Skip to main content

Introduction: Why ‘Deference’?

  • 87 Accesses

Abstract

This introduction gives a typology of political deference in relation to the Anglo-British constitution from the eighteenth century to Brexit. There are two main ways of defining political deference: it is either hierarchical in its structure or egalitarian. Because of historical circumstances, English deference began by being hierarchical and only evolved slowly into a democratic structure through a voluntary and rational form of deference to be defined in this book. An explanation of the chapters is given, with Part I focusing on how deference became a historico-political concept in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, while the objective of Part II is to show the various uses of deference working in practice at certain moments of twentieth- and twenty-first-century England.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-62539-9_1
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-62539-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    ‘Anglo-British constitution’ is the term used by Ian Ward to express the dominance of English history and English ways of doing on the British constitution. See: Ian Ward, The English Constitution. Myths and Realities, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, Hart Publishing, 2004, vii–213 pages.

  2. 2.

    King (2010, p. 66) and Kavanagh (1971).

  3. 3.

    For example, see Sutcliffe-Braithwaite (2018), Soper (2002), Harper and Porter (2003), Mazur (2005), and Laird (1989).

  4. 4.

    Referring to English as opposed to British deference may appear problematic, but the old constitution, as opposed to the post-1997 update, had a clearly English nature which dominated the British constitutionalSeeSeeLabour Party settlement until devolution in 1998. On deference as both a ‘type of behaviour’ and a ‘set of attitudes’, the analysis that Howard Newby carried out in 1975 still remains very useful (Newby 1975).

  5. 5.

    Several interesting studies were published in the 1960s and in the 1970s on parties and voting behaviours: see the bibliography. The most challenging work written at the time is certainly Jessop (2011).

  6. 6.

    St John Stevas (1965–1986, vol. 5, p. 253).

  7. 7.

    Bagehot added, just after his famous description of the rights of the monarch: ‘[A]nd a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect’ (St John Stevas 1965–1986, vol. 5, p. 253).

  8. 8.

    New Zealand’s Constitution Act of 1986 and the Bill of Rights Act of 1990 can be considered as covering most of the country’s constitutional law even if there is still no constitution as such. Israel also has a series of Basic Laws, without a codified document. Canada considers the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982 as the basic principles of its constitution.

  9. 9.

    The English Constitution first appeared as nine articles published in the Fortnightly Review from 1865 to 1867. See St John Stevas (1965–1986, vol. 5, pp. 161–163).

  10. 10.

    Just to quote three, see McLean (2010), Gordon (2010), and Bogdanor (2019).

  11. 11.

    A Cabinet Manual has been put together—which makes more explicit the ‘internal rules and procedures under which the Government operates’ which, in itself, is a way of making the rules of Cabinet government clearer and of putting in writing some of the conventions of government (The Cabinet Manual 2011, p. iii).

  12. 12.

    Bogdanor (2015b).

  13. 13.

    Jennings (1968, p. 11).

  14. 14.

    The concept of ‘rational deference’ was described in a 1989 article to mirror the concept of ‘rational ignorance’ of Anthony Downs (1957) and Gordon Tullock (1967). The definition given in the present work corresponds to the way in which the English have developed with their uncodified constitution and therefore hopes to make clear what the concept means in relation to an English way of being deferential. See Buchanan and Vanberg (1989, pp. 15–17, especially pp. 18–20).

  15. 15.

    Skinner (2014, p. 112).

  16. 16.

    Vernon (1993, p. 333).

  17. 17.

    Walter Bagehot’s use of the term is the object of Chap. 3. For his description of the English as a deferential nation in The English Constitution (1867) see St John Stevas (1965–1986, vol. 5, p. 378).

  18. 18.

    Bogdanor (2009, p. 12).

  19. 19.

    J. G. A. Pocock distinguishes between ‘whiggish’ and ‘Whiggish’ interpretations of history: the former means ‘the format teleological-progressive sense given the word by Butterfield [in The Englishman and His History, 1944], i.e. that it traces the development towards a predetermined modernity’; the latter means that ‘Whig (as distinct from whiggish) history was constitutionalist before it was progressive’. Whiggish also means that ‘it contains positions and attitudes which are those of the “Whig interpretation” of English history as it was recognised as existing even before Butterfield published The Englishman and His History in 1944’ (Pocock 1987, p. 264).

  20. 20.

    The classical work on the subject is Herbert Butterfield (1965). See also Burrow (2008a).

  21. 21.

    See especially Kavanagh (1971).

  22. 22.

    See Jessop (2011, pp. 34–37).

Bibliography

Primary Sources

    Works

    • Jennings, Sir Ivor. 1968. The British Constitution (1941), xi–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Jessop, Bob. 2011. Traditionalism, Conservatism and British Political Culture (1974). London: Routledge Revivals. 287 pages.

      Google Scholar 

    • Mazur, Allan. 2005. Biosociology of Dominance and Deference. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. 184 pages.

      Google Scholar 

    • Soper, Philip. 2002. The Ethics of Deference. Learning from Law’s Morals, xvi–189. Cambridge University Press.

      Google Scholar 

    • Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, Florence. 2018. Class, Politics and the Decline of Deference in England, 1968–2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 262 pages.

      CrossRef  Google Scholar 

    Articles

    Online Resources (Reports and Publications)

    Secondary Sources

      Works: Classical Texts

      • Butterfield, Herbert. 1965. The Whig Interpretation of History (1931). New York: W. W. Norton and Company. 144 pages.

        Google Scholar 

      Works

      • Bogdanor, Vernon. 2009. The New British Constitution, xiii–319. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.

        Google Scholar 

      • ———. 2019. Beyond Brexit. Towards a British Constitution, xii–285. London: I. B. Tauris.

        Google Scholar 

      • Burrow, John. 2008a. A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past (1981), x–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

        Google Scholar 

      • Gordon, Richard. 2010. Repairing British Politics: A Blueprint for Constitutional Change, xxiii–173. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.

        Google Scholar 

      • Harper, Sue, and Vincent Porter. 2003. British Cinema of the 1950s: The Decline of Deference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 440 pages.

        Google Scholar 

      • King, Anthony. 2010. The British Constitution (2007), x–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

        Google Scholar 

      • McLean, Iain. 2010. What’s Wrong with the British Constitution? vi–384. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

        Google Scholar 

      • Pocock, J.G.A. 1987. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law. A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth century (A Reissue with a Retrospect) (1957), xv–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

        Google Scholar 

      • Skinner, Quentin. 2014. Liberty before Liberalism (1998), xiv–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

        Google Scholar 

      • St John Stevas, Norman, ed. 1965–1986. The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot: Volumes 1–15. The Economist/Harvard University Press.

        Google Scholar 

      • Vernon, James. 1993. Politics and the People: A Study in English Political Culture, c. 1815–1867, xvii–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

        Google Scholar 

      Download references

      Author information

      Authors and Affiliations

      Authors

      Corresponding author

      Correspondence to Catherine Marshall .

      Rights and permissions

      Reprints and Permissions

      Copyright information

      © 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

      About this chapter

      Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

      Cite this chapter

      Marshall, C. (2021). Introduction: Why ‘Deference’?. In: Political Deference in a Democratic Age. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62539-9_1

      Download citation

      • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62539-9_1

      • Published:

      • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

      • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62538-2

      • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62539-9

      • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)