Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:57:15 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: In defence of a realist Orwell


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 ---