George Orwell, author and political commentator, discusses the English resistance to fascism and the distinctive characteristics of English nationalism. He analyzes the presence and perception of the army in England, makes predictions and assumptions about the post-war era, and reflects on English politics, double standards, and hypocrisy.
Orwell highlights the English version of nationalism, characterized by naval power projection and a lack of respect for armed force, as a unique trait that prevents the country from succumbing to fascism.
Orwell argues that while hypocrisy and double standards may save England from the worst outcomes, a shift towards democratic socialism, with a focus on meritocracy and centralized organization, is necessary to effectively address the deficiencies of English society and win against determined enemies like fascism.
Deep dives
The Hypocrisy of English Nationalism
Orwell explores the unique characteristics of English nationalism. He argues that the English version of nationalism is more modest and inward, unlike German or Italian nationalism. The English are described as naval people, projecting their power through their navy rather than an army. This leads to a distinct lack of respect for armed force and an indifference towards the empire. Orwell believes that English public life is marked by double standards and hypocrisy, which he sees as a saving grace that prevents the country from succumbing to fascism.
The Need for a Shift Towards Socialism
Orwell argues that hypocrisy can only prevent the worst outcomes but cannot win a war against determined enemies like fascism. He asserts that the English ruling class lacks the competency required to win such a war. Orwell believes that a shift towards socialism is necessary, with meritocracy and centralized organization becoming essential. He emphasizes the importance of bringing intellectuals back into the fold of patriotism and reconciling patriotism with intelligence. For Orwell, democratic socialism is the only way to effectively win the war and address the deficiencies of English society.
The Gap Between Orwell's Vision and Reality
Orwell's predictions and hopes for England's future did not fully come to pass. While the Atlee government made some socialist reforms and the class structure experienced some changes, the institutions of the House of Lords and public schools remained intact. Orwell's assumption that hypocrisy and double standards would be replaced by a more coherent form of democratic socialism did not materialize. The Humbug nature of English politics and the continuity of certain class structures continued after the war. Orwell's vision of a socialist state and a complete break from past structures did not fully materialize in post-war England.
The English National Identity
Orwell both reveres and despises the characteristics of the English identity. He recognizes the magical and unique aspects of being English, but he is also critical of the hypocrisy and double standards present in English public life. Orwell sees himself as embodying the double standards and hypocrisy that he describes. He believes that while English nationalism has its flaws, there are worse alternatives, such as the blatant and oppressive lies of fascism or Stalinism. Despite the shortcomings, Orwell sees the English national identity as distinct and recognizable through the continuity and change of the country's history.
Episode 5 in our series on the great essays is about George Orwell. His wartime essay ‘The Lion and the Unicorn’ (1941) is about what it does – and doesn’t – mean to be English. How did the English manage to resist fascism? How are the English going to defeat fascism? These were two different questions with two very different answers: hypocrisy and socialism. David takes the story from there to Brexit and back again.
‘He was not, in fact, really a political thinker at all: he had no ideology, he proposed no plan of political action, and he was never able to relate himself comfortably to any political party.’
‘If George Orwell had died in 1939 he would be recorded in literary histories of the period as an interesting maverick who wrote some not very successful novels.’
‘Orwell detested those, mostly on the left, who theorised about situations without having experienced them, a common empiricist prejudice. There is no need to have your legs chopped off to sympathise with the legless.’