From: "John Roberts" <spljmr-AT-lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:29:53 -0000
Subject: BHA: In defence of a realist Orwell 


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

On 31 Oct 03, at 18:19, Mervyn Hartwig wrote:

Hi Tobin

Thanks for your comments.

Orwell is something of a red herring I think. He didn't write 
meta-theory (so to introduce him is to compare apples with pears), and 
is IMO much overrated as a thinker. He judged the Soviet system the 
greater threat to humankind than capitalism, and because of that ended 
up giving the names of communists and 'sympathizers' to British 
intelligence 'like any fink from the Ministry of Truth' (Paul Foot).  Of 
course, he is relevant if he's taken to be saying that all thought must 
be cast in the straightjacket of 'plain English' -- but my whole case is 
that this is a recipe for stifling creativity and promoting mediocrity.

There is I think no important theory/practice inconsistency where the 
writing practices of Kant, Hegel, Adorno, Bhaskar are concerned. My 
general point is that what they had to say could only be worked out via 
writing that is complex, rich and difficult. When emergentists suggest 
that the Phenomenology or DPF could be translated (reduced) into much 
more accessible works without loss, now *that's* a theory/practice 
inconsistency.  One does of course have a reponsibility to readers, but 
I agree with Bhaskar that the basis of this can only be truth to 
oneself, i.e. one must follow one's daimon. And in philosophy and 
science at any rate (elsewhere too probably) what is needed to 'follow 
the object' seems more important than catering to the needs of the 
audience as such (this will include precision in the elaboration and 
deployment of concepts, but much else besides). If one's ideas are any 
good people will appropriate them (as they have indeed appropriated 
Kant's and Hegel's -- two of the most difficult *and* most influential 
writers of the modern era).

It seems to me you're applying, in the end,  an abstractly universalist 
notion of what constitutes bad/good prose.

But we've been over much of this before, as you noted in an earier 
comment. Doubtless we'll just have to agree to disagree -- and maybe get 
to discuss again some of the ideas the prose, however (in)adequately, 
conveys.

Mervyn


Tobin Nellhaus <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> writes
>Ah, Howard, how I've missed you!  It's wonderful to hear your voice again.
>
>Anyway: After Mervyn's adjusted quotation, he noted:
>
>> ---Adapted from Kathryn Dean, Capitalism and Citizenship, pp. 135-40 (in
>> a publication, most of what I have written would be in quotes). A most
>> excellent book, as advertised on this list a few weeks ago,
>> distinguished by the rigour and precision of deployment of concepts,
>> which make it possible to discuss important matters otherwise
>> undiscussable, and *in no way 'verbose'.*
>
>This gets to something I've been mulling over, which is a difference in
>defining good writing.  Mervyn generally lauds precision, whereas others
>(myself included) emphasize clarity and/or richness of imagery and/or other
>ways of anticipating the needs of one's intended audience (none of which, by
>the way, need imply "simplicity").  The two judgments aren't necessarily
>related -- writing may be precise without being "good" in the second sense,
>and writing can be wonderful yet nevertheless imprecise.  I for one think
>the later Bhaskar's writing may generally be precise (though there are some
>dubious passages), but in most other respects it's dreadful.  Even as simple
>a tactic as breaking up sentences, or merely breaking up the paragraphs,
>would help the reader enormously -- with probably a net increase rather than
>loss of meaning.
>
>Orwell is right that lousy language messes with our ability to think.  It's
>a key point of "Politics and the English Language," and of *1984*.  We *do*
>have a responsibility to our audience.  And I don't think saying that Hegel
>and Adorno are as bad or worse is any commendation, or that being brilliant
>gives anyone an ethical freebie.  We may choose to overlook the problem
>because of mitigating or compensating aspects, but that does not actually
>resolve the theory/practice inconsistency.
>
>By the way, responsibility to the audience connects to Radha's argument
>about acknowledging traditions: the practice of citation long preceeds
>capitalism and any notion of intellectual property, not to speak of the
>still younger idea of idea theft.  It is very much a way of situating
>oneself within (or in relation to) one or more traditions to which the
>writer and some part of her audience belongs.
>
>Thanks,
>
>T.
>
>---
>Tobin Nellhaus
>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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


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