This carefully researched and meticulous study by Luis G. Martínez del Campo of a hundred years of the British Spanish Society is interesting on many levels.

First, the vissicitudes through which the Society passed during the 20th century – including re-branding, winding up, and then re-branding again – is a good reflection of the turmoil experienced in Europe (and indeed the wider world) during that century.

Secondly, the seemingly anecdotal inspiration that lay behind the foundation of the Society – namely the coincidence of the 3rd centenary of the deaths of William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes – goes to the heart of what the British Spanish Society has been, and is, about. Namely, the cultural baggage that our two countries have accumulated over the years.

Familiar names spring up again and again. Byron, George Borrow, Richard Ford, Unamuno, Dámaso Alonso, Gregorio Marañón – to mention a few figures from the past. Nor will it have escaped notice that some of the most prestigeous contemporary writers on Spain are British – Hugh Thomas, Gerald Brennan, Paul Preston, again to mention but a few.

The fact is that Britain and Spain led the two greatest Empires of the modern era. And perhaps the most important inheritance of all that is that our two languages are now the two most widely spoken languages in the free world.

And it seems to me that the real challenge for the British Spanish Society going forward lies precisely in this area.

It is now the case that English is established as the universal language. As a Brit I am both pleased and proud of that. But equally I am very aware that language carries with it a whole package of cultural values and attitudes. So, unless we want to live in a mono-cultural world, we have a duty to promote both the Spanish language and the cultural values it brings, as they are the only ones that can offer an appropriate counter-poise to an Anglo dominated world.

Hopefully this History of the first 100 years of the British Spanish Society will inspire its members to take up that challenge.

I begin with two apologies. First, for the schematic nature of my presentation. I am trying to map together a different number of areas in order to pose some basic questions about the process of creolization. This inevitably means that I cannot go into the complexity and detail which each of them deserves. Second, an apology for obliging Derek Walcott to listen to yet another exercise in ‘cultural theory’, which I know he thinks is a tremendous waste of time.

I want to think about the passage from Édouard Glissant quoted in the notes prepared by the Documenta 11 team for this Platform, to the effect that ‘the whole world is becoming creolized’. What can such a statement mean, and what are its conceptual implications? I explore these questions in the context of the themes proposed in the notes: ‘Can the concept of créolité be applied to describe each process of cultural mixing, or is it peculiar to the French Caribbean? Does it constitute a genuine alternative to the entrenched paradigms that have dominated the study of postcolonial and postimperial identities?’ Do ‘créolité ’ and ‘creolization’ refer to the same phenomenon, or does ‘creolization’ offer us a more general model or framework for cultural intermixing? Should ‘creolization’ replace such terms as hybridity, métissage, syncretism? In short, what is its general conceptual applicability?

Obviously, Glissant's remark that the whole world is becoming creolized is a metaphorical, or better, a metonymical, statement. That is so to say, it depends on the extension or expansion of a specific concept to other historical situations, other historical moments, other kinds of society, other cultural configurations. This can be a dangerous exercise, because it means mapping a concept across a number of conceptual frontiers; and the question is, at the end of this process, what relationship does the expanded concept have to the original? Has it moved so far as to have destroyed all the richness and specificity present in its first, more concrete, application? This is certainly the critique of ‘creolization’ offered today by some Caribbean scholars, who say that its ubiquitous application has eroded its strategic conceptual value.

Es con un gran sentido de orgullo, así como de optimismo que la British Spanish Society publica esta historia conmemorando su primer centenario.

La Sociedad tuvo sus inicios en 1916, en medio de un grave conflicto internacional y de incertidumbre económica, cuando un grupo de académicos, estudiantes y hombres de negocios, apoyados por diplomáticos británicos promovió un acercamiento social, cultural, y comercial hacia sus homólogos españoles. El texto original de su fundación declaró que el objeto de la recién creada Sociedad Anglo-Española era la promoción de “las relaciones, tanto intelectuales como comerciales, ofreciendo hospitalidad y oportunidades de intercambio social a los visitantes de habla hispana en las Islas Británicas, fomentando en Gran Bretaña e Irlanda el estudio de la lengua española, de su literatura, arte e historia, y ayudando a los estudiantes británicos que quisiesen conocer mejor tierras españolas”.

En las décadas siguientes la Sociedad sobrevivió como organización en medio de un entorno político y diplomático siempre cambiante que afectaba a las relaciones entre Gran Bretaña y España. Sus miembros permanecieron constantes en su deseo de ver a los pueblos de ambos países encontrar un terreno común, en el cual se fomentase el diálogo y se intercambiase lo más positivo y creativo de cada país. Su misión siguió siendo la de promover la amistad y el entendimiento entre los pueblos de Gran Bretaña y España a través del conocimiento de las costumbres, el idioma, las instituciones y la historia de cada uno.

En el año 2000, la Sociedad celebró el inicio de un nuevo milenio, al pasar de ser una asociación a constituirse en una fundación benéfica registrada en virtud de la legislación británica. Este marco legal permitió que la Sociedad pudiese adoptar medidas para cumplir mejor su misión sin interferencias políticas, y al mismo tiempo con una mayor responsabilidad financiera, creando un Consejo de Supervisión de Administración, además de un Consejo Ejecutivo. Entre sus innovaciones hay que destacar el lanzamiento de un programa de becas, con el apoyo de la recaudación de fondos por la Sociedad y sus socios corporativos, que ha servido de estímulo para postgraduados británicos y españoles a través de diversas disciplinas, entre ellos el autor de esta investigación historica.

In the early modern era, the relations between countries were determined by commercial, geopolitical and military factors. Different states exerted control over other regions through economic strategies, armed forces or the negotiating capacities of their leaders. Accordingly, diplomatic historians have traditionally paid special attention to trade, military prowess and the interaction between political elites. However, in the 20th Century, other factors have gained increasing relevance in the foreign policy of a given state, such as education, intellectual networks and the sharing of ideas. Consequently, the specialised historiography shifted its focus onto cultural elements, which are now central to the history of international relations.

In the early 20th Century, culture started to become a key component of international relations. The Department of State of the USA and the foreign offices of many European countries realised how useful cultural propaganda campaigns were for diplomacy. France and the United Kingdom founded educational corporations to contribute to their foreign policies: the Institut Françis (1922) and the British Council (1934). The equivalent Spanish institution is the Instituto Cervantes, which was set up much later, in 1991.

Nevertheless, the Spanish government established several institutions to meet this diplomatic objective by promoting Spanish culture abroad and developing educational relations with other countries in the first half of the 20th Century. In 1907 the Board for Advanced Studies and Scientific Research (Junta para Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científicas, JAE) was founded, and later, in 1921 the Board of Cultural Relations (Junta de Relaciones Culturales, JRC) was created. Both organisations were established to promote intellectual contacts with European and American nations. In 1932, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Spain issued a report explaining the role of these institutions in Spanish foreign policy:

El final de la Gran Guerra supuso el inicio de un nuevo camino para la Anglo-Spanish Society, que renunció definitivamente a cualquier tipo de objetivo bélico y tuvo que adaptar sus fines y organigrama a la nueva situación. Aunque tanto la sede de Londres como sus filiales ya estaban funcionando a pleno rendimiento a la altura de 1918, el interés del gobierno británico y el respaldo de diferentes sectores sociales disminuyeron con el advenimiento de la paz. Por un lado, la Foreign Office optó por una tutela menos intensa de la asociación, la cual nunca llegó a realizar la tarea de propaganda en el exterior para la que había sido creada. Por el otro, la mayoría de sus promotores había condicionado su participación en el proyecto al enfrentamiento armado. Es decir, entendieron que su vinculación a esta institución era una especie de servicio a la patria en un momento difícil y la firma del armisticio hizo que muchos de ellos abandonaran el barco.

A principios de 1919, uno de los mayores impulsores de la sede londinense, Israel Gollancz, dimitió de todos sus cargos y se desvinculó de la misma. En esa misma época, otro de los valedores de la asociación, Ronald Burrows, también abandonó la gestión. Una enfermedad le hizo dejar en suspenso todas sus actividades y finalmente falleció en 1920.

Durante el periodo bélico, ambos habían tenido claras conexiones con la Foreign Office. Además, Burrows era el director del King's College London y había puesto este centro al servicio de los intereses de la sociedad. Su óbito marcaba el inicio de un relativo distanciamiento de la Anglo-Spanish Society con ambos organismos.

Aunque la actuación de Mackay había sido criticada por algunos responsables del proyecto, el veterano catedrático continuó muy activo y adquirió un mayor protagonismo. Años más tarde, el embajador español en el Reino Unido y presidente honorífico de la sociedad, Alfonso Merry del Val, reconocía la labor acometida por Mackay para poner en marcha la asociación:

After World War II, British-Spanish relations remained frosty. Although Spain was theoretically out of the conflict, Franco had supported the German army with a military division, “la División Azul”, and had been ideologically in the side of the Italian Fascist State. Therefore, the Allies’ victory in 1945 caused the international isolation of the Spanish dictatorship, which was deliberately excluded. In 1946, governments of different countries (France, US, UK) did not authorise the admission of Spain as member of the United Nations, and the Spanish regime became marginalised in the international field until the beginning of the 1950s.

From the end of World War II to 1955, when Spain was accepted as member of the United Nations, Franco designed a diplomatic strategy to distance himself from the support he had given to Hitler. Consequently, Ramón Serrano Suñer and other fascist members of the regime were set aside. In the context of international isolation, the Spanish government showed interest in supporting institutions that wanted to improve the diplomatic relations between Spain and other countries in the post-war period. For this reason, Franco's dictatorship welcomed the efforts to reorganise the Anglo-Spanish Society, which had a potential interest for Spain's foreign policy.

In the early post-war period, a small group called “Friendship with Spain” was formed in London and, according to the limited amount of evidences that we have, tried to replace the Society that Henry Thomas and Edward Wilson had dissolved in 1947. However, this new organisation was also dissolved, so in 1950 the baton was picked up by another group: The Anglo-Spanish League of Friendship (which had different name, but the same principal members). The League was independent, but became linked to the Spanish Embassy in London, which supported the continuity of the association. Spanish diplomats wanted to take advantage of the League to promote a good image of Franco's dictatorship in the UK, but their wishes were against the non-political principles that the new institution defended. From the beginning, most members of the association were aware of the difficulties to remain politically neutral, under Spanish diplomatic pressure.

Introduction

Social sciences have borrowed the term creolization from linguists who tracked the emergence of new languages from two or more pre-existing languages. Although a fluid concept, creolization generally refers to the socio-cultural results of the interaction between African slaves, European settlers, Asian indentured workers and indigenous peoples. Cultural creolization, understood as the intermingling and mixing of two, or several, formerly discrete traditions or cultures, has been applied to societies such as Louisiana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Réunion and Mauritius (Spitzer 2003; Eriksen 2007). Ever since the word was coined by the Portuguese and Spanish explorers during the sixteenth century, creole (crioulo in Portuguese) and creolization have meant different things in different times and places (Stewart 2007). For example, today, while crioulo refers to the official language in Cape Verde, it has come to mean also Cape Verdean identity and culture.

If we think about this usage of creolization as identity and culture, Portugal has had a creolized past and continues to have a creolized present. However, in Portugal, the terms miscigenação and mestiçagem are more commonly used in preference to creolization to refer to cultural and racial mixing and thhave been at the center of the debates on national identity for most of the twentieth century. As will be discussed in this chapter, much debate has been generated by Gilberto Freyre's work on Luso-tropicalism, a term that has been employed to analyze racial and cultural mixing in the wider Portuguese-speaking context (Caldeira, 1993; Venâncio, 2000; Vale de Almeida, 2007), just as creolization has been used to analyze societies in the Caribbean and elsewhere. Creolization emphasizes constant contact, creative interplay and transformation in the societies, cultures and bodies that are its result (Hannerz, 1992; Boisvert, 2005), and one of the main ideas behind Freyre's work on Luso-tropicalism was the appreciation and normalization of miscegenation (Venâncio, 2000). As Riesz (2000, 105) puts it, Luso-tropicalism is a ‘rehabilitation and appreciation of the indigenous and African contribution to the Brazilian nation and culture’, in what could be seen as a ‘contraposition to a colonial way of writing history which highlights the white and European contribution’.

Introduction

In this chapter, I deploy a queer diaspora framework, public sphere theory and a creolization perspective to understand the narratives and opinions of British South Asian gay and bisexual men on key queer tropes of sexuality, intimacy, non-monogamy and marriage. The recent increase in cultural, social and political organizing among British South Asian lesbian, gay male, bisexual, transgender and queer people, I argue, results in the formation of discursive spaces that allow for the articulation of complex narratives on intimacy, sexuality, cultural or religious values and citizenship that creolize queer thought and politics. I conceive these spaces as part of a larger process towards the formation of queer diasporic counter-publics. A creolization perspective is helpful for refining diaspora theory, because it endorses a rhizomatic understanding of connection, privileges ‘routes’ over ‘roots’ and avoids categorical rigidity and singularity, which have been common features of certain multicultural orthodoxies (Glissant, 2010b). Creolization focuses on multiple ‘point(s) of entanglement’, which allows for the conception of inter-related and ‘situational’ communities. It highlights frictions, but does not resolve tension into ready-made assumptions of ‘possible’ or ‘impossible’ identities (El-Tayeb, 2011, 172).

The chapter will first develop a queer diaspora framework as a conceptual tool for reading respondents’ comments on sexuality and sexual politics. Diaspora theory has frequently advocated hybridity as the concept most suitable for interpreting processes of cultural mixing. I argue here that creolization is a preferable alternative, because it avoids some of the shortcomings of the hybridity model. This is then followed by an argument that a dialogue between diaspora and public sphere theories can be helpful for understanding British South Asian gay and bisexual men's ideas on relationality.

What appears in these pages is the history of the British-Spanish Society and the effect of its action in the relations between the UK and Spain during the 20th Century. It was a non-political organisation, but the governments of both countries had interests in controlling it, which demonstrated that culture was a very useful tool in the diplomatic sphere. In its first period, this institution was in harmony with the Foreign Office's objectives, but it came to be led by the Spanish Embassy in London after World War II.

The history of the British-Spanish Society is a perfect example of how cultural strategies have played a key role in foreign policy since the early 20th Century. Undoubtedly the Instituto Cervantes, the British Council and the Institut Français have contributed, and are still contributing, to international affairs. These institutions not only promote the teaching of modern foreign languages but also bring different worlds together, pursuing diplomatic objectives which no one would have expected. Although many variables have prevented us from making an appropriate comparison, associations like the Anglo-Spanish Society set a precedent in the usage of culture in international relations.

Today, states have modified their foreign policies, including a wide range of strategies in line with a globalised world. Governments have become aware of the importance of culture in diplomatic relations and have used it to intervene in foreign affairs. Many countries have institutions which are designed to strengthen their own national images abroad. However, from the beginning, the Anglo-Spanish Society was promoted by the UK Foreign Office and, while many members were Spanish and Latin-American, it was under British control.

As previously mentioned, a group of British academics, businessmen and politicians created the Anglo-Spanish Society to reach several commercial and strategic objectives during the Great War. However, this association only partly met these objectives; it intended to counteract German influence on Spanish public opinion, but it had a limited impact on Spain. The Society also pursued the improvement of British trade with Spanish-American countries. It was believed that the wider learning of Spanish in Great Britain should be encouraged and that a better knowledge of this language would help British companies to do business with Latin America.

En 1973, Hugh Ellis-Rees abandonaba la presidencia de la asociación, que había alcanzado cierta estabilidad durante la última década. Corrían vientos favorables, ya que los cambios políticos que en ese momento se perfilaban en España iban a facilitar la labor de la institución. Y es que el final del régimen de Franco trajo consigo una coyuntura más propicia para el desarrollo de las relaciones hispano-británicas. Por un lado, la transición española a la democracia fue vista con buenos ojos por la opinión pública del Reino Unido. Por el otro, los servicios diplomáticos españoles se adaptaron a las nuevas circunstancias, renovando parcialmente su personal. Al morir el dictador, el entonces embajador español en Londres, Manuel Fraga Iribarne, regresó a Madrid para asumir responsabilidades de gobierno, siendo remplazado interinamente por su tocayo Manuel Gómez Acebo. A partir de 1976, el aristócrata Luis Guillermo de Perinat se puso al frente de la Embajada para afrontar el reto de transformación que los tiempos exigían. En este contexto, la sociedad continuó progresando con firmeza.

Antes de la muerte de Franco, ya se había producido un relevo en la presidencia de la Anglo-Spanish Society. Un químico y escritor inglés, Peter Christopher Allen, fue el elegido para tomar el timón. Su interés por España había sido fomentado por su segunda esposa, Consuelo Linares, con la que contrajo matrimonio en 1952. Además de acercar a su marido a la cultura española, esta mujer también fue miembro del comité ejecutivo de la asociación y su participación en los proyectos para mejorar las relaciones bilaterales fue tan destacada como la de su marido. Sin ir más lejos, en 1978 la labor de Linares Rivas fue reconocida por el rey Juan Carlos I, quien le otorgó “El Lazo de Dama de la Orden de Isabel la Católica” por su contribución a la amistad entre ambos países. Igual honor fue concedido a otras españolas residentes en Londres como Mabel Marañón y Blanca Tomé de Lago.

Podría decirse que la asociación compartió el espíritu transformador que recorrió España después del óbito del dictador. Algunos de los miembros más veteranos creyeron que era una buena oportunidad para retirarse y dejar paso a las nuevas generaciones.

In 1973, Hugh Ellis-Rees resigned as Chair of the Anglo-Spanish Society, which had reached stability in the last decade. It was a good time for the Society, because political changes in Spain made the association's work easier. The end of Franco's rule created a “new climate” in relations between Spain and the UK. The Spanish transition to democracy was viewed favourably by the British public. The Spanish diplomatic service was also adapted to the new political system, and there were many changes. When the dictator died in 1975, the then Spanish Ambassador to the UK, Manuel Fraga Iribarne, returned to Madrid to assume responsibilities in the new government, and Manuel Gómez Acebo replaced him as temporary head of the Spanish Embassy. In 1976, an aristocrat, Luis Guillermo de Perinat, was appointed Spanish Ambassador to London in order to meet the challenge of Spanish diplomacy in the UK. In this context, the association continued to progress.

Before Franco's death, Peter Christopher Allen, an English writer and chemist, became Chairman of the Society. In 1952, he had married Consuelo Linares, who encouraged him to learn more about Spanish culture. His wife was also a member of the Executive Committee of the association and participated in several British-Spanish projects. In 1978, King Juan Carlos I awarded Linares Rivas with “El Lazo de Dama de la Orden de Isabel la Católica” for her contribution to the promotion of friendship between both countries. This award was also granted to other Spaniards who lived in London, such as Mabel Marañón and Blanca Tomé de Lago.

The Anglo-Spanish Society shared the process of transformation which Spain experienced following the death of Franco. A few veteran members resigned from their positions to give way to a new generation. In 1977, Nan Baxter, who had been Honorary Secretary of the association since 1956, resigned and Jean Clough replaced her. All members organised an event to pay homage to Baxter, who had worked for the Society for almost two decades. Without doubt she was a key driver of the Society's success during the 1950s and 1960s.

The changes within the Spanish Embassy in London and the League of Friendship marked the beginning of a new stage in the Society's history. The new Chairman, John Balfour, planned a reorganisation of the institution to restore its original principles, ensure financial stability and limit its mission to cultural and educational events.

He convened a general meeting of the League at the Challoner Club on 28 May 1958. Edward Palmer presided over the meeting, because Balfour was abroad. During the session, some important agreements were reached. The first was to increase all membership fees. Although £1,220 were being raised in the Ball of 1957, the high cost of The Quarterly Journal (which was given a new name: The Quarterly Review) meant that this increase was necessary. The second step was the election of the members of the Executive Committee, which included experienced leaders and new faces. The final measure introduced changes to the constitution of the League, which was renamed as The Anglo-Spanish Society. In this way, the old name was recovered, but the phrase which had followed it before (“of the British Empire and Spanish-speaking countries”) was removed, erasing any reference to Spanish-America.111

This general meeting guaranteed the continuity of the association and drew up the plan for a new period. The society rejected ideological bias and focused on promoting Spanish language and culture in the UK through lectures and events. The Quarterly Review demonstrated these changes by paying more attention to cultural topics. The editor asked some prestigious British hispanists for contributions, like Professor Alexander Augustine Parker, who sent an article to be published in the journal. The association also strengthened collaborations with other bilateral institutions such as the Anglo-Catalan Society, which was founded in 1954 and had an important educational mission.112

In just two years, the Executive Committee of the Anglo-Spanish Society strengthened the association, leaving its previous instability behind. After the institution had been reshaped, John Balfour resigned, and in 1959, was succeeded as Chairman by Rowland Denys Guy Winn, an aristocrat who was known as Lord St Oswald.

Introduction: ‘L'imprévisible’: the philosophy of the unforeseeable

In 2011, Édouard Glissant shared with the journalist Fréderic Joignot his observation on the fluidity of Europe's borders and its Archipelagean Becoming. Bringing Europe closer to the epistemic grounds of ‘Antilleanity’ (Glissant, 1981; Wynter, 1989), Glissant discusses this latter not as a Caribbean singularity but as a forceful episteme (Wynter, 1989), through which the world can be thought in the Gestalt of creolization. This understanding of creolization introduces us to a notion of ‘living together’ departing from a critical race and decolonial perspective (Gutiérrez Rodríguez, 2010). Although creolization emerges within the semantic context of racial classification, it goes beyond it by opening the possibility of thinking the fuzziness and uncertainty of mixing. As Glissant (1996, 18–19) notes in Introduction à une poétique du divers :

Creolization represents the ‘unforeseeable’, a new way of thinking. It engages with new ways of understanding the world as relational and interconnected. Although creolization emerges from the specific historical context of the Caribbean, marked by colonialism, slavery, indentured labor and imperialism, for Glissant it represents a universal proposal for ‘Tout-monde ’ (Glissant, 1997a, 2010).