Britishness, what it is and what it could be, is now high on both ...

conceptual shaping. During the second, symbolic shaping, symbols are attached to places.
Thirdly, inst<strong>it</strong>utional shaping endows places w<strong>it</strong>h inst<strong>it</strong>utions. Finally, a terr<strong>it</strong>ory takes <strong>it</strong>s
place in turn in the wider society’s regional underst<strong>and</strong>ing, obtaining <strong>it</strong>s status in a spatial
categorization. At various points in th<strong>is</strong> process narratives <strong>and</strong> d<strong>is</strong>courses come into play.
Thus for example, narratives of the region emerge during <strong>it</strong>s symbolic shaping, while
terr<strong>it</strong>orial d<strong>is</strong>courses, perhaps having their origin in other places, are a constraining factor
in the fourth stage. Paasi’s model allows us to think through both the formation of regions
as named, bounded terr<strong>it</strong>ories <strong>and</strong> the meaning that places have for people. It brings
together <strong>is</strong>sues of socio-economic power w<strong>it</strong>h narratives of place. Nonetheless, <strong>it</strong> has
only rarely <strong>be</strong>en adopted explic<strong>it</strong>ly in work on Br<strong>it</strong><strong>is</strong>h regions. 67 But Paasi says l<strong>it</strong>tle in
practice about how symbols <strong>be</strong>come linked in ident<strong>it</strong>y d<strong>is</strong>courses <strong>and</strong> how d<strong>is</strong>courses <strong>and</strong>
narratives of the region relate to other terr<strong>it</strong>orial d<strong>is</strong>courses at other scales. Th<strong>is</strong> <strong>is</strong>
particularly problematic during the stage of symbolic shaping. Can any symbols <strong>be</strong>
appropriated <strong>and</strong> attached to any place? Are there constraints to the invention of
trad<strong>it</strong>ion? In th<strong>is</strong> respect Paasi’s approach needs to <strong>be</strong> supplemented by a more
h<strong>is</strong>torically sens<strong>it</strong>ive approach.
Such an approach <strong>is</strong> provided by Anthony Sm<strong>it</strong>h’s ethno-symbol<strong>is</strong>m, which allows us to
pay more attention to the “cultural stuff” – the h<strong>is</strong>torical myths <strong>and</strong> memories - involved
in ident<strong>it</strong>y formation. 68 Sm<strong>it</strong>h states that <strong>be</strong>fore nations there were ethnies or ethnic
commun<strong>it</strong>ies, defined by him as “named human populations w<strong>it</strong>h shared ancestry myths,
h<strong>is</strong>tories <strong>and</strong> cultures, having an association w<strong>it</strong>h a specific terr<strong>it</strong>ory, <strong>and</strong> a sense of
solidar<strong>it</strong>y”. 69 These arose out of ethnic categories through the construction of “ethnoh<strong>is</strong>tories”,
cultural resources that included a matrix of myths of ancestry, symbols <strong>and</strong>
memories associated w<strong>it</strong>h a particular terr<strong>it</strong>ory. Ethno-h<strong>is</strong>tories provide the cultural
resources out of which modern nations are imagined <strong>and</strong> from which trad<strong>it</strong>ions are
“invented”. Although Sm<strong>it</strong>h’s concern <strong>is</strong> w<strong>it</strong>h the long roots of modern nations <strong>and</strong>
national<strong>is</strong>m a host of ethnies ex<strong>is</strong>ted in the past which never acquired the status of nation.
It <strong>is</strong> my contention here that the Corn<strong>is</strong>h can productively <strong>be</strong> viewed as an example of a
people who created their own ethno-h<strong>is</strong>tory but were unable <strong>and</strong>/or unwilling to
transform themselves into a nation, partly <strong>be</strong>cause of the claims of a competing Engl<strong>is</strong>h
12