I’m currently reading through George Packer’s wonderful two volume edited collection of George Orwell essays (“Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays” and “All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays”). With all due respect to the erudite defaming of George Orwell in the pages of NYRB, I love the guy. I love his lucid writing. I love his courage in criticizing what he sees as wrong. I love his methodology of putting himself in the middle of things. I love his sentimentality about hearths and his homeland. Earlier this week, I read his well-known, WWII-era essay, “England Your England,” and regard it as among his very best. I believe so much of it speaks to our current state of affairs that I’d like bring some of its key points up to date. Rather than writing a full essay (which would inevitably pale in comparison), I’d like to do a little series pulling out some points of interest. This will be the first.
Orwell begins with the claim that culture differences between nations are big and meaningful: “Till recently it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings are very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behaviour differs enormously from country to country … Things that could happen in one country could not happen in another. Hitler’s June purge, for instance, could not have happened in England.”
This sort of claim remains controversial today. Browning’s Ordinary Men argued that the Holocaust wasn’t based on intrinsic characteristics of the German people, while Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners countered with just the opposite claim. Today, we often hear much about the immutable cultural differences between Americans and Europeans (“Americans live to work, European work to live”). Advocates of a single payer system of health care have repeatedly been told that such a system would never be accepted in the United States. Tom Friedman wrote just this Sunday about how a $1 gas tax should be, but is not up for debate in the U.S. (despite sky-high gas taxes in European countries). The mandatory religious rhetoric in any American political speech (e.g., “God Bless America”) would be the cause of scandal in Europe.
While such limitations on political speech and manner of living are profound burdens, Orwell also claims that being a member of a national culture is, ultimately, meaningful to each of us. “And above all, it is your civilization, it is you. However much you hate it or laugh at it, you will never be happy away from it for any length of time … Good or evil, it is yours, you belong to it, and this side the grave you will never get away from the marks that it has given you.”
Though we might threaten to leave (if Bush is elected in 2004) and though the vile racism and hatred and ugly nationalism at town halls and “tea party” events might disgust us, America will always feel like a home to those of us who were raised here. We breathe easier in the air we’re accustomed to. Talking loudly while eating a slice of pizza and walking down a city block, the choice of sixteen varieties of mustard in the grocery store, and the simple pleasure of a gas-guzzling muscle car and an open road are, for better or for worse, things that feel like home.
“Yes,” says Orwell, “there is something distinctive and recognizable in English civilization. It is a culture as individual as that of Spain. It is somehow bound up with solid breakfasts and gloomy Sundays, smoky towns and winding roads, green fields and red pillar-boxes. It has a flavour of its own.”
In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell writes about the continuing legacy of the rice paddy for Asian cultures, the “culture of honor” in the American South, and the significance of hierarchy in Korean society. To be sure, our nations and our cultures constrain our behavior and even our ways of thinking. But perhaps perversely, the very culture that limits us also comforts us.
Comments 5
rkatclu — September 22, 2009
While such limitations on political speech and manner of living are profound burdens, Orwell also claims that being a member of a national culture is, ultimately, meaningful to each of us. “And above all, it is your civilization, it is you. However much you hate it or laugh at it, you will never be happy away from it for any length of time … Good or evil, it is yours, you belong to it, and this side the grave you will never get away from the marks that it has given you.”
Reminds me a bit of Derrida's deconstructionism (though in a cultural rather than literary context): relation and conflict intertwined. Being a member of a culture is meaningful precisely because we have developed in relation to the shared elements which constitute the culture. These interrelated elements create conflict in that they are simultaneously the source of those aspects we find attractive and repulsive. In both cases we are affected all the more strongly because culture (as Orwell points out) is fundamental to our identity. Though our identities share common elements, we of course have different perspectives which further exacerbates (and underscores) both the relational and perspectivistic nature of attraction and repulsion.
E.g.,
low taxes (upside); limited government action/programs (downside)
freedom (upside); lack of responsibility/moderation (downside)
etc.
Kenneth M. Kambara — September 22, 2009
@Andrew:: Thanks for posting this & I look forward to future installments. Just before I left Toronto for ASA, I was reading a New Yorker review on new volumes of Orwell essays. This stuck with me::
My girlfriend & I just had a discussion on the idea of Americanism. Every so often, as a Canadian, she bristles at American culture, particularly when what gets manifested is an exceptionalism of sorts by individuals and/or the media. Nevertheless, while being a card-carrying member of Team Baudelaire:: World Flâneur {heh}, there still is something to the concept of the United States of America, with its regionalisms and geographic vastness, in my mind.
@rk@clu:: Have you ever read Derrida's stuff on forgiveness? This struck me, as he talked about that thorny micro/macro interplay area between society/culture and the individual, including the identity and behavioral actions. He gave talks at UC-Irvine on it where he detailed the "impossibility" of forgiveness and related it to apologies based on prior actions of a nation, i.e., Germany under the 3rd. Reich. Questions of who has authority to give and accept forgiveness, let alone the different "sins" under different regimes, e.g., Weimar or over in occupied France during WW2, Vichy. While "forgiveness" may have an impossibility, it's interesting {at least to me} how identity shapes attraction/repulsion in complex ways, which would be a good springboard for Deleuze...another time.
rkatclu — September 22, 2009
@Kenneth M. Kambara
I have not. They sound intriguing. I did watch a video of one of his talks at UCI.
I did read book last year by law professor Kenneth Vandevelde which applies a deconstructionist analysis to norms, values, and conflicting policies in the context of legal theory.
andrew m. lindner — September 24, 2009
Update: I've been told by a colleague in the Dept. of History that the book by Goldhagen, a political scientist, is widely disputed (even concerned disreputable) by most historians.
jose — October 6, 2009
Andrew...great stuff! I'm wrestling with some of these questions in my own work. The blog name is based on Michael Waltzer's argument that local culture is relevant because it is where we play out abstract principles of behavior (tolerance, fairness, human dignity, etc).
I'm an Orwell fan too...there's something refreshing about clarity!