Why is English national identity so enigmatic and so elusive? Why, unlike the Scots, Welsh, Irish and most of continental Europe, do the English find it so difficult to say who they are? The Making of English National Identity, first published in 2003, is a fascinating exploration of Englishness and what it means to be English. Drawing on historical, sociological and literary theory, Krishan Kumar examines the rise of English nationalism and issues of race and ethnicity from earliest times to the present day. He argues that the long history of the English as an imperial people has, as with other imperial people like the Russians and the Austrians, developed a sense of missionary nationalism which in the interests of unity and empire has necessitated the repression of ordinary expressions of nationalism. Professor Kumar's lively and provocative approach challenges readers to reconsider their pre-conceptions about national identity and who the English really are.

No abstract

Automation of pharmaceutical safety case processing represents a significant opportunity to affect the strongest cost driver for a company's overall pharmacovigilance budget. A pilot was undertaken to test the feasibility of using artificial intelligence and robotic process automation to automate processing of adverse event reports. The pilot paradigm was used to simultaneously test proposed solutions of three commercial vendors. The result confirmed the feasibility of using artificial intelligence–based technology to support extraction from adverse event source documents and evaluation of case validity. In addition, the pilot demonstrated viability of the use of safety database data fields as a surrogate for otherwise time‐consuming and costly direct annotation of source documents. Finally, the evaluation and scoring method used in the pilot was able to differentiate vendor capabilities and identify the best candidate to move into the discovery phase.

Much commentary indicates that, starting from the 19th century, the home has become the privileged site of private life. In doing so it has established an increasingly rigid separation between the private and public spheres. This article does not disagree with this basic conviction. But we argue that, in more recent times, there has been a further development, in that the private life of the home has been carried into the public sphere-what we call "the domestication of public space." This has led to a further attenuation of public life, especially as regards sociability. It has also increased the perception that what is required is a better "balance" between public and private. We argue that this misconstrues the nature of the relation of public to private in those periods that attained the greatest degree of sociability, and that not "balance" but "reciprocity" is the desired condition.

Empires and nation-states are generally opposed to each other, as contrasting and antithetical forms. Nationalism is widely held to have been the solvent that dissolved the historic European empires. This paper argues that there are in fact, in practice at least, significant similarities between nation-states and empires. Many nation-states are in effect empires in miniature. Similarly, many empires can be seen as nation-states "writ large." Moreover, empires were not, as is usually held, superseded by nation-states but continued alongside them. Empires and nation-states may in fact best be thought of as alternative political projects, both of which are available for elites to pursue depending on the circumstances of the moment. Ultimately empires and nation-states do point in different directions, but it is not clear that the future is a future of nation-states. Empires, as large-scale and long-lasting multiethnic and "multicultural" experiments, may have much to teach us in the current historical phase of globalization and increasingly heterogeneous societies.In theory, there is an abyss between nationalism and imperialism; in practice it can and has been bridged.…Hannah Arendt (1958: 153) Much attention has been paid to the apparent conflicts between imperialism and nationalism; it would be at least equally profitable to study their real partnerships. Anil Seal (1968: 342) In a sense, every modern nation is a product of colonization: it has always been to some degree colonized or colonizing, and sometimes both at the same time. Etienne Balibar (1991: 89) Comparing empires and nation-statesThere is a venerable tradition that sees nations, nationalism, and nation-states as the antitheses of empires and imperialism. Nations-especially as constituted in nationstates-and empires are seen as rivals, mortal enemies. It was the constant fear of nineteenth-century statesmen such as Clemens von Metternich that the empires they served would be undermined by the growing force of nationalism. The crash of empiresHabsburg, Hohenzollern, Romanov, Ottoman-after the First World War was widely regarded as confirmation of this belief. An almost equally strong view, especially but not only at more popular levels, regards empires as old-fashioned and antiquated structures, destined to be replaced by the more modern form of the nation-state. Nation-states in this view follow empires in a sort of natural historical progression. If empires persist in the modern world they are-as Joseph Schumpeter (1974) held-"atavisms," hangovers from the pre-modern world. They must be attributed to such things as the clinging to power of the old European aristocracies, with their warlike propensities and thirst for glory. Modern society, especially in its bourgeois form, is sober, rational, calculating-the precise opposite of the "irrational" excesses of imperialism. 1 This article does not seek to merge empires and nation-states into one seamless whole, or to suggest that the differences between them are illusory. What it does wish to do is...