Porter–MacKenzie debate facts for kids

The Porter–MacKenzie debate is a big discussion among historians about how much the British Empire affected everyday life in Britain. This debate mainly happened between two historians, Bernard Porter and John M. MacKenzie, starting in 2004. Porter believed that the British Empire didn't really change the lives of most people in the United Kingdom. But MacKenzie argued that the Empire had a huge impact on British popular culture for a long time.

What Was the Debate About?

The discussion started in 2004 when Bernard Porter released his book, The Absent-Minded Imperialists. In this book, Porter suggested that the British Empire didn't have much influence on what ordinary people in Britain thought or did. He argued that most British people between 1800 and 1940 simply didn't care much about the Empire.

Porter wrote:

there can be no presumption that Britain [...] was an essentially 'imperialist' nation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Of course she was, in the sense of acquiring and ruling an empire; but that empire [...] might not have been as burdensome as it appeared. Consequently, it did not need to have had deep roots in British society — in its culture, for example — or to have affected it greatly in its turn.

This means Porter thought that even though Britain had a large empire, it didn't necessarily mean the Empire was a huge part of British culture or daily life.

MacKenzie's View

Porter's ideas went against what many other historians believed. For example, Edward Said's book Culture and Imperialism (1993) suggested that imperialism deeply shaped European culture. Porter also disagreed with historians like John MacKenzie, who wrote Propaganda and Empire in 1984. MacKenzie's work looked at how much imperialist messages influenced British culture.

Porter called MacKenzie's ideas the "MacKenzie school." He argued that if there was so much pro-Empire propaganda, it might mean people weren't easily convinced. He said that maybe the propaganda wasn't very effective if so much of it was needed. Porter also questioned if MacKenzie used the right sources for his research.

Reactions to the Debate

Porter's book received mixed reviews. Some historians, like Antoinette Burton, didn't think it was worth discussing. Others worried that the book might appeal to British nationalists because it seemed to lessen Britain's responsibility for its Empire. Porter disagreed with this idea.

In 2008, MacKenzie responded to Porter's book. He accused Porter of ignoring evidence that didn't fit his argument. MacKenzie used an archaeological comparison:

In Absent-Minded Imperialists, Porter uses an archaeological metaphor to suggest that all historians have found have been 'shards' of little structural significance. As it happens, I was trained as an archaeologist and very nearly became one. I have found a lot of shards and, to the archaeologist, an an assemblage of such shards in their deposits implies the existence of a culture, not its absence.

MacKenzie meant that even small pieces of evidence, when put together, can show a clear picture of a culture.

Historians who generally support MacKenzie's view include Catherine Hall, Antoinette Burton, and Jeffrey Richards. On the other side, Andrew Thompson supported Porter's ideas. Thompson argued that there wasn't just one "imperial culture" in the 19th century. He believed the Empire's place in British culture was much more complex.

See also

• Historiography of the British Empire
• "The Imperialism of Free Trade"