By John F Keane
David Goodhart’s ‘Somewheres and Anywheres’ thesis represents a modern manifestation of the ancient ‘Court and Country’ division that engendered the English Civil War.
The history of England is punctuated by periods of profound social and political division. While the specific issues change with each passing century, a core tension often remains: the conflict between a centralized, cosmopolitan elite and a decentralized, rooted populace. Two prominent theories, separated by over three centuries, offer striking parallels in their analysis of this fundamental divide: John S. Morrill’s ‘Court and Country’ thesis and David Goodhart’s ‘Somewheres and Anywheres’ framework. At their core, these theories describe the same enduring cleavage, albeit expressed in different historical and social contexts.
In his 1976 book, Revolt of the Provinces, John S. Morrill challenged the traditional view of the English Civil War as a conflict driven solely by religious and constitutional disputes. Instead, he argued that a significant and underappreciated factor was a deep-seated provincial animosity toward the centralizing power of the king’s court in London. This ‘Country’ opposition, rooted in the values and social structures of rural England, saw the court as corrupt, decadent, and out of touch with traditional life. They were suspicious of the court’s cosmopolitanism, its foreign alliances, and its perceived assault on local customs and liberties. The conflict, therefore, was not just about Parliament versus King, but also about the provinces against the metropolitan centre.
Fast-forward to the 21st century, and David Goodhart’s ‘Somewheres and Anywheres’ thesis offers a modern reflection of this ancient split. In ‘The Road to Somewhere’ (2017), Goodhart posits that a new kind of social division has emerged, primarily defined by people’s relationship to place and identity. The ‘Anywheres’ are a highly mobile, university-educated elite whose identity is defined by their professional skills and global connections. Their values are universalist, liberal, and often detached from national or regional traditions. In contrast, the ‘Somewheres’ are the majority of the population whose identity is deeply tied to a specific place, community, and national culture. They are less geographically mobile and often feel their values and way of life are being ignored or threatened by the ‘Anywhere’ elite.
Comparing these two models reveals a powerful, recurring theme. The ‘Court’ in Morrill’s thesis and the ‘Anywheres’ in Goodhart’s both represent a centralized, mobile, and culturally dominant group. They are the shapers of national policy and culture, operating from a metropolitan hub—17th-century London for the former, and a globalized network for the latter. Their values, whether rooted in monarchical patronage or liberal globalism, are seen by the populace as being out of step with traditional life.
Conversely, the ‘Country’ and the ‘Somewheres’ share a common sense of being left behind. They are the defenders of a local or national way of life, suspicious of the elite’s values and motivated by a desire to preserve their own communities and identities. While the specifics of the grievances—from taxes and religious reforms to immigration and economic change—are different, the underlying dynamic of a cultural and geographical schism remains the same. The historical precedent serves as a powerful reminder of how a rift between a concentrated elite and a dispersed majority can maintain deep and lasting divisions in a society.
Ultimately, the analytical and predictive value of both theses lies in their ability to transcend partisan politics and focus on a more fundamental sociological truth. After all, they both describe a schism that has defined English society for centuries. Writing in 2025, the gulf between the London-based ‘Court’ (the legacy media, parliamentary politicians of all parties, the left-liberal judiciary, and the City of London) and the ‘Country’ (the provincial right-populist and nationalist mainstream) has not been wider since the Victorian era.
Bridging this gap demands a genuine effort to understand and respect the values of both groups, finding a path that allows for both national cohesion and diverse communities.