There is a genuinely modern element here, and the argument should grant it first. The class of people whose sense of self travels with them - educated into portable skills, at home in any city, attached to networks rather than places - is larger now, and more powerful, than at any point in the past. Mass higher education, cheap movement and an economy that rewards the mobile have swollen the ranks of what has usefully been called the Anywheres. And they have thinned the standing of the Somewheres: the people whose identity is bound up with a particular place and the life it holds. When that mobile class also staffs most of the institutions that set the tone - the universities, the media, the civil service - the older, rooted majority can find its own instincts described as backward in its own country. That is a real and modern imbalance, and pretending it away helps no one.
Grant the scale, though, and the fault line itself is not modern at all. The mistrust between the person who could live anywhere and the person who is of somewhere runs through the whole of recorded society. It is the tension between the walled town and the country around it. Between the cosmopolitan port and the inland village. Between the lettered clerk who served wherever he was needed and the farmer whose world was the parish he was born in. Every settled civilisation has held both types and has had to manage the friction between them: the universalist who finds the particularist parochial, and the particularist who finds the universalist rootless and not quite to be trusted. The vocabulary is new. The division it names is as old as towns.
Why the misdiagnosis matters
Treat an ancient fault line as a novel pathology and you reach straight for the wrong prescription. If the divide is a modern wound, you go looking for a modern cause to cut out - a policy, a technology, a villain - and you imagine it could be healed and gone for good. If it is instead a permanent feature of any complex society, the job is not cure but balance. Keep the mobile and the rooted in a workable relationship, so neither captures the institutions outright and runs the other as a problem to be managed. Every healthy society has had to strike that balance, and strike it again as conditions shift. The ones that failed did not fail because the division existed. It always does. They failed because one half forgot it needed the other.
The perennial task
Naming the split was useful. It let people see a pattern they had been feeling without words. The error is to think the naming was the discovery of something new. The Anywheres have always been here, and so have the Somewheres, and the argument between them is not the symptom of a broken age. It is the ordinary, permanent business of a society that contains both. The question is never how to end it. It is how to keep it honest - each side able to see that the country needs the thing the other one is. That is the work every generation has to do again. Ours has mostly been failing to.
An opinion of the house. The argument is ours; the record beneath it belongs to no one.
How this piece was made
How this piece was made. The modern element - the mobile, credentialed class is genuinely larger and more institutionally dominant than before - is conceded at full strength before the turn: that the underlying division is ancient and perennial. It uses Goodhart's Anywheres/Somewheres as the naming framework and argues the fault line is a permanent feature of complex societies, drawing on uncontroversial historical patterns (town and country, port and village) rather than any contemporary group. No nationality or identity is characterised. A critic should press whether the historical parallels are close enough to bear the weight, and whether the modern scale is a difference of degree or, as some argue, of kind.
The record stays free. If it was worth your time, buy us a coffee - or become a member for the commentary and the weekly.