Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:26:31 -0000
Subject: Re: BHA: In defence of a realist Orwell


Hi Mervyn

It all depends what you mean by a 'deep understanding of 
capitalism'. Nobody, I suspect, will ever surpass Marx's 'deep 
understanding', although we can develop Marx's insights into areas 
which he never tackled comprehensively (e.g. language and 
discourse, culture, politics and the state, ideology, embodiment, 
etc.) and try to update his ideas to look at contemporary global 
societies. In this respect Orwell did have a deep understanding of 
capitalism. The Road to Wigan Pier has some great insights on the 
subtle nature of capitalism and the ambivalence it creates upon 
identity-formation. Also, Orwell has some very interesting things to 
say about the relationship between capitalism and a particular form 
it took during his own day, namely the imperialist form of 
capitalism. In particular Orwell wanted to understand how 
imperialism actually enslaved those who were supposed to be the 
rulers i.e. white British colonial rulers. Then there's Orwell's 
wonderful insights into everyday cultural objects like boys weekly 
magazines, seaside postcards, literature, etc. Here Orwell tries to 
understand the ideological nature of everyday cultural objects and 
the meanings they have in creating 'English' subjectivities, but also 
how 'ordinary' people use these objects to resist the imposition of 
identity-formation. Orwell here prefigured much that today is known 
as 'cultural studies' and can be seen to share theoretical concerns 
with such noted theorists like Pierre Bourdieu. The problem is, is 
that Orwell never uses theoretical terms as such, which is perhaps 
why you don't judge him as being a very good thinker.

On the 'list' of names he is supposed to have handed over, two 
things need to be said. First, this whole episode has been blown 
out of all proportion. Orwell actually defended throughout his life 
people's right to free speech, people with whom he disagreed with. 
Infact he often cautioned against accusations that some well 
known figures were Stalinists, presumably because he felt that 
such accusations lead down the road to show trials, the sort of 
thing he rallied against. On the actual 'list', Orwell was on his death 
bed when he drew it up and he never meant that it would be given 
over to British intelligence. Rather he wrote down some names of 
British lefties who were sympathetic to Stalinism and who couldn't 
be trusted on certain political matters because of this, especially 
as regards propaganda for the Left. Orwell did this in the name of 
the democratic Left, not as some stooge for British intelligence. 
But there is another point in all of this. You seem to believe that a 
person's written work can be judged by their autobiography. So, if 
somebody has done something deemed dubious then we can use 
this to criticise what they write. I think this is very dubious in itself. 
A book, article, or whatever, should be judged on its own merits 
irrespective of what we think about the personal character/life of an 
author. Afterall, if we did constantly judge a piece of written work 
by the personality of an author then we probably wouldn't read very 
much - who amongst us is a perfect example of humanity?! 
Therefore I don't think you do your argument any justice by 
dismissing Hitchen's book because he did a U-turn on the Gulf War.
All the best
John 

On 3 Nov 03, at 21:57, Mervyn Hartwig wrote:

Hi John

To say that Orwell is overrated as a thinker doesn't entail thinking 
that he's inconsiderable, though I do think you're on the wrong pudding. 
My point to Tobin was that, while 'lousy' English may inhibit incisive 
thinking its absence didn't propel Orwell into the first rank, the 
evidence being that he didn't have a very deep understanding of the 
lethal dynamics of capitalism, surely a prime desideratum for a thinker 
of the first rank in the twentieth century. (Yes, I know he hated 
capitalism, and he's wonderful on decency, participatory democracy, 
etc.) I must say though that I'm impressed by your list of areas in 
which he's thought to be seminal. I haven't read any Orwell for quite a 
while and may need to revisit him with a fresh eye. How does he rate as 
a dialectician?

I agree one shouldn't let his dobbing in of ex-friends and communists to 
British intelligence deter one from taking him seriously as a thinker, 
but however construed it does seem to indicate something radically awry 
in his understanding and judgement. If he did it for the woman, that 
makes it worse. I'll try to find time to read Hitchens, but must say I 
expect to find apologetics in view of his recent U-turn on and 
apologetics for neocon imperialism.

Mervyn

John Roberts <spljmr-AT-lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk> writes
>Hi Mervyn
>
>I've just read your comments about Orwell. I wonder if we're reading
>the same George Orwell here i.e. the English novelist who wrote
>some famous literary works and is also seen as a precursor to
>cultural studies, critical discourse theory, post-colonial studies,
>theories of embodiment, questions of reflexivity in qualitative
>research, particular ethnography, studies of governance and power,
>autobiographical writing, etc. Taking this on board your statement
>that Orwell is much overrated as a thinker is pretty stunning I think.
>Let's take what Orwell wrote about the use of everyday language.
>It's been acknowledged for years now by critical linguists that
>Orwell outlined a complex theory of how language is used to
>position, create and govern subjectivities (see for example his novel
>1984 and his famous essay 'Politics and the English Language').
>As part of this theory Orwell tried to show that language has an
>underlying realist structure that becomes ideologically obscured on
>the 'surface' as its used by various power interests. Also, some
>have made connections between Orwell on this matter and the
>Marxist theorist of dialogue, Mikhail Bakhtin. But all of this is also
>to say that Orwell didn't simply believe that one should write in
>'plain English'. Actually, Orwell believed that political writing should
>be an 'art form' that resonated with people's real lived experience.
>Try writing like Orwell - you'll soon realise that it's pretty difficult
>and takes a huge amount of effort. It's much easier to write like
>Bhaskar than Orwell!
>
>As for Orwell being more concerned about the Soviet system rather
>than capitalism, this just isn't true. Sure, Orwell was highly critical
>of Soviet socialism, but this is hardly surprising as he witnessed
>first hand the Soviet destruction of Spanish socialism during the
>Spanish civil war. Indeed, the Stalinists had a warrant for his arrest
>in Spain, and had they caught him he would probably have
>perished in their jails. But Orwell's criticism of Stalinism was a
>great asset. He was one of only a few on the Left during this period
>who saw through the ideology of Stalinism. Many other left-wing
>intellectuals welcomed Stalinism, and defended it. But anyway,
>Orwell never stopped criticising capitalism and it was hope that it
>would be eclipsed by socialism until his death. You only have to
>read The Road to Wigan Pier, A Homage to Catalonia, or The Lion
>and the Unicorn, to see that this was the case. Infact, Orwell was
>consistently trying to understand how the abstract structure of
>capitalism and imperialism reproduced itself into more everyday
>social, cultural and political forms of life. Again, I take this to be a
>realist position.
>
>On giving names of communists to British intelligence, this really is
>a red herring for not taking Orwell seriously and is utter nonsense.
>Have a look at Christopher Hitchens's 'Orwell's Victory', chpt. 7, for
>a complex and detailed account of all of this.
>
>My point is, is that Orwell does write about complex ideas and
>theories, but in a way that appeals to people. Perhaps this is why
>you think that Orwell is a rather simple writer. In reality he's an
>immensely rich, gifted and complex writer. But let's be empiricists
>for a minute. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I reckon that
>Orwell will still be talked about by people in all walks of life in
>another 100 years. Somehow, I'm not convinced that same can be
>said of Bhaskar.
>
>All the best
>John
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---