sees  both  not  as  directly  linked, but  as  complexly  interrelated. In  an  earlier  draught,  I said  parasitical  on  each  other, but  I've  decided  to  tone  things  down. Each  draws  on  the  other with  political  narratives, drawing  on  the  idea  of  Scottish  culture  in order  to  appeal  to  shared  values. That's  fine. That's  what  politics  does  or  has  to  do. Then  claims  for  the  significance  of  culture, again,  fine, great, convenient  for  artists  to be  able  to  say  this, but  puffing  themselves  on the  argument  that cultural  production  had  been the  carrier  of  Scottish  identity throughout  the  whole  period  since  Union. In  my  lecture  tonight, I  want  to  offer  an  alternative  viewpoint, which  close  to  that third  or  more  sceptical  account, qualifies  it  in  what  I like  to  think  are  significant  ways. The  relationship  between  politics  and  art, I'm  going  to  suggest  has  to  be  understood  as mediated  by  the  work  of criticism  and  cultural  history. Maybe  in  the  questions you  can  ask  me  whether  that's a  particularly  self  interested way  of  thinking  about  things. What  I'm  going  to  suggest  is  that  key to  understanding  the  recent  history  of the  relationship  between  politics  and the  arts  in  Scotland  is  a  shift  from something  like  a  modern  to a  postmodern  paradigm  in the  study  of  culture, and  I'll  explain  what  I  mean  by  that. My  lecture  will  have  three  parts, classically. I'll  give  an  account  of  the  rise  and  eclipse of  a  post  Modern  Scotland in  the  1980s  and  90s. Then  I'll  discuss  the  new  cultural  history that  emerges  at  the  same  time. Finally,  I'm  going  to  just say  a  little  bit  about  some  of the  consequences  of telling  the  story  this  way. So,  word  of  guidance  from  the  start, not  all  problems  can  simply  be  solved. My  relatively  modest  proposition is  that  focusing  on  this  idea  of mediation  and  this  transition  explains some  ongoing  tensions  within the  work  of  Scottish  cultural  history. That's  the  relevance  piece. Okay.  We're  going  to  begin  with the  rise  and  fall  of  postmodern  Scotland, and  with  a  work  of  art, which  I  think  will  be  familiar to  quite  a  lot  of  people  in  the  room. Hands  up,  have  you  seen  Oh, it's  not  quite  as  well  known  I  guessed. Luckily,  I'm  going  to  tell you  what  you're  looking  at. This  is  straw  locomotive, which  is  one  of  the  most  well known  or  was  one  of the  most  well  known  Scottish  artworks of  the  1980s. Time.  It's  a  site  specific  work by  the  sculptor  George  Wiley. It's  a  steel  frame  that  was stuffed  with  straw  and  was hung  from  the  Finnston  crane beside  the  River  Clyde  for about  six  weeks  during  the  duration  of Glasgow's  May  Fest  Arts  Festival  in  1987. During  the  six  weeks  that it  dangled  above  the  dox  side, the  sculpture  became  a  familiar  sight to  the  people  of  Glasgow, not  least  the  city's  bird  life. Wiley  noted,  the  pigeons loved  it  because  it  was  open  round  the  clock. Arrested  in  mid  air,  the  locomotive  images, the  suspension  of  Glasgow's industrial  and  imperial  past. It's  an  emblem  of  the  Second  City  of  Empire, whose  engineering  had  been  known  worldwide. So  there  we  are.  We're  used  to  it. It's  been  hanging  there  for  six  weeks. Then  on  the  night  of  22  June, coincidentally,  that's  my  birthday. It's  not  why  I  picked  this. Following,  I  can  reassure  you the  careful  eviction  of the  feathered  inhabitants  who  nested  in  it. No  birds  were  harmed in  the  making  of  this  artwork. The  engine  was  removed  to  the  site  of the  former  North  British engineering  works  in  Springburn. There  it  was  burnt  in  a  ceremony that  quite  deliberately  echoed the  recent  revival  of interest  in  fire  festivals such  as  the  philia  and Shetland  and  Beltan  here  in  Edinburgh. An  interesting  point  about  this is  that  witnesses  recall this  as  being  an  intensely  moving  occasion, and  all  accounts  of  this say  that  many  people  wept. Can't  tell  you  if  that's  true  or  not, but  it's  really  important that  that's  how  it's  described. As  the  engine  burned  down  to  the  ground, and  this  is  this  corner here,  a  question  mark, which  is  Wiley's  signature  motif appeared  in  the  steel  framework. So  Wiley,  who  takes the  question  as  the  motif for  his  art  as  a  whole. Commented  of  the  work,  the  straw  locomotive can  ask  questions  but  cannot  give  answers. Now,  Wiley's  preference  for open  rather  than  closed  questions rather  than  answers  does  resonate with  other  tendencies  in the  art  and  thought  of  the  time. It's  a  period  that  has  been characterised  as  a  whole by  Eleanor  Bell,  whose  work, I  want  to  pay  tribute  here to  as  that  of  a  questioning  Scotland, so  the  title  can  be  read  both  ways. Scotland  of  this  period  is a  Scotland  put  into  question, but  it  is  also  a  Scotland, which  questions,  which  asks  questions. For  me,  this  is  a  significant  change. My  next  slides  try  and  give  a  coherence  or a  flavour  of  the  change  that this  means  and  I  think  why  it's  a  good  thing. The  first  quotation  comes  from  the  novelist Al  Kennedy  in  a  talk  that she  gave  to  a  conference  in  1995. This  is  my  example  of  questioning  Scotland. I'm  a  woman,  I'm  heterosexual. I'm  more  Scottish  than anything  else,  and  I  write. But  I  don't  know how  these  things  interrelate. I've  been  asked  for  a  personal perspective  on  my  writing, on  Scottishness  in  literature and  Scottishness  in  my  work, but  my  whole  understanding of  writing  and  my  method  for making  it  does  not  stem  from literary  or  national  forms  and  traditions. For  Kennedy,  it  is  writing, which  also  poses  questions. It  is  a  search  for  something, not  a  statement  of  truth, and  not  at  all,  is  it the  perpetuation  of  particular  traditions. How  far  we  have  come  by  1995. I  like  to  contrast  this  with another  quotation  from  one  of the  two  key  Scottish  renaissance  novelists of  the  early  part  of  the  century, Neil  Gunn,  writing  in  1940,  who  says, Only  inside  his  own  tradition, can  a  man  realise  his  greatest  potentiality. Just  as  quite  literally, he  can  find  words  for his  profoundest  emotion  only in  his  native  speech  or  language. This  admits  of  no  doubt,  and  literature, which  is  accepted  as man's  deepest  expression  of himself,  is  there  to  prove  it. The  striking  thing  here  is  not simply  that  for  gun  art to  nation  are  inextricable, or  that  all  artists  are  basically  men, although  that  is  part  of his  assumption,  but  his  certainty. This  admits  of  no  doubt. That  self  evidence  of what  sociologists  would  call  the  congruits  of a  national  community  of a  linguistic  community  and  of a  political  community  is simply  something  that  gun  takes  for  granted. He  doesn't  need  to  justify  it  or demonstrate  it  or  go  through  any  argument. You  agree  with  him,  he knows  that  from  the  start. For  Kennedy,  none  of  this  is  certain. It's  a  mess  of  sliding, interacting,  cross pollinating  questions  rather  than  answers. The  space  of  the  nation  has  moved  from this  definitive  territorial  space to  a  space  of  questioning. The  role  of  art  has  changed  and the  sovereignty  of  the  nation  form has  lost  itself  evidence. Wiley's  questions  resonate  strongly with  those  being  asked  throughout the  1980s  by  Scotland's  writers, artists,  activists,  and  intellectuals. That's  enough  evidence  for  this  transition. Hold  trust  me. But  also,  as  Bell  shows, both  contemporary  art and  contemporary  social  theory, reflecting that  uncertainty  I'm  talking  about, increasingly  felt  themselves to  be  post  national. The  political  scientist  James  Mitchell argues  in  his  20  14th  book, that  the  Scottish  question,  he  says, is  both  interminable  and  unanswerable. I  assume  it's a  deliberate  reference  to  Freud, which  is  very  unlike  James  Mitchell, if  you  know  his  work. He  says,  the  Scottish  question  had many  dimensions  and  changed  over  time. There  is  no  solution  to  the  question, but  each  generation  had  to come  up  with  its  own  response. If  we  return  to think  about  the  straw  locomotive, In  light  of  that  question, we  can  think  about  how  it  was  being formulated  by  the  Scottish Intelligentsia  of  the  1980s. I  love  the  word  intelligencia. We  don't  hear  that  word  enough,  I  think. I  has  a  slightly  anachronistic  ring, but  maybe  that's  why  I  like  it. In  light  of  that  question, what's  being  asked? The  engine,  we  might  say,  stands  in for  Scotland's  modern  history, understood  as  running  from the  middle  of  the  19th  century to  the  middle  of  the  20th. When  the  locomotive  was  returned to  the  site  of  the  Spring  Burn  Works, it  was  reversing  the  journey made  by  approximately 18,000  steam  locomotives  in the  centuries  span  1862-1965. Note  the  end  date,  65. The  locomotive  also  stands as  a  late  modern  image  of  that  history. You  have  to  wait  for  the  book  for  me  to demonstrate  this. I'm  going  to  make  the  claim. It  is  only  after  1965 in  the  context  of  a  lot  of other  social  changes  that Scotland's  industrial  past  becomes such  a  significant  focus of  identity  formation. Before  that,  the  end  of empire  and  the  loss of  a  key  pillar  of  Scottish  identification, the  rapid  decline  of religious  belief  in  Scotland, the  modernization  of  the  British  military, which  undid  some  of the  other  traditional  markers of  Scottish  identity, all  of  that  impinge  on  how Scotland  has  understood  itself in  the  context  of  the  Union  state. After  that,  and  after  the  end of  it  self  conceived  industrial  payday, does  industry  emerge  as  the  symbol? So  it's  not  really  a  symbol  of  industry. It's  a  symbol  of  deindustrialization, which  emerges  as  a  crucial  cultural  image  in the  1970s  and  paralleling  a  series  of economic  and  cultural  commentaries which  argue  that  Scotland  had at  some  point  taken a  misstep  on  the  path  to  modernity  and it  was  an  undeveloped  area or  it  had  been  colonised  in  some  way. Although  the  terms  of those  arguments  had  changed, they  recall  the  deeply pessimistic  analyses  of  writers  in the  1920s  and  1930s when  it  was  the  post  war decline  of  shipbuilding, which  came  to  epitomise the  fragility  of  Modern  Scotland, writers  like  McDermott,  Edward  Muir, traced  the  roots  of that  problem  as  far back  as  you  like,  basically, but  certainly  as  far  as  the  reformation, certainly  as  far  as  Union, certainly  as  far  as  the  enlightenment, which  good  almighty  that was  a  terrible  thing  for  Scotland. If  the  locomotive  is the  image  of  Modern  Scotland, perhaps  what  Wiley  is  suggesting is  that  that  was  always  made  of  straw. Given  the  background  of  that  pessimism of  the  1970s, I  think  we  can understand  what  the  question  is  for the  Scottish  intelligence  year  of  the  1980s, which  is,  is  there  any  way  we  can  find a  more  positive  way of  talking  about  ourselves? Good  question.  I'm  sure  you'll  agree  with  me. The  challenge  is  how  to  figure out  the  nation  in ways  which  point  beyond  this  modern  crisis, it's  not  a  continuous  interpretation through  the  20th  century, but  it  has  really  powerful  moments  in the  1930s  and  the  1970s. Wiley's  sculpture  seems  to offer  one  answer  to  this  question. The  burning  of  the  locomotive Let  me  come  back  to  the  tiers. Offers  a  symbolic  release from  the  weight  of  the  past. It's  the  transformation  of the  civic  trauma  of deindustrialization through  the  affirmative  power  of, well,  what  else?  Art,  culture. This  redemptive  impulse  is  why  that cathartic  impact  on  the  witnesses has  been  stressed  so  strongly. After  loss  comes  renewal. After  industry  comes  style, after  history,  comes  culture. Out  of  the  dark  night  of  Empire comes  the  dawning  of  an  age  of  art. There'd  be  a  really interesting  strand  to  run  about the  redevelopment  of  Glasgow  in  the  1980s. The  whole  series  of  cultural  festivals, the  garden  festival, Glasgow's  time  as  the  City  of  Culture, fiercely  resisted  by  a  lot  of writers  and  artists  in  Glasgow  as a  kind  of  corporate  consumer  repackaging  of this  post  industrial  kind  of  consumer  space. Wiley  is a  really  interesting  figure  within  this. He's  he's  a  disciple  of  Joseph  Boys, so  he's  a  really  good  example  of  some  of the  international  influences  on Scotish  art  in  the  70s  and  80s, but  he's  very,  very  wrapped  up  in that  that  kind  of corporate  municipal  revival  at  the  same  time. Okay.  Since  the  crisis of  the  interval  years  just  mentioned, the  dominant  and  distinctive  theme  of Scottish  writers  and  artists  from  the  20s  to the  end  of  the  70s  had  been  how  to make  sense  of  the  transition  to  modernity, usually  viewed,  if  you  like, from  the  fact  that  it  was over  as  they  felt  or  flawed. Post  Modern  Scotland,  we  might  say, begins  with  the  question  of  what  comes after  the  sociological process  of  modernization. Albeit,  it's  also  closely linked  for  many  writers  with  the  need  to reject  the  literary  models  and the  domineering  literary  personalities of  the  early  part  of  the  century. If  McDermott  hadn't  died at  the  end  of  the  1970s, none  of  this  would  have  been  possible. He  took  up  that  much  oxygen in  the  room,  basically. Now,  it's  important  not  to  stress  too heavily  any  kind  of  uniformity  here, that  wouldn't  sit  with  the  questioning. What  are  now  seen  as  the  success  stories of  the  period  through the  academic  lens  of the  new  cultural  history written  which  begins  at  the  time. We're  often  criticised  by an  older  generation  of  writers  and  critics. My  favourite  example  of  this  is in  William  Mcvanes  the  kiln, where  this  novelist  figure who  is  basically  Mcvane gets  very  upset  when  he's introduced  to  a  writers  group. Who  are  these  impertinent people  hassling  him? Well,  they're  a  writers  group  from one  of  the  Glasgow  suburbs. Oh,  really?  What  group are  they?  They're  from  no  thank. No  thank  is  parody  play  on unthank  in  Aliste  grey's Lanark  and  suggests  that this  up  new  generation  who  are  getting all  the  fuss  have  forgotten  about McLvan  and  his  great  work  of  the  70s. Figures  who  straddle a  epochal  shift  are  always fascinating  to  study  because  they really  highlight  the  challenges  and  changes. But  that's  another  story.  That's  the  artists. A  second  answer  came  from the  work  of  sociologists  and  historians, and  that's  the  one  I really  want  us  to  focus  on. What  they  argued  was  that  the pessimism  of  the  intellectuals, both  in  the  30s  and  in  the  1970s, had  arisen  from  essentially a  misunderstanding  about the  progress  of  modernity  and a  misreading  of  modern  Scottish  history. Here  it's  that  lack  of  self  evidence  about that  congruence  of  nation  as  a  community, as  a  linguistic  community, and  as a  political  community  that's  important  here. If  the  nation  state  was  no longer  the  natural  end  point  of  history, that  it  had  been  considered to  be  earlier  in  the  century, but  an  ideal  type  developed  on the  basis  of  a  limited  range of  historical  examples, and  I  moreover,  it  seemed increasingly  questionable, then  Scotland's  situation could  be  re  evaluated. The  same  period  also  saw  a  widespread  turn to  constructivist models  in  the  social  sciences. This  stands  in  for  a  whole  section on  the  philosophy  of  social  science, but  I'm  going  to  just  use this  term  constructing  to  capture  this. That's  the  view  that  our  social  worlds  are the  product  of the  societies  that  constitute  them. That  those  societies  have fluid  and  poorest  boundaries can  only  be  known  perspectally, and  that  the  representations through  which  we  understand our  world  are  all  subject to  contestation  and  reinterpretation. As  the  philosopher  Richard  Rorty, is very  strong  constructivist influentially  put  it, Acknowledgment  of  the  contingency of  our  way  of  seeing  the  world. It  could  be  seen  otherwise, leads  to  an  ironic  stance  in  relation to  the  truth  and  certainty of  our  own  viewpoint, but  also  an  acceptance  of the  weak  binding  power  of those  traditions  to  which  we  happen to  find  ourselves  belonging. Roti  comes  up  with  a  liberal  patriotism if  you  can  get  your  head  around  that. So  this  comes  back  to the  real  significance of  the  changes  of  the  time, and  John  head  of School  of  Social  political  Studies  is  here, your  colleagues  did  a  great  job. I'm  going  to  highlight  a  couple, but  there's  a  lot  of  work  underlying  this. It's  important  to  put  across,  I  think, how  significant  it  was that  Lindsey  Patterson  in the  autonomy  of  Modern  Scotland argued  that  in  the  19th  century, Scotland  was  indeed  normal. There  isn't  a  problem  here  to  explain. This  is  just  what  history  is. David  Macron,  even  more  exemplary. In  the  first  edition  of his  understanding  Scotland, the  sociology  of  a  Stateless  nation, he  argued, not  only  was  Scotland  no  longer an  ill  fitting  case,  who  knew  it? It's  exemplary  of  the  concerns  of sociologis  postmodern  dilemma  concerning the  autonomy  and Bowdens  of  Scottish  societies. In  Scottish  historical  studies, this  has  opened  the  door  to  a  whole, very  productive,  much  more sympathetic  understanding of  past  decisions  and  identities. For  example,  the  compatibility  of unionism  and  a  strong  sense of  Scottish  identity, which  is  the  dominant  form  of  political  and cultural  belonging  throughout the  period  of  the  18th  and  19th  century, stops  looking  like  some  kind of  weird  historical  mistake, but  becomes  something  that  we  can  enter  into sympathetically  and  treated  as a  product  of  its  time  and  engage  with. So  it's  a  real  step  forward  in  that  sense. So  to  sum  up  this  part,  If Wiley's  postmodernism  could  be considered  the  expression  of  a  wish, invoking  the  potential  of a  post  industrial  age  of  culture  yet  to  come, there's  nothing  particularly  airy about  the  sociological and  historical  developments. The  rejection  of  the  strong normative  frameworks of  the  early  part  of  the  century, the  assumption  that  Scotland's  culture ought  to  have  developed  in one  particular  direction, but  instead  has  been pathologically  distorted, so  the  rejection  of  that  is tied  basically  to  doing  your  job  better, better  reflecting  the  nature  of  reality, so  that  our  historical  understanding will  fully  include the  range  of  competing  interpretations and  arguments  that  constitute  the  past. Now,  for  reasons  that  I  will  now  discuss, this  recognition  proves  a bit  more  complicated  and  has quite  challenging  consequences  for the  activity  of  cultural  history. One  last  note  on  David  McCran. I  talked  about  I mentioned  the  fall  of  postmodern  Scotland. The  second  edition  of  this  book has  a  new  title,  Understanding  Scotland, the  sociology  of  a  nation and  proclaims  very  clearly, this  is  not  a  postmodern  book,  Rapid  retreat. Something  about  the  political  changes  in  1999 brings  about  a  loss  of  the  need  to legitimate  the  account  of the  nation  in  terms  of  postmodernism. There's  a  restoration.  For  me, that's  the  end  of  what  I'm  calling a  space  of  possibility  and the  opening  of  something else,  the  contemporary  era. Okay.  Let's  move  on. The  new  Scottish  cultural  history, like  the  artistic  and  sociological  responses, the  new  cultural  history  can  be  traced  to reactions  to  the  1979  referendum. I've  got  my  slides  in  the  right  order. Its  origin  can  be  traced,  yes, quite  specifically  to  the  pages  of the  cultural  magazines  of  the  period,  and Some  of  you  may  have  been involved  in  this.  Lots  of  people  were. It's  just  a  breathtakingly  innovative, vital  moment  of  cultural  discussion, analysis,  debate, engagement  with  writers, political  activists,  historians, critical  theorists, everybody  pitching  in.'s  been the  source  of quite  a  lot  of  recent  scholarship, including  works  by  Ben  Jackson on  Nationalist  political  thought. This  book,  which  I want  to  give  a  particular  plug  to by  a  friend  and  colleague  Scott  Hames on  the  literary  politics of  Scottish  devolution, but  also  by  Elena  Ball, Rory  Schohorn,  and  others. This  website, the  Scottish  magazines  network  website has  lots  of  information  if this  is  a  new  topic  to  you. I  was  thinking  as  we  do  this, someone  really  ought  to  do some  more  digitization  work  because  these  are sort  of  profound  sources which  are  quite  inaccessible  now. Even  in  the  NLS,  the  copies are  literally  starting  to  flake  away. This  is  what  I'm  calling  a  period  of radical  possibility  for  cultural  debate, so many  different  perspectives  coming  together. Out  of  it  by  the  end  of  the  decade comes  the  new  cultural  history. Now,  although  the  new  cultural  history  is the  product  of  many  hands and  is  by  no  means  uniform, it  can  be  characterised  both rapidly  for  the  purpose  of  debate  as the  overcoming  of  three of  the  requirements  of those  modernist  approaches  which  it  rejects. This  is  why  the  modern  post  modern pairing  becomes  important  to  me. In  place  of  the  search  for a  single  national  style, it  takes  as  its  object  of  study the  multiplicity  of  styles that  constitute  cultural  tradition. In  place  of  the  trope  of the  decline  and  revival  of  the  nation, its  governing  image  is  that  of the  continuous  self  sufficiency of  national  cultural  expression. In  place  of  a  strong  evaluative  framework, it  practises  a  tactical  relativism. Allowing  that  different  forms, practises,  and  styles,  essentially, both  in  art  production, but  also  in  forms  of  life  may  be  of  interest, not  only  as  shedding  light on  a  particular  context, but  as  holding  meaning  and  significance  for the  unfolding  of  the  national story  through  time. The  most  immediate  and  important  impact  of the  new  approach  was the  recovery  of  a  significant  tradition of  Scottish  women's  writing that  radically  challenged the  almost  insanely  misogynist  world of  Scottish  culture  from the  1940s  to  the  1970s. Side  note.  One  of  my  hobbies  is  buying up  the  Scottish  poetry  anthologies, and  you're  lucky  if  there's one  woman  in  200  pages, and  that's  not  always  the  case. There  is  something  very  weird  about that  period.  Back  to  the  main  story. That  attention  to  women  writers and  artists  and  their  achievements in  turn  significantly  broadened the  social  scope  of  cultural  history, Questioning  pre existing  gendering  of  cultural  debate. For  example,  the  repeated  treatment  of popular  culture  in  terms  of  the  keyard, it's  accused  of  being  sentimental, domestic  kitchen  garden  writing. The  masculine  emphasis  placed on  the  industrial  image  of  Scotland  in  1965, back  to  the  steam  locomotive also  gets  challenged. Can't  tell  you  what  a  breath of  fresh  air  this  must  have  been. Let's  say,  t.  Came in  late,  experienced  the  opening. The  new  cultural  history  has  also  allowed  for the  inclusion  of  a  much  greater  range of  voices  into  the  national  story. The  acknowledgement  of  gay, lesbian,  and  queer  voices, the  representation  inclusion  of racialized  groups  within  Scottish  studies, but  also  a  more  profound  understanding of  the  implication  in empire  and  in  racial  exclusion of  Scottish  writing  and culture  through  the  years. Also  only  probably  a partial  attempt  to  recognise the  legitimacy  of  multiple  languages and  religions  in  Scottish  history. There  are  still  some  biases. Reflecting  the  wide  movement  of cultural  studies  and  social  history, which  are  the  two  underpinning  forms, the  focus  of  discussion  is  also wided  from  high  art  to  include  folk  music, decorative  arts,  mass  media and  film  and  visual  culture. Edinburgh  wasn't  the  only  place where  people  are  doing  this, it's  a  broad  movement, but  we  did  a  lot  of  it. We  should  be  proud  of  it. This  encounter  between  Scottish  studies  and cultural  studies  for  at  least  a  decade is  incredibly  productive. But  like  all  moments  of intellectual  or  artistic  vitality, there's  an  end  point  at  which  something  like a  new  orthodoxy  becomes  institutionalised. For  every  opening  or  closing. For  the  new  cultural  history, you  can  see  this  really  precisely, it  dates  to  the  mid  1990s, by  which  time  magazines  like encasts  and  Edinburgh  review, both  up  there,  take  a  more  literary  turn. The  debate  moves  on.  While  Scottish  studies becomes  more  established  in academic  journals, Publishers  begin  to  take  on book  length  projects driving  from  the  new  approach. So  as  you  read  through the  issues  of  encasts,  you're  going Oh,  this  is  where  Brody's  book on  the  tradition  of Scottish  Philosophy  first  started, a  mediaeval  historian  of  philosophy, making  his  case  for  why  that  matters  to the  general  reading  public  of the  magazine  and  then  that  becomes a  really  influential  book. Really  powerful  stuff.  But  as other  publishers  take  on  these  projects, recognition  across  disciplines  that Scottish  studies  was  a  respectable  area. That's  what  Macron  is  really  trying  to  do. It's  not  weird  to  be a  sociologist  of  Scotland. It's  a  legitimate  subject  of  study. Leads  to  a  form  of  institutionalisation  that also  incorporated stronger  disciplinary  boundaries. These  are  parting  of  the  ways. That's  the  newly  settled  world  that  I encountered  when  I  came  to study  here  in  1993. I  did  want  a  single  one  essay, partly  because  I  happened to  find  my  notes  from  it, but  also  because  it  reminded me  what  a  student  in  that  time  was  doing. There's  a  very  influential  essay  called superiorism  by  I  think Carol  Anderson  and  Glenda  Norki, which  was  published  in  one of  the  earliest  issues  of  Ken  crests, which  does  an  amazing demolition  job  on  the  gender stereotyping  that's  been  operative  in Scottish  cultural  history up  until  that  point, and  is  a  very  strong  push  back  to, Pre  Beverage  and  Ron  Turnbulls  argument. A  few  episodes  episodes,  issues  before. So  that's  what  a  second  year  student  of Scottish  literature  was  doing  in  1994  is going  into  the  library pulling  these  magazines  out  because that's  where  the  forefront of  cultural  debate  was. Okay.  No  e  journals  then. It  was  hard.  Archives.  Man.  Okay. So  that's  all  good,  right? Celebrating  this. That's  what  I'm  here  to  do  today. But  I  want  to  stress, and  this  is  just  my  nit  picking  way, tensions  within  the  project of  the  new  cultural  history. I'm  going  to  take  as  examples, in  particular,  two  of  the  most influential  of  its  early  products. I  picked  Scottish  Women's  writing  in gender  in  the  nation  is  key  examples because  it  really  was  women's writing  and  issues  of  gender that  led  the  way  in  the  revitalization. But  what  I  want  to  talk  about  is the  four  volume  history  of Scottish  literature  published  by Aberdeen  University  Press  under the  general  ship  of  Karnes  Craig  in  19988, and  then  Robert  Crawford's  influential  book evolving  in  English  literature,  1993. Now,  the  significance  of the  Aberdeen  history  is  not  just  its  scale, so  it's  four  volumes, but  that  in  adopting  a  multi  author  format, it  refused  any  attempt at  ideological  synthesis  or  closure. It  said,  there's  going  to  be lots  of  different  ways  of  talking  about the  history  of  Scotland,  a  attic  guys. Reflecting  the  diversity  of the  new  cultural  history. It  allowed  its  contributors  a  relatively free  hand  to  describe the  topics  that  they  are  interested  in. Introducing  the  project, he  doesn't  say  this  explicitly, but  I'm  sure  I  can  make  this  argument  work. Craig  implies  that  the  form  of this  four  volume  anthology  is appropriate  to  Scotland's postmodern  predicament. We  see  a  tie  here  back  to  the  earlier  points. He  argued  that the  fragmentation  and  division, which  had  made  Scotland  seem abnormal  to  an  earlier  part  of the  20th  century  came  to  be the  norm  for  much  of  the  world's  population. Bilingualism,  biculturalism, and  the  inheritance  by  diversity  of fragmented  traditions  were  to  be  the  source of  creativity  rather  than  its  inhibition. This  is  a  really  dense  passage. What  we  see  here  is the  sociological  o  or the  observation  made  by  those  sociologists. That  Scotland  is  not  only  normal, Patterson,  but  also  exemplary  macron, but  it's  lled  with an  evaluative  claim  that  fragmentation, conflict,  and  division  are actually  the  source  of  creativity. It  makes  a  boostersh  account  of the  contemporary  postmodern  vitality of  that  Scottish  cultural  inheritance. It's  not just  a  better  description  of  reality. It's  why  this  is  the  best  possible  reality and  the  best  possible  set of  cultural  outputs. I'm  pushing  it  a  little further  than  it  probably  can  go. So  both  the  form  of the  history  and  those  tacit  commitments to  particular  forms  of hybridity,  pluralism,  open  forms. Remain  unspoken  commonplaces of  Scottish  cultural  histories. The  archetypal  form  of that  history  and  salute  to  those  of you  who  are  doing writing  the  chapters  for  these, the  archetypal  form  of  the  history  is the  contemporary  proliferation of  multi  authored  handbooks, companions  and  encyclopaedia, all  of  which  are  sew synthesis  and  evaluation  for the  empirical  stacking  up  of  stuff. We  have  a  lot  of  history  guys. Look  at  it,  it's  great. It's  really  diverse. That's  true,  but  what  next? What  else? Crawford's  evolving  English  literature, couldn't  get  a  picture  of  this. May  appear  to  take  an  opposite  tach. Rather  than  being  a  internal  catalogue  of the  variety  of the  nation's  cultural  expression. What  Robert  Crawford  did  and  again, it's  really  hard  to play  to underestimate  how  influential  this  was, particularly  in  English  studies. Globally,  so  not  as  ever, the  attempt  to  decentralise English  studies  lands  last  in  England. It  takes  a  relational  approach to  understanding  the  diversity of  English  literary  history based  on  the  interplay  of  regional, national,  and  imperial  dynamics. Crawford  argued  that  the  history of  English  literature needed  to  be  re  thought  from the  perspective  of  its  margins, whether  that  was  American  poets, adopting  English  mannerisms,  Elliot, settler  colonial  poets  trying  to  come to  terms  with  their  divided  legacies, post  colonial  writers  invoking  Irish  poets, Northern  English  writers exploring  the  difference  between nacular  expression  and  standard  English. But  like  Craig,  what  seems to  be  an  objective  approach, and  there's  broadly an  analytical  purchase  you  can  get by  thinking  about the  tensions  and  relations  within a  whole  rather  than  simply  trying to  characterise  from  one  point  of  view. That's  unobjectionable.  But  this leads  the  smuggled  in very  quickly  anaesthetic  preference. For  what  Crawford  describes in  slightly  problematic  terms  as a  devolution  barbarian  cultural  movement  that relates  writers  across different  marginal  contexts  through their  sense  of  distance  from  the  sources of  metropolitan  cultural  authority. But  of  course,  it  also  risks the  problematic  conflation  of  what  are significant  historical and  political  difference  in context  when  you're  comparing Larkin's  provincialism with  styles  adopted  in settler  colonial  or  post  colonial  contexts. These  may  be  comparable, but  these  are  not  the  same  thing. One  of  the  constitutive  tensions within  cultural  history is  that  the  analytical  and  the evaluative  are  so  closely  intertwined. For  me,  both  these  projects entertain  evaluative  risks. It's  a  short  step  from  emphasising the  internal  heterogeneity  of  a  nation, and  that's  what  a  nation  is. It's  unity  around  difference  to implying  that  heterogeneity  is its  exemplary  and  distinctive  feature. All  nations  are  hybrid,  heterogeneous,  a  mix, but  we  happen  to  be  really heterogeneous  hybrid  and  mix. It's  well  known  that  all  nations  claim  to  be the  best  example  of  universal  human  values. It's  just  a  structure  of  the  form. The  prism  on  traditions  afforded  by Crawford's  emphasis  on the  conflict  between  linguistic  paradigms, it  lids  very  rapidly  to the  aesthetic  preference  for some  styles  over  others. For  those  styles,  it  can  be  shown to  be  mixed  or  hybrid  in  some  way. One  reason  I'm  going  to call  this  approach  postmodern, even  though  that's  not  really  how  it  was described  at  the  time  by  these  people. Is  to  suggest  that  for the  new  cultural  history, that  powerful  sense  of  continuity, despite  change  over  time  and  despite the  variety  in the  cultural  expression  of  the  nation, is  that  it  is  bought  at  the  cost  of certain  kinds  of  evaluative  possibility. Randall  Stephenson  argued  in 2004  or  observed,  I  guess, that  in  criticism  and  literary  history recently  produced  within  Scotland, postmodern  is  a  term  conspicuous  by its  absence  or  the  scarcity  of  its  use. One  reason  for  this,  I  suspect  is its  oververt  association  with  relativism, which  tended  to  undermine  the  projects  of the  writers  who  were  being proclaimed  postmodern. Alis  De  Grey,  and  this  is  2008. He's  been  complaining  about  this relentlessly  in  his  work since  the  early  1980s. Don't  call  me  postmodern. This  is  from  an  introduction  for reprint  of  his  friend Archie  Hines  brilliant  novel, the  Deer  Green  place. This  was  a  2008  edition. It's  just  out  again,  piped  back  from  polygon, so  2024,  you  can  go  and  buy  it. Alas  De  grey  associates  postmodernism with  what  he  calls the  thinning  of the  Western  cultural  tradition now  called  dumbing  Down. Intellectuals  he  complains, calling  themselves  postmodern, now  say  that  objectives  truths  do  not  exist, but  our  opinions  in  disguise. They  can  now  lecture  in  universities. Here  I  am  upon  anything  they  like, because  they  can  hold  everything equally  valuable  and declare  many  once  valued  things  negligible. Is  that  the  problem?  If  many  things once  considered  negligible are  now  considered  valuable, have  we  lost  our  sense of  what's  truly  valuable? Has  the  new  cultural  history stripped  us  of  our  ability  to build  strong  arguments  based on  what  we  think  ought  to  be? It's  a  good  question.  The  second  tension very  briefly,  is  that  a That  I.  Second  reason I'm  calling  this  postmodern  is  to foreground  the  illusion  of that  constructivist  epistemology  that underpin  the  new  cultural  history. I  will  refer  the  audience  to my  published  work  on  this  particular  point. But  in  essence,  my  argument  is  that a  much  older  practise  of national  literary  history  takes  over and  hollows  out  the  new postmodern  account  from  within. It's  postmodern  in  the  sense  that  it repeats  and  continues  the modern  without  fully  being able  to  come  to  terms or  come  to  grips  with  that. One  of  the  things  about  that  period in  the  1980s  is  that  there's a  genuinely  productive  encounter between  literary  studies and  cultural  studies. I  often  refer  to  this  as  a  mist  encounter. I  just  noticed  that  Johnny  is  here. Recently  republished collection  of  Colin  Macarthur's  work. Colin  Macarthur,  critic  of  visual  culture, really  pushed  very  strongly the  cultural  studies  line, and  essentially,  I  was  never  taught  him. Literary  studies  backed  away  from  that. It's  an  encounter  which  could  have  happened, but  didn't  in  that  period. Sorry,  so  Joy  has  edited  this  collection. Again,  go  out  and  buy  that when  you've  saved  up  120  pounds  or  whatever, but  wait  for  the  paperback.  It's  brilliant. It  really  helped  me  understand as  I  was  preparing  for  this  lecture. This  is  a  misted  encounter. Because  it  offers  what  appears  to  be a  neutral  framework  for a  range  of  political  and aesthetic  perspectives, it's  actually  similar  and structural  to  the  way  that the  magazines  allowed  people from  different  political  perspectives to  debate  with  each  other. It  was  all  part  of  the  same  conversation. Because  it  offers  this  new  neutral  framing, the  new  cultural  history allows  for  the  institutionalisation  of the  new  pluralism  in  ways  which  leave the  relation  to  the  national  unspoken, tacit,  but  still  powerfully  operational. Although  it  stress  stylistic  diversity, the  new  cultural  history tends  to  or  could  be  said  to  tend towards  the  reproduction  of ideological  consensus  and  conformity. I'm  going  to  finish  this  section with  one  key  emblem  of the  new  history  and  its  institutionalisation, which  is  the  architecture  of the  Museum  of  Scotland  opened  in  1999, and  now  combined  with  its  neighbour, the  Royal  museum  as  the National  Museum  of  Scotland. To  me,  this  is  the  telling  example of  the  fact  that  these  arguments  and  ideas were  baked  into  the  way  people  were  thinking about  culture  across  Scotland  by  this  point. This  is  a  deliberately  national  museum, the  clue  is  in  the  name  that  avoids either  a  distinctively  national  style or  the  interval  classicism of  the  NLS  down  the  street. The  adoption  of  postmodern  eclecticism in  the  facade  of  the  building. So  you  can  see  we've  got Christian  symbolism  allusions to  the  military  function of  a  fortress  or  castle. But  we've  also  got  these  windows, these  plain  modernist  slopes. Macron  was  really  attacked by  a  lot  of  readers  of  the  sociology  of Scotland  book  for  his  description  of a  postmodern  pick  and  mix approach  to  identity. But  this  is  definitely an  example  of  postmodernism architecturally  as  a  pick or  eclectic  approach. The  adoption  of  postpone  eclecticism in  the  facade  of  the  building reflects  the  purely  chronological presentation  of  its  contents. Those  of  you  who  have  lived long  enough  to  remember  those  days  will recall  the  fuss  made  about Kirsty  Walks  choice  of  a  Sab convertible  to  represent  design at  the  end  of the  journey  that  you  went  through, as  you  went  up  from the  basement  of  the  museum. Everything  fits  in  just it's  ordered  serially,  and  that's  all. The  style,  though,  gestures  to the  aspiration  to  be a  different  kind  of  museum, post  secular,  de  militarised, reflecting  not  the  ruins  of  the  nation, but  it's  shifting  constructions, a  space  for  re  imagination, in  which  the  narrative  of  the  nation would  be  qualified  by a  sense  of  its  inclusive  shifting and  open  texture. So  I'm  torn  on  my  assessment  of  this. I  don't  want  to  go against  it  or  wholly  for  it. It's  complicated. Okay.  That's  the  new  cultural  history. The  final  section  is  the  shortest. They  get  shorter  through  time. That's  just  good  audience  management, but  I  thought  I'd  reassure  you  on  that. I  want  to  close  It's  coming. By  reflecting  on  the  ongoing  legacy of  the  new  cultural  history. I  said  at  the  start,  that  what I'm  interested  in  is  the  way  that  the cultural  history  mediates between  art  and  politics, as  it  has  become  embedded  in  assumptions shared  not  only  by  critics  and  scholars, but  also  by  writers, artists,  and  politicians. Moreover,  as  the  museum  example  suggests, this  mediation  has  been  institutionalised by  curators  and  by  arts  funders. You  can  begin  to  see where  trouble  might  begin. The  paradoxical  construction  of Scottish  identity  that emerged  in  the  period  between the  bills  and  with  which the  new  cultural  history  is  deeply entangled  was  that  of  a  nation  which proclaimed  itself  to  be  post  national, civic,  rather  than  ethnic, inherently  pluralist, already  multicultural,  open  to  the  future. However,  the  experience  of the  21st  century  so far  suggests  at  least  three  things. That  in  political  terms,  nations  and nationalism  are  not  going  away  any  time  soon, that  there  is  a  political  and  social  risk  in the  acceptance  that  there  can  only be  constructions  of  reality, and  that  the  embrace  of  contingency and  irony  may  be  compatible  with widely  differing  forms  of solidarity  against  Roti's  hopes. The  pluralism  of the  new  cultural  history  I've suggested  retains  the  form of  a  national  narrative. But  through  its  stress on  continuity  and  diversity, it  decommissions  the  evaluative  frameworks provided  by  the  modern  age. With  narrative  form  comes function,  and  in  this  case, the  traditional  task  for a  literary  history  of legitimating  the  status  of a  culture  or  a  state  by  providing  a  list of  examples  which  carry  symbolic  value. When  it's  not  avertly  culturally  nationalist, my  view  is  that  the vast  majority  of  the  work  done  in Scottish  literaary  and  cultural  studies  is an  example  of  what  sociologists would  call  methodological  nationalism, and  in  its  form, it  carries  political  implications, which  it's  not  always  in  control  of. Political  scientists  and  sociologists have  repeatedly  challenged  the  myth of  Scottish  social  difference at  the  level  of  values  and  attitudes. And  of  course,  that  speaks directly  to  the  undoing  of  that  claim  we mentioned  right  at  the  start  that emerged  in  the  1980s  and  is supposed  to  have  held  together the  Scottish  social  consensus. Doing  so  also  undermines  the  argument  that cultural  difference  is  what's driving  political  change. In  a  recent  essay, the  political  scientists,  Michael  Keating, and  Nikola  McCuin,  characterise Scottish  political  history  recently in  the  exact  opposite  terms. They  say  political  divergence coincides  with  cultural  convergence. They  see  this  as  a  version  of D  Tokfl's  paradox. As  there  is  less  and  less  difference  in social  structure  or  values between  England  and  Scotland, there  is  a  stronger  demand  for the  political  expression  of  difference. Now,  coming  out  of the  political  back  into the  world  of  the  arts, this  suggests  to  me  there's  something  like an  iron  cage  in  operation. Writers  and  artists  remain under  pressure  to  supply  evidence of  a  cultural  difference  that has  become  increasingly  fictional. Supplying  symbolic  resources  to underwrite  and  image  national  difference. To  the  degree  that  they  have  refused this  political  function,  as  many  have, pursuing  instead  individual  experience, ecological  themes,  internationalist  models, formal  or  aesthetic  interests. Cultural  history,  critics,  scholars, people  like  me,  lecturing  in  universities, have  continued  to  recruit them  to  represent  and  express a  national  difference  that  only  exists at  the  level  of  collective  representation. I  want  to  close  with  a  brief  discussion of  two  examples  of  the  challenges  that arise  from  that  and  which illustrate  the  mediating  function  at  work, but  also  why  I  think  it  can  be  worrying. I  want  the  next  slide  to  be  a  surprise. I'm  not  going  to  it  next.  In  2014, the  poet,  Tom  Lenard,  Brilliant  Poet, was  approached  by  the  Scottish qualifications  authority good  for  them  for  permission  to  use an  excerpt  from  one  of  his  works in  an  exam  paper, as  they  said  when  they  wrote  to  him, an  example  of  the  use  of Scotts  in  contemporary  literature. You  can  see  where  the  troubles coming.  He  refused. His  poem,  he  argued  is not  an  example  of  Scots, whatever  that  highly  politicised  term  means. Leonard's  work  is  concerned with  individual  voices, with  the  tension  between the  sound  that  comes  out  of our  mouths  and  the  way  it's  written down,  standardised,  and  circulates. Writing  to  his  publisher, Leonard  contrasts  the  approach of  the  SQA  with  that  of an  English  educational  publisher  to whom  he  had  granted permission  to  use  one  of  his  works. So  South  of  the  border. This  is  plus  Point  F  England. Students  were  to  be  invited  to reflect  on  the  relationship  between proper  English  and  their  own  natural  speech to  consider  the  difference  between phonetic  transcriptions  of  voice  and the  use  of  standard  orthography. They  were  going  to  supply  another  line  of leonards  in  the  material for  students  to  reflect  on. Poetry  is  the  heart  and brain  divided  by  the  lungs. Questioning  Scotland  survives  somewhere. Lenard  concludes,  there  is  no  one  in Scotland  just  now  that  I  know  to be  capable  of  making  that  collection, let  alone  in  an  exam  board. Apologies  too.  The  many  people  who  labour on  boards  of  examiners,  Nationalism, like  a  virus  here  is  pushing  the  possibility of  there  being  such  perception  further  away. Now,  this  frustration  with the  National  mobilisation  of literature  by  both  sides in  the  2014  referendum, I  think  is  one  of  the  contexts  for my  favourite  Indi  reef  artwork, which  Leonard  posted  on his  blog  in  September  2014. I  hope  you  can  read  it.  The  awful  thing  is, one  of  them  is  going  to  win. Look  on  the  bright  side. One  of  them  is  going  to  lose. Pretty  much,  my  attitude  to most  political  contests  at the  moment.  That's  the  first  example. A  few  months  later,  August  2015, the  poet  and  playwright  Lz  Lockhead,  then, the  Scottish  Macha, was  asked  in  an  interview  with Gutter  magazine  about  the  current  direction of  the  National  Theatre  of  Scotland. Her  widely  criticised  response was  that  it  was  a  great  pity. She  said  that  there's  a  shortage  of Scottish  people  working  in the  National  Theatre  of  Scotland. Now,  I  don't  agree  with  the  criticism. Lockhead  was  accused  of xenophobia  by  the  press. This  tells  us  that  the  civic  quality of  Scottish  cultural  life  must always  be  carefully  policed  from any  appearance  of  ethnic  recidivism. But  in  the  original  interview, she's  saying  something  much  more interesting  and  much  more  valid. She  says,  I  just  wish  there  were  more  Scots, So  more  people  with a  Scottish  theatrical  culture, which  is  gutsy,  upfront, borderline,  and  has  a  rough  and ready  relationship  with  variety. Restating  her  position  in the  Herald  after  she  was  called  out. She  says,  What  she  wants  is to  know  that  the  theatre  has  someone there  looking  after  the  Scottish  side  of the  repertoire  and  who  knows about  Edwin  Morgan's  plays, or  the  great  work  that  Jerry  Mulgrew of  Comcado  Theatre  has  done. Really  interesting  moment,  very  telling. Lockheed  recasts  a  sense  of  belonging, not  as  a  matter  of  blood  or  race, but  as  cultural  knowledge. Nationality  is  being  defined  as competent  familiarity  with  the  story that's  been  told  by  the  new  cultural  history. But  there  is  a  deep  equivocation  here  between culture  as  a  practise or  an  artefact  that  can  be  acquired, and  culture  is  the  expression  of lived  experience  because  surely I  could  join  the  theatre, read  the  book,  and  then  I  know,  what is  the  distinction  that  she's  drawing. Even  more  striking  to  me  and  what Lockett  is  saying  is  the  appeal, which  I  think  I've  tried  to  suggest  is a  structural  or  characteristic  feature  of the  new  cultural  histories  to a  particular  national  style  or  tradition, but  one  that's  characterised by  its  pluralism. She  sees  Scottish  theatrical tradition  in  terms of  the  counterpoint  between high  and  low  style. A  productive  relationship  between the  popular  form  of  music  hall  and  variety, and  then  the  high  art  form  of  theatre. Now,  you  can  trace this  characterization  of  tradition  back. It's  a  construction  of  the  1980s. You  can  find  it  really  prominently in  the  lbilt  season  in  1982, put  on  by  a  784  theatre  company. This  is  a  theatre  company  who  had their  own  quite  brilliant  archivist and  historian  on  stuff. What  you  see  happening  in  1982  is  that they're  producing  a  usable  past, which  provides  the  origin  of their  own  style  and  routes  it  in what  Scott  Hames  has  called a  vernacular,  popular  nationalism. Drawing  on  forgotten  repertoire  from the  1930s  and  the  1940s, and  particularly  the  work  of Glasgow  Unity  Theatre,  Adrian  Sculin, who  I  think  is  now  at Queens  Belfast,  has  written, very  interestingly  about  the  way  that particular  theatrical  motifs  have  become emblematic  of  the  whole and  interpreted  in  ways which  don't  speak  to  the  full scope  of  what  was  actually  going  on. If Leonard's  experience  suggests  something  like a  re  colonisation  of  the  arts  by  nationalism, Lockheed  speaks  more  directly to  the  other  side  of  the  coin, and  to  the  way  that the  changing  constructions  of the  new  cultural  history  can become  rarefied,  prosen  in  place, and  that  a  pleural  style  can  become a  defining  style,  and  tradition, cultural  knowledge,  begin  to function  despite  itself  as a  marker  of  inclusion  and  exclusion. Conclusions.  Well  known  quotation. The  anthropologist  James  Clifford once  described  culture  as a  deeply  compromised  idea I  cannot  yet  do  without. My  favourite  quotation. The  social  theorist  Nicholas  Loman went  further, describing  it  as  one  of  the worst  concepts  ever  invented. If  I've  dwelt  on  the  ambivalence  and  some of  the  tensions  that  arise from  the  new  cultural  history, it  shouldn't  be  taken  to  mean that  I  don't  absolutely, reverentially,  highly  value  the  significance of  knowledge  about  the  arts  in  Scotland. Sarah  mentioned  in  her  introduction, the  challenges,  the  risks, the  need  to  continue  to  make  the  case for  knowledge  of  the  arts  and  the  humanities. I  would  particularly  stress  that  what the  case  we  need  to  make  is  not just  for  the  arts, not  just  for  the  production  of  culture. For  its  study  and  analysis. That's  the  case  that  we  need  to  make. Some  of  the  research  organisations  in  the  UK, they'll  stick  a  poet  on  the  cover. Wordsworth  is  good  on  the  cover of  an  HRC  report. But  Well,  some  of  us  are  writing  the  poems. That's  brilliant,  obviously. But  it's  the  study  and the  analysis  that  makes  new  and  changing. It's  not  only  done  in  universities, but  it's  part  of  what  we do  and  it's  part  of what  we've  got  to  stand  for. I  believe  in  all  of  that.  Don't  get  me  wrong. These  are  important  tasks, and  it's  the  task  of  a  university, not  only  to  ensure  that  these  continue, but  to  work  to  see  that this  transmission  takes  place  in more  rather  than  less  self reflective  and  self  critical  ways. Thank  you.