The central building of a community, from mound to cathedral, is in fact a means of communication: it both organises and continues to express a common meaning by which its people live. (Williams, R, 1961 p: 35)

Held in Greenwich, London from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2000, the Millennium Dome exhibition was a grand display to celebrate the new millennium. As its predecessors, the 1851 Great Exhibition and the 1951 Festival of Britain, the Millennium Dome was an exhibition of both national and international character. The content of the Dome ‘was developed around three broad themes - who we, the British, are, what we do and where we live’ (The Guide, p: 8). The themes were explored in fourteen zones devised within the Dome, such as, Body, Mind, Faith, Living Island, and Work, to mention just a few.

The history of the Dome can be traced back to 1992, when Peter Brooke, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, proposed a national exhibition to mark the end of the century. Two years later the Millennium Commission, a private sector company to run the millennium celebrations, was set up by John Major, the then Prime Minister. The MP Michael Heseltine was made responsible for the project of the Dome. Put forward by the Conservative government, the project was passed over to the Labour Party along with the change in office in 1997. And it was the Labour Party that took over the planning and accomplishment of the attraction and gave it its final shape.

Shortly after the opening night, in the first weeks of the year, the Dome’s fortune became highly uncertain. The proclaimed failure of the operation and serious criticism on all sides give rise to the question why the Dome, instead of becoming a national symbol as New Labour wanted it to be, is now viewed as a failure. 

 

Controversial as the Dome may have been, it functioned for a year as a ‘major building of a community’. Thus, following Williams’ line of thought, it organised and expressed meanings common to the British on the turn of the millennium. From a cultural studies perspective, the Dome can be approached as a ‘text’ in a broad sense, either as a form of social practice or an institution. In this study, I shall try to interpret the meaning of the Dome as a national event involved in the political struggle over hegemony fought in the field of popular culture. Using the hegemony theory of the Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, I shall attempt a ‘hegemonic’ analysis of the Dome in order to describe the vision of Britain it represented, and to identify the ideological concerns underlying that representation.

The analytical method applied in this study is a semiotic interpretation of several aspects and events connected with the Millennium Dome. First, the location, the architectural structure and interior design will be closely examined as tools for conveying an idea of modern Britishness. Second, the Opening Ceremony of the Dome will be semiotically interpreted as a spectacle, or performance of the New Labour’s vision of Britain. This vision, it will be argued, is no longer that of ‘Great’ Britain, but of ‘New’ Britain: a “cross-class” society with the new role played in it by the monarch, tradition and conservative values.

 

From the beginning of its construction, the Dome was a British media event. The massive amount of media publicity it received during the year of its existence invites critical reflection on the role of the media in the maintenance of hegemony by the dominant group(s). Therefore, I shall also comment on the British press coverage of the exhibition as the example of the refusal to participate in the hegemonic enterprise of the Labour Government.

 

The term “hegemony” was proposed by Antonio Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks. The Collins Dictionary of Sociology gives a good definition of hegemony as ‘the ideological and cultural domination of one class by another, achieved by ‘engineering consensus’ through controlling the content of cultural forms and major institutions’ (Jary, D., 1991, p: 271). Gramsci encouraged investigation of the ways in which specific institutions operated in the social reproduction of power relations, and the exploration of wide theoretical issues relevant for the understanding of belief structures and ideology (Storey, J., 1994, p: 213). The Millennium Dome seems particularly suitable for analysis along Gramscian lines. On the one hand, it was a spectacular cultural event showing the best of Britain at the threshold of a new era. On the other hand, it had a political dimension in the sense of conveying a certain ideological image of Britain. Hegemony is the conceptual framework which enables one to reveal how the relations of power and politics mark cultural and ideological terrain.

In the study of the Millennium Dome as a form of hegemonic position maintenance, another useful concept is that of the state. Gramsci argues that the state not only organises the economic life of society but it also influences morality, culture, and ideology. The state defines the relation of power, authority, and consent between the subordinate and the dominant groups (Storey, J, 1994, p: 221).

In February 1996, the site at Greenwich was chosen for the Dome project, winning over such places as Birmingham, Stratford and Derby. The Dome, the centrepiece of the millennium celebrations was to be built at the ‘Home of Time’, as Greenwich is often referred to. Thus, after the bidding for the site, it was soon agreed that ‘Time’ would be the central theme of the Millennium exhibition. Surrounded by the River Thames, the Dome was only one kilometre away from Canary Wharf tower, from which one could have a look at its futuristic structure.

Richard Rogers, the architect of the Dome, created a shell that belongs to the future rather than to the present. Its grey and derelict surroundings still remind us of past industrial years; but the Dome gave lightness to the whole place and introduced futuristic atmosphere. 

The 1990s in the UK were characterised by a campaign to promote a ‘New Britain’ Among others, this was achieved by creating brand products and rebranding places, of which the main idea was to build a brand for Britain, for the nation and the country. The Great Britain as promoted by both the Great Exhibitions in 1851 and the Festival of Britain in 1951 was no longer adequate. According to Guy Julier the present tendency in branding Britain was: ‘to manoeuvre the national image away from historical associations of empire and cultural conservatism towards one of modernity and pluralism’ (Julier, G, 2000 p: 139).If so, apart from being festive and memorable, the architecture and interior design of the Dome had to convey the image of New Britain.

The earlier British national exhibitions were, on the one hand, were forms of cultural manifestation, aiming to educate and enlighten but on the other, however, were the tools of propaganda for imperial justification. The Dome, the grand exhibition of the year 2000, was an attempt to ‘house-train’ the future. Enlightenment and imperialism, the two characteristic markers of the British past, were abandoned. Instead, the future was now the centre of the interest. The shift shows that the new brand of Britain was created by disconnecting ‘old’ Britain from her past. The grand New Labour vision stresses pluralism and modernity, not the past. Architecture can, and in fact should suit the new image as a technically adept power, and the architectural design of the Dome was a realisation of the idea. 

The light and modern structure of the Dome resembled a spaceship, an Unidentified Flying Object, or the like. This was the largest single covered space in Britain which could ‘cover an area more than three times that of the Colosseum in Rome’ and ‘could contain the Eiffel tower laid on its side’ (The Guide, p: 116). In reality, it was an enormous cable net structure, suspended from twelve steel masts, each 100m high. The roof was made of two ‘layers of teflon-coated, woven glass fabric, just one millimetre thick’ (The Guide, p: 111). On June 22, 1998 the main Dome structure was completed. It was a present for the British nation, claimed the architect Richard Rogers. However, the contents of ‘the populist dream’ of Tony Blair were at that time still unclear.

The style of the Dome was an indication of new prosperity. The aerodynamic shape and the use of the latest materials embodied the power of new technology and the appeal of modernity. What was also characteristic was the use of bright primary colours. These not only gave the feeling of lightness but expressed the urge for modernity as well. The structure itself appeared to be lightweight and strong. It challenged the older concept of solidity and massiveness becoming a new symbol of strength and durability of New Britain.

Inside, the Dome consisted of fourteen separate, self-contained, yet at the same time interconnected interactive zones: Learning, Body, Play, Journey, Shared Ground, Living Island, Home Planet, Self-Portrait, Talk, Faith, Mind, Rest, Work and Money They were devised to reflect modern life via a series of general themes: the human body, the planet, the environment, and travel. The organisers of the Dome understood well that leisure demands at the end of the 20^th century involve good value for money, time compression, individual freedom, and free choice. In the Pleasure Dome, as its authors sometimes called it, these demands were satisfied and a rich menu of choices was offered to a pleasure-seeker. The zones were fragmented, varied, and time-squeezed. They were all situated on the circumference of the central arena and various leisure opportunities were presented within its space. However, this arrangement did not automatically guarantee a positive response from the pleasure-seeker visiting.

According to Guy Julier, since the 1980s it is the quality of leisure experience that counts, not how authentic this experience is. Umberto Eco, who analysed the Disneyland paradigm, claimed that what people admired was the perfection of ‘fake’ created within the place. Unlike Eco, Julier, following Maxine Feiter, introduces the notion of the ‘post-tourist’, who does not have to lose his identity or sense of reality. Instead, he appreciates the superbness of the place itself, not the absolute ‘fake’ (Julier, G, 2000 p: 150). Thanks to the existence of multiple channels of communication the ‘post-tourist’ can enjoy the same experience by different means, for example through a personal visit to a theme park or through television. Therefore, in any form of leisure activity, experience counts most and it is this experience that decides the overall success of an event.

This was also true about the pleasure available in the Millennium Dome The preferences and the choices of the people were accommodated into the display. The display itself was a highly controlled and organised attraction, although it appeared to lack any definite route for visitors to follow. They had absolute freedom of choice as far as the order of visiting the zones was concerned. There were no indicators or signs to force one way of visiting or another. However, this ‘absolute freedom’ was only illusory. The display was in fact a self-enclosed environment constructed in accordance to a plan and a narrative. There was no one route to follow yet each attraction was regulated by metal railings therefore, visitors were forced to queue in order to enter a zone. The entrances and exits were organised and controlled.

Julier argues that design provides the practice of gentrification, where elements of conservative, traditional culture and working class culture ‘are appropriated, moulded and remodelled into the modern and liberal post-industrial or middle-class urbanity’ (Julier, G, 2000 p: 142). Gentrification also refers to cultural practices, the Millennium Dome being the case in point. The carefully planned combination of traditional and popular exhibition styles was in fact a part of the ideological project to sell to the British their new social identity, that of members of a ‘cross-class’ society.

The practice of gentrification was easily noticeable in the Dome as interlacing museum-like zones with theme park-style sections. The Journey and the Faith Zones represented the former kind. They required from the visitor some effort to read the descriptions of the history of travel from the iron-age to the present, and of religious celebrations, respectively. Meanwhile, the Home Planet Zone or the Body Zone were much more closely linked to theme park-like attractions by their form with the visitor enjoying and experiencing their visual side. But perhaps the most theme park-like attraction was provided in the Home Planet Zone. The outer-space voyage in a British Spaceways Hypershuttle capsule took the visitor to various parts of the planet Earth, where turbulence, the cold of a glacier and the heat of a volcano could be experienced. The exhibit also gave a glimpse into the future of space travel.

The cultural meaning of the Dome was to present New Britain as a multi-cultural and multi-religious society in which no one is left on the margin. Thus, for instance, the Faith Zone was a celebration of many religions found in Britain today: Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Zoroastrian. It was a spiritual journey, through religious beliefs, signs, celebrating religious diversity. Visitors could see how the major life events, such as birth, marriage, and death, are celebrated within each religious system. The zone was the articulation of one of the New Labour’s ideological convictions, that of pluralism, a condition of society in which different groups are free to preserve their customs and are equally important. A similar idea lay behind the Home Planet Zone. The final message from the intergalactic ‘ride’ to the Earth was that: there are six billion different and amazing faces and only one heart.

There is little point in multiplying examples that present the new image. Like those discussed above, they would only confirm that the Millennium Dome was a display organised according to a well-planned and thought over ideological script. Almost everything in the Dome communicated meaning. The small elements which formed the narration created a powerful ideological tool in the hands of the New Labour government. They have put to test their vision of New Britain and promoted it both abroad and in their own country for the British people.

I would now like to examine the ceremony of opening the Dome as performance of a whole range of meanings and ideas connected with the vision of New Britain. Approached semiotically as a complex and carefully staged behavioural ‘text’, the ceremony is interpreted here as a spectacular act of ideological manipulation performed on British society with the help of the media. The opening ceremony on December 31, 1999 became a manifestation of Blairian secular vision of New Britain and his belief that Britain can become a model nation for the rest of the world.

A ninety minute opening performance with song and dance, ‘with five hundred goblins and fire’, took place in the presence of representatives of the Royal Family (Hamilton, A, The Times, p: 2). Queen Elisabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh were accompanied by the Princess Royal and Captain Tim Laurence during the night. They were welcomed to the entertainment by Tony and Cherie Blair who acted as hosts. The opening ceremony encapsulated the messages subsequently to be found in the fourteen zones inside the Dome. Besides, this event reflected the changes in the politics of the Royal Family concerning their public image and the process of re-branding of the nation.

The new millennium was greeted by 10,000 guests at the central arena which later housed the Millennium Show. Musical entertainment constituted the major part of the night, with a full symphony orchestra and a choir of 400 members, including London’s Gay Men’s Chorus. The selection of melodies varied from popular to classical compositions, including such modern anthems as the Beatles’ All You Need Is Love.

In principle, the celebration of the new millennium was a commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ. However, the opening ceremony was far from being religious. As the journalist Alan Hamilton commented in The Times: ‘that the celebrations were essentially pagan was appropriate enough; we were marking not a religious milestone, but a round number’ (Hamilton, A, The Times, p: 2). This approach was mirrored during the gala, when the Archbishop of Canterbury was given a two-minute time slot to fit in a prayer. By contrast, in the year 1851 during the opening of the Great Exhibition, the Archbishop of Canterbury held a service followed by the singing of famous Alleluia chorus from Handel’s Messiah (www.mcgill.com).

Another aspect worth mentioning was the number of gestures made by Queen Elisabeth II and Prince Philip to convey a message of the ‘humanity’ of the ‘Royals’ and their willingness to remain close to the nation. The Queen was drinking Tesco’s own-brand champagne to celebrate the new millennium. Then, Her Majesty joined Tony and Cherie Blair in singing the chorus of the traditional Auld Lang Syne; nonetheless, she did not cross her arms. Even more strikingly, she received an unprecedented public kiss from the Duke of Edinburgh. These behaviours, unusual for members of the royal family were meant to create and reinforce the new image of the ‘people’s’ monarchy, close to the nation, more spontaneous in expressing feelings, and enjoying the things ordinary citizens enjoy.

The carefully staged opening contributed further to Blair’s vision of the new ‘cross-class’ Britain; the nation without internal borders and class divisions: ‘we not only continue building a prosperous future, but that everyone shares in this increasing wealth and opportunity’ (Blair, T, Sunday Mirror, p: 44). The Queen, an MP or a skilled worker - all members of British society. The class frontiers seem to be dismantling.

This and other rituals performed during the opening night of the Millennium Dome reinforced Blair’s dream of setting up a free nation by making everyone an equally valuable and important citizen. The Queen along with the Blair family, with the children from a Greenwich primary school and hundreds of other guests, were all united in the celebration of the opening of the Dome and the beginning the new millennium.

The Queen, who personifies the State and the power elites, was performing together with her people. Exposed to the media, she mixed with ‘the masses’ and shared the same experience. Such gestures apparently show the new status and role the royal family is willing to play in the future. Remaining head of the establishment, the Queen wishes to be the ‘People’s’ monarch, and at the same time to redefine her relations with the nation. Thus the conservative, traditional values associated for centuries with the royal family, such as, for instance, inaccessibility are also undergoing alterations at the turn of the millennium. The Queen’s relationship with the dominant groups in society and the existing economic order are currently being transformed.

One of the messages conveyed during the opening ceremony was that New Britain is a consumer society; the enormous diamond placed in the centre of the stage being its symbol. Based on the consumption of goods and services, a consumer society is regulated by the complex relations between production and consumption. The latter, once a source of class differentiation, is now used by Tony Blair to build an image of a ‘cross-class’ nation without status discrimination. Consumption is also linked with  ‘manipulation’ and consequently with advertising.

In the 1990s consumerism became a widely accepted social ‘norm’, while the media evolved into an ideological tool and a vehicle for it. Already in 1977, the Royal Commission on the Press argued that ‘advertising organises both media content and structure, and effectively operates as a system of patronage supporting capitalist production values’ (Jary, D, 1991 p: 8).

The media not only inform people and influence their choices but also assert the idea that one has to be a conspicuous consumer or at least aspire to be. Therefore, the media functions as an ideological instrument creating a system of values for society to follow. In Gramscian terms, it plays a central role in the struggle for hegemony.

The Millennium Dome received massive publicity. Thousands of articles, reports, interviews and reviews concerning the exhibition were written and published in all national newspapers, tabloid and quality alike. However, the overall tone of the publicity was highly critical, if not negative. Although the Millennium Dome was supported and financed by the government, it faced highly negative media coverage. As one of the Observer’s headlines aptly put it,  ‘the press united against the Dome’ (Arlidge, J, The Observer, p: 4). From 1 January 2000, a headline of a leading national newspaper read ‘how a national showcase turned into a white elephant’ (Arlidge, J, The Observer, p: 4), or how: ‘the Dome is a fitting national symbol, a wonderful structure that stands for nothing, a stunning shell with a hole where its heart should be’ (Mike Hume, The Times, www.the-times.co.uk).

Headlines like these clashed with the official explanations of the purpose the Dome was to serve. According to the Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Millennium Dome was built to ‘re-energise the nation, raise the self-esteem of its people and enhance the nation’s standing’ (Wintour and Brown, The Observer, p: 8). Elizabeth II conveyed a comparable idea in her Message on 1 January 2000: ‘The Millennium Experience, (…), provides a focus for the nation’s celebrations at an important moment in our history, bringing together people from communities throughout the United Kingdom and from many other countries.’ (The Guide, p: 5).

According to ‘ government officials, the British are not only healthier and more prosperous but they have greater opportunities than their parents and grandparents had. Together, as one nation, they are building a prosperous future which everyone will be able to participate in. Moreover, according to Blair, the British are to be the model twenty-first century nation (Sunday Mirror, p: 44). The Millennium Dome was to be the event which would restore the former British Empire’s world-wide reputation, claimed the Prime Minister. According to another source, the PM said that the Millennium Project represented ‘Spirit of Confidence and Adventure’ (Official LondonNet Site).

Meanwhile, the press was negating this official vision and suggesting other meanings. Henry Porter in his article “Vulgar displays” asserts that ‘the Dome has failed to find anything interesting to say about this fascinatingly creative and protean society’ (The Observer, p.7). He also uses such adjectives as ‘the unstylish execution of the Dome’, ‘slightly gormless staff’, or ‘the extravagant simple-mindedness of the performance’. The statement: ‘A horrid evening at the opening of the Dome’ opens Alan Rusbridger’s report ‘The land that forgot time’ (The Guardian, www.guardianunlimited.co.uk). In another account, Vanessa Thorpe comments on ‘how Dome dreams were dashed’ (The Observer, p: 3).

The opening ceremony itself was also reported in strongly negative terms. ‘The worst New Year’s party in living memory’ was a description of the opening night by John Arlidge (The Observer, p: 4), in the same item, used the words flop or political disaster who when writing about the Dome. Rusbridger’s opinion about the opening night seems even more devastating: ‘On the biggest night of all it seemed we had, as a nation, nothing to say to ourselves about anything’ (The Guardian, www.guardianunlimited.co.uk).

Additionally, the contents of the Dome generated dissenting media coverage. In his article, Rusbridger comments on the emptiness of the experience: ‘You emerged from a visit with a blanded-down, logo-plastered vision of corporate-sponsored UK plc’ (The Guardian, www.guardianunlimited.co.uk). In the same vein, some headlines referred to the Dome as ‘the Disaster Zone’. In September, when there was a serious debate about shutting down the display, the Sun asserted, that the latest cash bailout handout was ‘scandalous’ (CNN.com). Yet another tabloid, the Express demanded: ‘Close it today’ (CNN.com). However, despite all the negative treatment, the Dome remained open till December 31, 2000 as planned.

At the same time, other journalists reflected critically on the massive press attack. Wintour and Browne argued in their piece ‘The Dome: triumph or disaster?’ that ‘the media has transformed a national cock-up into a national disaster’ (The Observer, p: 8). They claimed that the criticism and unfriendly handling of the Dome by the journalists was their revenge after the opening night’s queues at Stratford Tube station in east London. Hundreds of people, among them the editors of the national press with their families, had to wait for three hours at the tube station and arrived late at the ceremony. A similar message was conveyed in Steve Bird’s article entitled ‘Dome ‘sunk by media sniping’’ (The Times, p: 9). However, the ‘anti-Dome’ stories in the press were not the only attempt at turning the exhibition into a disaster.

The Millennium Dome became also a hot political issue and faced various attacks from the opposition. It was William Hague, the leader of Britain’s opposition Conservative Party, who slammed the Dome and said ‘it was an empty, pointless tent in the middle of nowhere’ (CNN.com). He also argued that the Prime Minister Tony Blair should close the display. Once the decision to keep the Dome open was made, despite the financial problems, Lord Falconer, often called the ‘Dome-Minister’, had to defend the resolution. He told BBC radio that one ‘could not run a business of this innovation, of this newness, of this complexity without going through difficulties (…)’ (CNN.com).

This ongoing political discussion found its visual representation in the newspapers in the form of graphic art. The Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell dealt with the Dome itself as well as with certain figures engaged in the enterprise. The cartoon reproduced here ( ) entitled ‘The faith of the Millennium Dome’ is an example of a purely pictorial cartoon without words. It shows a dead body of a duck floating in water with its head down, and its bottom sticking above the surface in the shape of the Dome. The cartoon summarises the dimension of the debate. On the one hand, the word ‘duck’ is a synonym of such adjectives as ‘darling’ or ‘sweetheart’, which may suggest the popularity of the attraction, and the title of the cartoon may support this interpretation, stressing the trust and confidence that the organisers has put in it. However, the Dome is represented as a bottom of an already dead bird: fat, disproportionately large and plucked. The cynicism of Bell’s assessment is obvious. The phrase ‘dead duck’ refers to a scheme which will fail, or has been abandoned. There are also other lexical associations: ‘like a dying duck’ means languishing, ‘a lame duck’ refers to an ineffective or helpless person or organisation or a bankrupt; while a ‘sitting duck’ describes an easy target of a helpless victim.

The water is either the River Thames, which reminds of the location of the Dome at the Greenwich Peninsula, or perhaps the English Channel that separates New Britain from Europe, which would suggest that it is not just the Dome, but the whole ideological operation behind it is deemed a failure. There is one more essential element to the cartoon, namely the life buoy, thrown into the direction of the duck which, obviously, is past any recovery. The life buoy may represent the Faith Zone, added late to the Dome to fend off the criticism even before the attraction was opened, could suggest another meaning for the cartoon’s title

The media played a significant role in the process of negotiating the meaning of the millennium attraction in Greenwich among British consumer society. The British press became a partially independent voice in the struggle over cultural and political hegemony in New Britain. The journalists were critical not only of the Labour Party (responsible for the organisation and running of the exhibition), but also of the opposition which did not escape the disapproving tone of various articles or cartoons. Negative as their voices were, the British press placed the Millennium Dome at the centre of the people’s attention. Although the Labour Party’s ideas about New Britain underwent critical evaluation, at the same time they were advertised and spread nation-wide. In this way, somewhat paradoxically, the press made the Dome more effective as an ideological tool in the struggle for hegemony and as a cultural artefact in constructing New Britain.

The Labour Party, by means of popular culture and cultural practices connected with the Dome, tried to create a brand for New Britain. Therefore, the tent became an image that carried hidden messages which were addressed to the people or, to use Gramsci’s theory, to the subordinate groups of society. This also brings back the opening quotation with the Dome, in fact, turning out to be a central building of a community which ‘both organises and continues to express a common meaning by which its people live’ (Williams, R, 1961 p: 35).

The primary aim of the Dome was to celebrate the beginning of the new millennium and to explore the opportunities for New Britain in the future. Although the year 2000 was an important historical moment, the history and the past of Britain were practically absent from the exhibition. Instead, New Britain emerged as a country looking only into her future. This message was conveyed not only by the content of the attraction, but also by the futuristic and modern construction of the building. New Britain was a technologically advanced and creative country, prepared to lead the world in the third millennium and play the role of a model twenty-first century nation.

The traditional class and status divisions were abandoned and the Dome constructed the image of New Britain as a ‘cross-class’ nation; a society governed by the laws of consumerism, where everyone is equal, be it a skilled worker or the Queen. An important part of the image was the principle of pluralism allowing different cultures and faiths to coexist peacefully within British society. The opening ceremony was also an occasion to stage a new image of the royal family, closer to the people and no longer isolated by the policy of privacy.

The mass media has long played a significant role in the political struggle for hegemony. Their coverage of the exhibition in Greenwich contributed significantly to ‘advertising’ the image of New Britain and the monarchy, and determined the way those images were perceived by the people. In particular, the press was a very influential factor in negotiating the meanings conveyed by the Millennium Dome. It seems that the Dome was negated because it received bad media coverage.

The public debate generated in Britain by the Millennium Dome, in the media and outside, had at least one common theme, that of the role of the past in the vision of New Britain. The common criticism of the Dome was that it deprived the British nation of its past, history and tradition. Blair’s vision of New Britain embodied by the exhibition reflected an attitude described by Andrzej Szczypiorski in his essay ‘Novalis i wiek XXI’ [‘Novalis and the Twenty-First Century’]. Szczypiorski believes that:

(…)Europeans, almost everyone, have succumbed to the temptation that the world offered to them is better than the one before. The past had lost its former attractiveness; there is nothing tempting in it. If any discourse of nostalgia occurs, it is an attitude, a kind of attraction, but not a deeper intellectual desideratum In the consciousness of an average European, the past is something bad, (…). (Gazeta Wyborcza, p.17, translated by K. Chmielewska)

However, the ‘battle’ around the Dome has indicated that the past is more important to the people than it appeared. The vision of a New Britain without a link with ‘Old’ Britain, proposed in the Dome, was rejected by the nation. The Dome failed as an ideological instrument of the Labour Party in the process of negotiating meanings and ideas of New Britain because its authors underestimated the attachment of the British to their past. New Britain turned out to be too new to too many people for the hegemonic purpose of the Dome to be achieved.

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Newspapers articles

Arlidge, J. “Dome chief quits as sponsors revolt.” The Observer 6 June 2000: 4.

Bird, S. “Dome ‘sunk by media sniping.’”  The Times 27 Sept. 2001: 9.

Blair, T. “The millennium messages to you”: “We can be a model for the world.” The Sunday Mirror 2 Jan. 2000: 44.

Hamilton, A. “Here’s to the new millennium.” The Times 2 Jan. 2000: 2.

Porter, H. “Vulgar displays.” The Observer 16 Jan. 2000: 7.

The Guide. Millennium Experience, The Dome, Greenwich, London.

Thorpe, V. “How Dome dreams were dashed.” The Observer 6 Feb. 2000: 3. 

Rusbridger, A. “The land that forgot time.” The Guardian 11 Nov. 2000. 11 Nov. 2000 <http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/dumb/storey/0,7369,394003,00.html>.

 Szczypiorski, A. “Novalis i wiek XXI” [“Novalis and the Twenty-First Century”]. Gazeta Wyborcza 19 May 2001: 17.

 Wintour, P. and Browne, A. “Mean times in Greenwich.” The Observer 9 Jan. 2000: 8.

 

Internet sources

 <http://www.realdome.com>.

 BBC ONLINE NETWORK (05/13/01) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_285000/285652.stm>.

“Britain: Song, dance and a river of fire.” The Times Online 31 Dec. 1999. 6 May 2000. <http://www.thetimes.co.uk/news/pages/tim/1999/12/31/timnwsnws01009.html?999>.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vers. 1999-2000. 5 May 2001. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=38765&tocid=0>.

Hume, Mike. “The Dome is national symbol” The Times Online 3 Jan 2000. 6 May 2000,

 <http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/01/03/timopnope01003.html>.

“The Greenwich Peninsula brochure.” 5 May 2001.

<http://www.greenwich-peninsula.co.uk/media/brochure.pdf>.

“London Dome’s new chief wonders why it was ever built.” 6 Sept. 2000. CNN.com. 27 May 2001. <http://europe.cnn.com/2000/TRAVEL/NEWS/09/06/britain.dome.reut>.

“Blair defends London Dome as a ‘Hague Opportunity for Britain.’”  24 Feb. 1998. Official LondonNet Site.  7 March 2000.

 National Audit Office Report.  9 Nov. 2000. 5 June 2001. <http://www.nao.gov.uk/pn/9900936.htm>.

New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). 5 May 2001. <http://www.dome2000.co.uk>

Queen Victoria’s Diary. 1 March 2000. <http://www.mcgill.ca/mchg/cp/vicdia.html>.

 Spark, P. “New York World’s Fair and Festival of Britain.” Design in Culture (1987).  5 January 2001. <http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/1939v1951.htm>.

“The Dome: A Message from Tony Blair”. 24 February 1998. 5 May 200. <http://www. Greenwich2000.com/millennium/experience/gm.htm>.

 

SECONDARY SOURCES:

Baker, M. Comics: Ideology, Power and the Critics.  Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989.

Bennett, Tony. (1986) “Hegemony, Ideology, Pleasure: Blackpool.” Popular Culture and Social Relation. Ed. Tony Bennett. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986. 135-155.

“Popular culture and ‘the turn to Gramsci’” in Popular Culture and Social Relations, Ed. Tony Bennett. Milton Keynes: Oxford University Press, 1986: xi-xix.

Chambers English Dictionary. Cambridge: Chambers & Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Clarke, John and Chas Critcher, eds. The Devil Makes Work. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Fowler, Roger. Language in the News. London: Routledge, 1991.

Hall, Stuart. “Notes on Deconstructing ‘the Popular.’” R. Samuel, ed.  People’s History and Socialist Theory. London: Routledge, 1981:      .

“Popular Culture and the State.” Tony Bennett, ed. Popular Culture and Social Relations. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986: 22-48.

Gramsci, Antonio. (1994) “Hegemony, Intellectuals and the State.” John Storey, ed.  Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. A Reader. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994: 215-221.

 Greenhalgh, Paul. Ephemeral vistas: The Expositions Universelles, Great Exhibitions and World’s Fairs, 1851-1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988.

 Jary D. & J. (1991) Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers.

 Julier, Guy (2000) The Culture of Design. London: Sage Publications.

 King, Anthony (1990) Architecture, Capital and the Globalization of Culture in Featherstone, Mike (1990) Global Culture; Nationalism, globalization and modernity. London: Sage Publications.

 Martin-Barbero, J. (1993) Communication, Culture and Hegemony, London: Sage Publications.

 McGuigan, J. (1992) Cultural Populism, London: Routledge.

 McRobbie, A. (mo1991) ‘New Times in cultural studies’, in New Formation.

 Munns, J.&Rajan, G. (ed.) (1995) A Cultural Studies Reader. London&New York: Longman.

 Rojek, Chris. Capitalism and Leisure Theory. London: Routledge, 1985.

Storey, J. (1999) Cultural consumption and everyday life. London : Arnold.

 Storey, J. (1994) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, A Reader. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

 Storey, J. (1993) Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

 Strinati, D. (1995) An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. New York and London: Routledge.

 Turner, G. (1996) British Cultural Studies, London and New York: Routledge.

 Politics, Ideology and Popular Culture 1, (1982) The Open University Press, Popular Culture Block 5.