Orwell, Nationalism, England and Englishness



ENG 263 Devolutionary British Fiction 1945-Present

Week Two

George Orwell: Nationalism, England and Englishness

Orwell Biography (see handout) – full of apparent incongruities and contradictions (upper-class, public school, family colonial background, left-wing campaigner, anti-fascist fighter, anti-Imperialist; left wing intellectual who often attacks left-wing intellectuals – ‘their severance from the common culture of the country’ EYE, 85)

Douglas Kerr claims:

‘Intellectually he was a displaced person, who struggled to unlearn the ideological reflexes that came with his upbringing, but was never at home in any orthodoxy. For the last dozen years of his life he was committed to the socialist cause, but was also one of its most unwelcome critics. Many socialists distrusted him and some despised him. Sometimes he distrusted and despised himself. He was an internationalist and an English patriot, an anti-imperialist who broadcast propaganda to India urging loyalty to the British Empire. He lived in dozens of places and stayed nowhere for long. He did not belong. This singular inability to fit in was not a source of romantic self-satisfaction to him, but it was a fact of life. It guaranteed his unorthodoxy (he was a man who would have been orthodox if he could), giving him a humanistic insight into the speciality of all cases, and a sensitivity to the often abrasive interactions of person and place, subject and context, individual and collective.’ (Kerr, p.2)

Historical Context (see handout)

–power of the ruling (esp. aristocratic) class fading – movement to more advanced forms of capitalism shifts power balances between powerful classes. (Part IV of the ‘England Your England’ (EYE) essay deals with this at length)

- beginning of the end of British Empire (in Orwell’s phrase, its ‘stagnation’ Pt V)

- slight movement in economic disparity between classes – greater enfranchisement (in politics, at work, etc) for working-classes

Little Gloss on the novels Orwell had written previous to outbreak of war – Keep the Aspidistra Flying, A Clergyman’s Daughter, Coming Up For Air.

Central Themes/Key elements of the essays – question and questioning of ‘duty’; nationalism and patriotism; thinking of ‘the other side’ rationally’; distinctiveness and similarities in nations – political and cultural; class difference and unity; decline of Empire, decay of ruling classes; investigation of patriotism and xenophobia; paradoxical idea of an everlasting yet constantly changing England; anti-totalitarianism; political apathy and ignorance; investigation of undemocratic democracy; power of language and linguistic strategies; growth of International Capitalism (‘machine civilisation’); changes in class system; permanencies in class-system; power of mass-media; potency of national/cultural myths and traditions; the future of England/UK; decline of UK as world power; nation as ‘deep horizontal comradeship’(Benedict Anderson)

Essays in order of writing

‘England Your England’ (1941) – Part of The Lion and the Unicorn book.

The Title – why is it significant? What does the ‘YOUR’ qualify? How does he intend it? Does it say anything about the way that Nations are to be imagined/understood/conceptualised?

Famous opening – ‘As I write, highly civilised human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.’ What is the impact and function of this opening sentence? Why separate it from the rest of the text? What does it immediately broadcast about Orwell’s position, his potential beliefs? And his formal style? Rhetorical power clearly significant feature in Orwell – to do with strategies of persuasion and authority for his arguments (see ‘Why I Write’ if you are interested in this). The line between fact/fiction; ‘Literature’ and Polemical Writing is deeply significant to Orwell and his critics – and also his ‘rules’ for clear and useful language at the end of his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’ (look at this, if time); and section on English language in ‘The English People’ (TEP), (particularly pp42-6).

How does Orwell position/identify the notion of ‘the enemy’? (’He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil.’(parag 2) Question of morality is introduced here – how so? What is the effect of this statement, in introducing the question of morality, politics, individuality, choice and duty?

What does Orwell have to say about patriotism? Para 3; p73 (Part III, para 3 & 4: ‘In England patriotism takes different…’ – xenophobia is strong in all classes, esp. w. class – Orwell clearly not afraid to go against grain of seeing working-class as a cosy, sentimentalised, even lionised group in their attitudes and lifestyles (as perhaps some other left-wing commentators might).

(Patriotism is a modern phenomenon, how is it a ‘positive force’? Especially given what he says immediately after he makes this point, about the methods of fascism?)

Is point of view important? (Para 3/4: ‘One cannot see the modern world as it is, unless one recognises…differences of outlook…...in fact, anyone able to use his eyes’) Key Orwellian features – individual and public perspective/responsibility; the central importance of observation for political and cultural understanding and expression – often posits himself and his work as an acute observer of the scene; a powerful and rational force of recognition - linked to his questioning of received truths, etc. What does he mean when he notes that (part III, para 6) ‘Up to a point, the sense of national unity is a substitute for a ‘world-view’’?

English Distinctiveness

‘as western peoples go, the English are very highly differentiated.’(para 4). Key element in this essay – the notion that England is diverse and unified. Can this be sustained? You will see that it is a key theme in the course – the idea of an ultimate or fundamental identity either made-up of or paralleled by many plural versions of identity - this paradox, of an England made up of many Englands; of several variants and competing or plural expressions and versions of England (or Scotlands, Wales’s, etc). You will want to begin thinking of the extent to which ‘British’ has often stood as synonymous with ‘English’ throughout history – and (from the vantage point of the present moment, where England and ‘Englishness’ needs to think itself ‘separate’ or ‘devolved’ from Britain and ‘Britishness’) how we see that as being destabilised and recalibrated since WWII.

Englishness is something that surfaces in much Orwellian criticism, which sees him as a highly contradictory figure – a ‘Left Wing Patriot’ at a time when these two identifications were (and still are in many cases) seen as irreconcilable – yet this is managed – see for example later on in the essay when he reminds us of internal splits and cases for moments of unity (e.g. beginning of part III, p72). The War, so the powerful myth of British popular history goes, is clearly a time in which, to set aside national/class/gender/ethnic differences. However, the question is, do these essays I have asked you to read easily go along with this notion? This appeal for harmony for the greater good of Britain? See for example, p73:

‘And even the distinction between rich and poor dwindles somewhat when one regards the nation from the outside. There is no question about the inequality of wealth in England. It is grosser than any European country, and you only have to look down the nearest street to see it. Economically, England is certainly two nations, if not three or four. But at the same time the vast majority of the people feel themselves to be a single nation and are conscious of resembling one another more than they resemble foreigners. Patriotism is usually stronger than class-hatred, and always stronger than any kind of internationalism.’ (Part III, para. 3) (p73)

End Pt V – ‘Patriotism and intelligence will have to come together again. It is the fact that we are fighting a war, and a very peculiar kind of war, that may make this possible.’(87)

How does Orwell position his arguments?

- The figure of the Insider/Outsider (a strong, neutral presence, with observational prowess) appears again and again as a key strategy in Orwell’s literary and political designs –

- Observation: P66 – ‘it is worth noticing a minor English trait’(my emphasis) … another English characteristic which is so much a part of us that we barely notice it…the privateness of English life.’(66) (gentleness, secularised, beer drinking, polite, hobby loving, English anti-militarism, respect for the law – all against the onslaught and ideology of totalitarianism and fascism; freedom to air ones views in public, anti-censorship;

- His hatred of intellectuals, despite being one himself (see p85, last 3/4 paras of section V). Think about what is implied about his position and his credibility in his attack on other intellectuals.

- His emphasis on the ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ ‘truly native’ England – key element of Orwell’s ideas – the ‘unofficial’ representatives of England, i.e. the lower classes – England shifting from Aristocratic orders to a greater sense of genuinely popular culture (67, my emphasis)

READ from ‘When you come to England from any foreign country […] to try and determine what England is, before guessing what part England can play in the huge events that are happening.’ (paras5-8) What are Orwell’s key arguments here? How is England described/characterised? How does it connote with the rest of the essay – and indeed ‘The English People’? Do these points sit well with his general ideas on Nationalism? Is the historic context crucial to the point he is making? If so, how and why? You may want to think about what specific words he uses, whom he is addressing, the tone of his argument, etc.

Also an accusatory tone – not a valediction of The English people by any means – criticises them (as he always does) for their hypocrisy and ignorance of Empire and Imperial acts; of their ‘barbarities and anachronisms’ (70); their ‘insularity’75; 77: in TEP, their ‘political apathy, their ignorance’.

Read Part III, para. 11: ‘England is the most class-ridden country under the sun. It is a land of snobbery and privilege, ruled largely by the old and silly. But in any calculation about it, one has got to take into account its emotional unity, the tendency of nearly all its inhabitants to feel alike and act together in moments of supreme crisis.’77 Do you agree with this? Does this still stand up, given recent events in, say, Iraq? What kind of language does Orwell use to describe nationalism? Connect this to his points about Nationalism in the essay of that name – does he contradict himself here, reading between these two essays?

Last paragraph of Part III: This is one of the most famous of Orwell’s statements, often remarked upon by his followers and detractors. What is there to gain by using this metaphor of the family?

The end of the essay – why end the essay discussing the ‘improvements’ made in the lot of the working-class in England since 1910 (and the subsequent expansion in middle-class membership)? Clearly an example of the positive uses of patriotism, the reason to preserve England and English way of life from threat of Fascism. And the quotation ‘England will still be England….having the power to change out of recognition and yet remain the same’ – what final image is this appealing to? Why use this eternalising rhetoric, particularly if you are a dissenting kind of writer? Think of the wider, international context, to see Orwell’s larger targets.

‘The English People’

(commissioned by the British Council in 1943 – the date is significant – mid-war – think about how this might colour Orwell’s ideas here. Finished in 1944, but not published (with some revisions, until 1947)

retreads familiar ground of EYE –

Read first four paragraphs in two’s – What can you find that is similar to the discussion of EYE that we have just had?

‘no-one should be branded on the tongue’(19) ‘no-one should be branded on the tongue’(51) – differences in language and accent clearly a significant part of Orwell’s ideas – a key theme that will resurface again and again as the course progresses.

End of Section One: asks if an‘intelligent observer…could construct a reliable picture of the English character. But then probably a thought would strike him: is there such a thing as ‘the English character’? Can one talk about nations as though they were individuals? And supposing that one can is there any genuine continuity between the England of today and the England of the past? […] Do such things as ‘national cultures’ really and objectively exist? This is a crucial question for Orwell, in this essay and in his work on Nations, Nationalism and Politics in general. Why ask this question? How can we situate it next to his aims in the essay, and in the theories of Nationalism he and others have advanced? The next points he makes are crucial, in the last paragraphs of section one – from ‘This is one of those questions …. From Shakespeare onwards.’ Read this and consider how Orwell is asking his reader to put aside whether or not an English National Character really exists in a material sense – and think about how he is trying to alert his readers to the fact that, no matter how we answer this question, the myths and stories and narratives of this character certainly exist and how it is important to think about the way in which they are utilised to initiate actions by various factions, for varied interests. The movement between the received tradition of Englishness (or in fact any other Nation-ness) and how that comes to constitute (and reconstitute) Englishness (at a time when Britishness has reached its zenith, quickly to recede) – is crucial to note. This isn’t just to note and to understand frivolous things like how to drink tea and how to act in a pub, it clearly has a crucial import – and serious implications for actions such as prosecuting wars, running empires, the perception of difference, racism, etc. Morality and Englishness (or, as you should now be seeing it, the myth or the tradition, the ‘imagined community’ of ‘The English People’) run hand in hand. We will see in several texts (and we can see it in various post-war governments’ rhetoric – especially the present Labour administration) how an ideology of respectability, fair play, decency and values is a perennial construction in ideas of what constitutes the English/British ‘character’ (you may want to begin questioning this rather woolly – and potentially racist – notion - of a national ‘character’). It is often used to differentiate (and sometimes to alienate) other ‘characters’ and races. Orwell is trying to deconstruct this easy conjunction of English/British = moral/fair. He is asking questions of it – but he was also severely criticised for presenting a patriotic sounding text. Not jingoistic, but still advancing positive notions about English patriotism – what are they in the essay? ‘Nearly all of (the English people) love their country, but they must learn to love it intelligently)’(55)

Last Section: The Future of the English People, turns into Orwell’s manifesto for the future of England/Britain (even he makes the uneasy elision) – Read parag’s 5-6 (p48). How does this accord with the function of the essay? Is it an ‘essay’? Or a sociological treatise, a polemic, a societal description, a guidebook, etc? Clear that Orwell is prescribing things here – look at his use of such apparently ‘innocent’ words like ‘if’, and the imperative tone he adopts through words like ‘must’; ‘shall not’, etc (49). Key point is lack of labour power

Look at his points about what he sees as ‘cultural centralisation’ (from ‘We need, too, to be less centralised…..strengthen national unity rather than weaken it.’(52) What are the crucial points here? Orwell argues for a process that will happen (indeed has already begun to happen in Scotland and other countries) – will this regionalisation – or this metropolitan, this London-centric vision hold? No way, watch as the country and its culture devolves – what Orwell wants to happen…. Tune in over the next few weeks.

Read: ‘In Defence of English Cooking’, ‘A Nice Cup of Tea’ – why are these short, almost ‘light’ pieces significant to our discussion of Orwell, Nationalism and Patriotism?

‘Antisemitism in Britain’(1945)

Opens with stats – larger point that he is a measured and knowledgeable authority on something (and he was) that is a large yet underdiscussed and underobserved facet of British identity and ethnicity. Note that Orwell often resorts to a strategy of honesty – quite willing to profess his shortcomings, his ignorance on certain matters. This is crucial to his persuasive intent, as well as the point of many of his essays: that we should know more than we may do before forming any possibly reactionary stances.

What is the purpose of his point at the beginning of para 2? How does this establish the authority of the essayist? Can you find ways in which this is reinforced in the remainder of the essay?

How does Orwell present his ‘findings’? Does this convince/persuade you?

Throughout he rationally points out hypocrisies in British anti-Semitism (think too about the international events and findings on the fate of the Jews in Nazi Germany, percolating into Britain at the time of writing) and accuses the British of (conscious and unconscious) racial prejudice. He wants it to be ‘seriously studied’(382) seeks a ‘scientific approach’; quotes from a high ranking officials racist comments(382); racial stereotypes (384); crucially, calls anti-Semitism ‘essentially a neurosis’(385) and something that is, worryingly for him, ‘rationalised’ – his task is to counter-rationalise against this attitude, despite it being a fact

Look especially at the closing remarks on this essay, especially for a lead into ‘Notes on Nationalism’: what language (symbols, metaphors, images, etc) is used by Orwell to comment on Nationalism and its links to antisemitism? Read from ‘I have no hard and fast theory about the origins of anti-semitism….I do not believe.’ (disorder and disease, with curatives, psychology, emotionalism, immunisation, continuing questions, etc)

‘Notes on Nationalism’(1945)

‘In this essay, I am trying to isolate and identify tendencies which exist in all our minds and pervert our thinking, without necessarily occurring in a pure state or operating continuously.’ (427)

Note the ‘I am trying’ – emphasises the present currency of the issue, his efforts to think through a problem that needs fixing.

‘One prod to the nerve of nationalism, and the intellectual decencies can vanish, the past can be altered, and the plainest facts can be denied.’(428, my emphasis)

‘Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism’ Why not?

What is Nationalism associated with, for Orwell? (para 2-4 esp and any other significant paras)

Search for honesty, getting the matter ‘into perspective’ (414 and esp 427, see also inversion technique he uses on p429 ‘If anyone harbours anywhere in one’s mind…) –Classic Orwellian moves – esp. anti-romanticism and over-emotionalism (one of the most potent generators of nationalistic feeling and identification).

Criticises tradition of English Nationalism and National sentiment in English writers (Chesterton, for example, p415).

Many types of nationalism – ‘not all similar, but ‘The following are the principal characteristics of nationalist thought.’ 416-22 Obsession, Instability, Indifference to Reality - all of these, especially the last, result, for Orwell, in a wilful and determined concealing of key facts, of a tendency to use propaganda to twist history and revision history – ‘facts’ is a word that crops up repeatedly throughout Orwell’s essays. He consistently challenges his reader to react to his use of the word in all cases. ‘Indifference to objective truth’ – throughout, it is implied, that you are receiving honest, objective truth here – a point Orwell’s critics obsess (quite rightly) about. ‘Probably the truth is discoverable.’(421) A key phrase here – the work is still to be done, further consideration on the issue is required.

Different types of nationalism (remember the essay is to discover these as they occur within the English intelligensia)

Positive Nationalism – Neo-Toryism; Celtic Nationalism; Zionism(422)

Transferred Nationalism – Communism, Political Catholicism; Colour Feeling; Class Feeling, Pacifism;

Negative Nationalism – Anglophobia, Antisemtism, Trotskyism

Read: end of the essay – what is significant about Orwell’s method here? Why is honesty and objectivity compromised?

Misc

Labour Party and Conservative Party – moulding together as one 29 – indistinguishable

Rhys text comparisons – English people, p26

Migrants/Refugees – (Irish labourers, 37)

Select Bibliography

There are many works on Orwell, as you would expect. The library is well stocked. Use the bibliographies of these texts below to follow up specific essays and monographs. Also, use the keyword button on the library catalogue. Better still, just go to the shelf of works by and about Orwell, to look for more material. The Critical Heritage series supplies criticism by Orwell’s contemporaries. Here is a selection of works (with, in some cases, relevant chapters) I found useful, but be warned, there are always alternatives, and I don’t necessarily agree with some of the perspectives!

John Atkins, George Orwell: A Literary Study (London: Calder and Boyars, 1971) (esp ChXVII, ‘Left-Wing Patriot’

John Brannigan, Orwell to the Present: Literature in England 1945-2000 (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003) (Good text in general for the course as a whole, but first section especially for Orwell and context of England and Englishness)

Douglas Kerr, George Orwell (Writers and their Work Series, London: Northcote House, 2001) (esp. Introduction and Ch3: ‘England’

Graham Holderness ed George Orwell , New MacMillan Casebooks – Good series, with excellent Introduction, of up-to-date essays on Orwell’s work. Relevant chapters here are Ch 3 by Richard Filloy on ‘Orwell’s Political Persuasion: A Rhetoric of Personality’, and by Michael Walzer, ‘George Orwell’s England’. This text also has a handy bibliography.

Christopher Hitchens, Why Orwell Matters (NYC: Basic Books, 2002)

Christopher Hollis, A Study of George Orwell: The Man and his Works(London: Hollis and Carter, 1956) (esp. Ch’s XI, ‘England and War’ & XIV, ‘Nationalism’)

D S Savage, ‘The Fatalism of George Orwell’, in The New Pelican Guide to English Literature 8: From Orwell to Naipaul, ed. by Boris Ford (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1998)

Raymond Williams Orwell (London: Fontana, 1971) (esp Ch 2: ‘England whose England?’)

George Woodcock, The Crystal Spirit: A study of George Orwell (London: Cape, 1967) (esp. Pt III, ‘The Revolutionary Patriot: Conservatism and Rebellion in Orwell’s World View’)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download