The debate about whether or not empire significantly influenced domestic Britain is by now a familiar one. Yet as Andrew Thompson correctly states in his introduction to this most recent entry in Oxford's Companion Series to the History of the British Empire, work on this topic has failed to systematically focus on the twentieth-century relationship between domestic Britain and empire. In an attempt to redress the balance, he has asked each contributor to this volume to suggest an interpretive framework for exploring empire's effect on twentieth-century British policies within their area of expertise: diplomacy, politics, religion, migration, the economy, identity, and social and cultural life. The results of their efforts suggest that there is much work still to do, focused not so much on whether or not empire was significant in twentieth-century British life—it clearly was—but on the ways that ideas about empire and, perhaps more important, the structures empire created, worked alongside other factors, domestic and foreign, to shape British policy and change how Britons understood themselves.

While at first glance the collection's focus on the twentieth century seems obvious, even mundane, it is clear that being obliged to deal with both empire and domestic issues over the course of the entire century proved stimulating for the contributors. While they all, to some degree, employ the traditional periodization in which the world wars serve as convenient boundaries marking the end of the long nineteenth century and dividing the twentieth in half, they avoid the far too common practice of disengaging the postwar period of decolonization from the era of intact empire. Instead, by drawing together material from eras and geographical locations more usually examined separately, they are able to complicate some long-held scholarly assumptions.

For example, Wendy Webster, in her chapter on migration, considers the reaction to postwar “Commonwealth immigrants” of color along with the experiences of European migrants to Britain throughout the twentieth century. Her approach stresses the importance of continuities in migrant experiences, regardless of race, as well as pinpoints serious gaps in our understanding about the relationships among different migrant groups. Similarly, Richard Whiting is able to clearly demonstrate the ongoing importance of liberal ideas to British politicians (regardless of party affiliation) well into the century and also to suggest the extent to which policy makers viewed India as an exception, rather than as a model for the future. And in Jeffrey Cox's chapter on the changing agendas of missionary organizations, the long view supports his charge that historians have been too quick to assume a progressive secularity in Britain that is a “natural” result of modernity.

Most of the contributions serve more to introduce readers to a particular topic than to suggest an overall interpretive framework for understanding the relationship between Britain and the empire in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, upon reading these chapters side by side, broad themes begin to emerge. The importance of reworked liberal ideas becomes clear as we read of their significance not only for Whiting's politicians but also for Cox's missionaries, while the profound effects of migration policy are explored both in terms of identity and social life (Webster, Thompson, and Meaghan Kowalsky) and in terms of economic policies (Jim Tomlinson). Both Tomlinson and Philip Murphy (the latter in a chapter on global power) point out that, while important, empire was only one factor among many—including Europe and cold war politics—that affected Britain's global agenda. Whiting takes this further to suggest that, at least in terms of popular consciousness, empire was a subset of international relations, not the driving force.

The issue of consciousness is addressed by more than one author, both in terms of how scholars might best approach the era and in terms of the way Britons at the time viewed their empire and themselves. Tomlinson, for example, warns that historians should not mistake British policymakers' perceptions of economic decline for the reality, which he argues was far less dire than has been assumed, although their beliefs did directly affect imperial decisions. Thompson and Kowalsky argue for more attention to Britons' complex psychological reactions to empire, both during its existence and afterward, in an essay that contrasts the often successful work of settler organizations, such as the Kenya Association, to sanitize empire with the increasing public outcry over revelations of imperial brutality.

Several contributors suggest that it may be more useful to explore the experience of empire as one mediated through region or locality, rather than the nation. As Tomlinson points out, local economies (such as those of Lancashire and Dundee) were linked to empire in very direct ways, something that was not true of Britain as a whole. Krishan Kumar, thinking more broadly, argues that the rubric of nation/empire is, in fact, a false dichotomy when dealing with Britain, an entity that was itself imperial. In his view, it is the structure of overseas empire that we need to examine, for this was what provided stability for the “inner empire” of the British Isles and in the process subdued internal nationalisms, particularly that of the English. When the empire fell—which was, he suggests, not at all a foregone conclusion—devolution (and an English identity crisis—to which Webster also alludes) naturally followed.

While the book is generally well organized, the various contributors' discussions of the debate over empire's significance is at times repetitive, and Thompson and Kowalsky's chapter on public imagination might have been more effective consolidated with the afterward into a more robust conclusion. But these are minor quibbles. Britain's Experience of Empire provides readers with useful overviews of a wide variety of topics from perspectives that often challenge our assumptions about twentieth-century Britain. It also directs the scholarly conversation beyond a simplistic (and as Kumar suggests, ultimately irresolvable) debate about how much empire mattered to Britons, toward approaches that will enable us to better understand its actual impact in the twentieth century and beyond.