Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Weekend reading: George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

by Paul Wells on Friday, October 30, 2009 7:16pm - 137 Comments

This essay had a huge influence on my thinking when I first read it as an undergraduate. In it, Orwell uses, and admits to using, the word “nationalism” very loosely — it could apply to any movement or group to which people can apply blind loyalty or irrational contempt. He wishes people would notice their own “nationalisms” and attempt to correct for them:

The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality. But this, I repeat, needs a moral effort, and contemporary English literature, so far as it is alive at all to the major issues of our time, shows how few of us are prepared to make it.

Of course in today’s political debates in Canada, Orwell’s warnings are as relevant as they ever were anywhere. I know a lot of people I wish would read Orwell’s essay — people who find themselves forever making excuses for one party or faction, while forever dismissing the excuses of another. But of course Orwell’s point is that it’s easy to point out the other guy’s biases without recognizing your own. So I try to find, or even better to avoid, instances in my own work where Orwell would recognize a “nationalism” and smile a sad smile of regret.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://wordpress.pufftentacle.com/ Mathew Koukounakis

    The question isn’t how to get rid of factions, but how to manage them. And the question has already been answered in the ‘The Federalist Papers No. 10.’ A document far more relevent to modern politics than Orwell’s wishy washy and loosely coined notion of nationalism.

    The fact of the matter is this: I believe in certain things, ideas, concepts. My faction may not address all my concerns (especially the irrational ones), but the other faction is by and large opposed to the things I believe in. Why I should forget that simply because some early 20th century writer (or artist) would get his panties in a bunch over nationalism isn’t entirely clear to me.

    • kcm

      No but your antipathy towards Orwell and possibly Wells does make some things clear about you.

      • Orson Bean

        . . . so, riffing on Orwell, does that mean that we can say there's a form of nationalism that is based on antipathy towards Paul Wells?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

          It's one of the most virulent.

    • http://wordpress.pufftentacle.com/ Mathew Koukounakis

      Yes I do, have some antipathy towards Wells. For the reasons I've cited and becuase of the faction I belong to, I'm required to take issue with every silly notion of non-partisanship Wells or others like him advance.

      Orson, there's the problem. I reject Orwell's notion of "nationalism" vs. "patriotism". the terms are interchangable depending on your faction. What Wells is doing is trying to wish it away with some notion of non-partisanship that has never, ever, seen to have existed in history. It has nothing to with nationalism, but factionalism. Whether Wells would admit it or not, his viewpoint is factional thus partisan. His opinion is in opposition to someone else, but only his opponents are partisan?

      As for Orwell, kcm. It's not that I have antipathy for the man, I'm just not putting him on as high a pedestal as others here are doing.

      • kcm

        "By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests"

        I believe this passage has something to say to your views on factionalism.
        And perhaps this:
        "The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.'

        And where has anyone blown the trumpet for being non-partisan?Orwell nowhere makes that argument, and i don't see any evidence of PW pushing it either. I'd say your take on this debate is narrow and entirely self-serving. This is of course your god given right.

      • Foreigner

        I think you're coming up against another faction, this one proper to MacLean's Blog Central: Wellsians.

        • kcm

          "Wellesians"! Is that a serious affliction? It sounds vaguely ecclesiastical. How does one join?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

    What a delight to see all the discussion this has stirred up. I've got no problem with any of it: the ones who get the point I was trying to make; the ones who think it was a dumb point; the ones who charge ahead without regard for a surprising argument because they're right, dammit. Half the fun here is seeing what sets you guys off. It's easy enough to do with a cheap shot; more fun to do it with a slider. Nearly impossible to do, apparently, with posts about Haydn. We live and learn.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/canucklehead canucklehead

      "the ones who charge ahead without regard for a surprising argument because they're right, dammit."

      I feel the need to put that in a signature. Or just remember it.

    • edast

      How did the science policy conference go?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

      "Half the fun here is seeing what sets you guys off"

      I would like to know if you have learned what sets people off and what doesn't, other than making snarky comments about Haydn's mother of course. I occasionally like to make a comment with a bit of torque to see if I can get reaction and no one responds and then I get people frothing and chuntering with comments that I think are innocuous.

      • John.K

        "There's nowt as queer as folk."

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

          Agreed.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/canucklehead canucklehead

    He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. (continuted)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/canucklehead canucklehead

    I was thinking about this, and here's a question… My liberal freind remarked one day about how conservatives are constantly expecting the last desparate gasp of western civilization in the face of it's inevitable decline vis a vis the topic of the day – which I had always shared in so it had not seemed remarkable to me until then. I guess the corrollary is liberals who also are always expecting the great decline perhaps so they can stop feeling guilty about our great depredations and the general historical calamity of our successes.

    Under Orwell's definition the liberal expecting western decline is nationalist and the conservative fearing it is patriotic. But does everyone agree?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      I can't accept the premise that Western civilisation has been an unblemished success. In some ways it's great, in other ways it's a calamity. Evaluating people's positions as though it were all one thing or all another is going to yield a pretty two-dimensional picture.

      • Foreigner

        It's also reasonable to consider that some, or even most problems, are the unintended consequences of success. In fact, when a civilization falls, it's usually the result of its inability to sacrifice some of its most successful or productive activities to moderate the forces that are undermining it. Military superiority leads to militarism, technology leads to technocracy, affluence leads to consumerism, high levels of education lead to over-specialization, etc. etc.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          That's a very interesting idea. Perhaps it relates to a pet idea of mine that a civilisation self-destructs when it loses its sense of purpose. When that happens, the individual can no longer define himself in terms of that purpose and so is apt to lose himself in overspecialisation.

          • Foreigner

            Perhaps it relates to a pet idea of mine that a civilisation self-destructs when it loses its sense of purpose.

            I don't know. I don't think our civilization lacks purpose (bigger, stronger, faster, better), just that what this requires has increasingly direr unintended consequences. I'm not talking about Global Warming here; I'm thinking more of the full spectrum of human values that 'bigger, stronger, faster, more' excludes.

            Given that, at least economically, we have no other choice but to live within the boundaries of that "purpose" (how often do you hear 'innovate or perish?'), it becomes impossible for the members of a civilization to collectively, effect a change in direction, such as moving from maximization to optimization, to privilege better quality over more choice, for example.

          • TedTylerEzro

            I generally think a civilization never truly perishes unless it is deliberately wiped out through cultural or ethnic cleansing. I think civilizations generally wane in power and influence for a whole host of myriad reasons unique to each situation. I dislike ideas that human beings largely think and act on an unconscious level because the objections to those generalizations are generally more convincing than the similarities.

            For example, you probably could draw links to why the militaristic power of Rome, the economic power of the British Empire, or the aristocratic dominance of the Hapsburgs had some similarities in their rise and decline of power, but only by glossing over the far more numerous differences. Thus, I don't think the model of human beings act like "x" in societal/cultural/political situation "y" is really all that useful or valid.

          • Foreigner

            I generally think a civilization never truly perishes unless it is deliberately wiped out through cultural or ethnic cleansing.

            That's astonishingly ahistorical.

          • TedTylerEzro

            Not really. Rome still persists. Gaul largely doesn't. There is a reason for that.

            The culture of the first nations before European colonial societies weakly persists, but would not have if the cultural imperialism of the colonists had been sustained. Certainly, we put every effort into attempting to destroy all remnants of pre-European colonial customs, religions and social and political order among the first nations.

            In other words, a "civilization" dies when some other civilization kills it.

    • Rob P.

      So your lot are right and the other lot are wrong. I think you just proved something, though maybe not quite what you think. By the way, it's very big of you to have that one liberal friend.

      • John W.

        Sense of purpose equals nationalism?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/canucklehead canucklehead

        well I'd probably have more liberal freinds if I had more freinds. It seems to me that it can be just as silly to constantly fear western decline as to constantly expect it, that's really what I mean to say. It seems to fit in pretty well with the rest of Orwell's description of how 'nationalism' causes irrational thinking but it's contradictory on the one point of always believing your side is winning. I don't know, maybe it's sort of a hybrid version of nationalism and patriotism.

  • http://bradysbeef.com idaho beef

    It doesn't make sense to slam Orson Welles is one of the brightest minds of past anyone says the Contra for or against the times that happen to start a future that someone had just simply decided to not contribute to what he had said was something he did you have to help out because he was with maker he had all these ideas that why he noted that these things because he said that I was going to see what she could do.

  • Mulletaur

    Having some sort of a view of how the world works or doesn't work is a necessary heuristic device which allows us to interpret facts without extreme effort, thus making the processing of information, which is much more available in bigger quantities today than ever before, much easier. That, I believe, is a good thing. It is only when one's Weltanschauung becomes an ideology or a dogma that it leads to an intellectual dead end, and in the world that Orwell lived (and to some extent we still live today) led to death in a gas chamber or in the basement of the Lubyanka.

    I have always considered political partisanism a type of brokerage between competing political positions – as long as people do not adopt dogmatic and unyielding positions, it should result in a kind of arbitrage of ideas and thus a better result in the same way that financial arbitragers make the market work by making money off of differences in prices and value. Ideology, on the other hand, is never about ideas, always about power. It simplifies everything to a doctrine which explains everything at all times. That is why it is a dead end intellectually but a very strong force politically. The Communism and Fascism of Orwell's day are extreme examples of this.

    Anybody who is peddling ideology, whether it be political, social or religious, is simply trying to get people to line up behind them to obtain power. All of us who comment on these boards are guilty of this to a greater or lesser extent. We want others to agree with us, that increases our power, if only among our fellow Pajamahadeen. However, I would also say that most of us here are able to yield to a well argued position of somebody whose political party or philosophy we fundamentally oppose. A sense of humour is essential. To quote Václav Havel :

    "Those who have not lost the ability to recognize that which is laughable in themselves, or their own nothingness, are not arrogant, nor are they enemies of an Open Society. Its enemy is a person with a fiercely serious countenance and burning eyes." – Václav Havel, address in acceptance of the Open Society prize, Budapest, 1999.

From Macleans