Stoicism, solidarity and cynicism: examining the role of Second World War posters in framing present-day British identity

TL;DR

This paper examines how Second World War Ministry of Information propaganda posters are interpreted by present-day British people and how they help frame national, generational, and gender identities. Using surveys and interviews, it finds posters often activate myths of solidarity and stoicism, but also provoke cynicism and identity formation against dominant narratives.

Key findings

• Participants frequently interpreted the posters through myths of the “people’s war,” “Blitz spirit,” and “Dunkirk spirit,” especially solidarity and stoicism. “Dig for Victory” was associated with hard work, and “Make Do and Mend” with rationing and economy, then extended to British resilience, togetherness, and modern sustainability, charity, and vintage fashion.
• “Keep Calm and Carry On” was seen as a direct symbol of Britishness and stoicism; the crown was read as monarchy and empire, and some respondents used “we” and “our” to express pride. Because it was never displayed during the war and lacks 1940s features, it was easily applied to modern contexts such as terrorist attacks.
• Some respondents expressed cynicism or discomfort: Churchill’s myth was described as problematic, “Dig for Victory” patriotism as uncomfortable, and “Keep Calm and Carry On” as irritating or linked to Brexit and Empire nostalgia. Posters also helped articulate generational identity and, for “Women of Britain Come into the Factories,” a reading of women’s liberation.
• The study reports 92 completed surveys from information stands and 209 online, with 16 interviews lasting 45–90 minutes; the survey used five posters, and interviews added five new images.

Methods

• Qualitative design using surveys and semi-structured interviews. Survey participants were shown five posters and asked about recognition, memory, associations, and memorability; interviews covered the same topics in more depth and added five new images.
• Recruitment was face-to-face at information stands in Kew, Ealing, Croydon, Nottingham, and Leeds, and online via Twitter and King’s College London publicity emails. A total of 92 completed surveys were collected from stands and 209 online; 16 interviewees were selected to cover a broad range of ages and birth locations.
• The paper presents qualitative discussion of survey and interview responses; no formal analytic technique is named.

Limitations

• The paper states that both recruitment methods were biased toward people interested in the Second World War, history, or design, because participants had to actively approach the stand or click the link, and the 10-minute survey required concentration; this bias was “to some extent inevitable.”
• The paper states that 16 people were interviewed, a small self-selected group. The text also reports 92 stand surveys plus 209 online surveys, but later says the survey provided 252 eligible volunteers and the Appendix tables total 252, an inconsistency evident in the text.
• Evident from the text: no formal analytic procedure is named, and findings rely on qualitative interpretation of volunteer responses, limiting generalizability.