George Orwell–born in 1904 and author of such famous books as 1984 and Animal Farm–despite being an imperial workhorse in Burma for some years still remained fairly clear-headed. His book Why I Write makes some surprisingly accurate predications on the future stance of British government and social policy. I was struck by how accurate when I read a little blurb in The Wallstreet Journal this morning about an Oxford University study which found that there is no longer a ‘culture elite’. That is to say that they found that most people, in the UK and a few other countries, consume only popular culture regardless of social status. However, they did find that based on people’s education, some still had more omnivorous cultural tastes and might actually go to an opera every once in awhile. Of course, some people do go to operas to make themselves feel cultured, and then go home quickly to catch the last Survivor episode. Orwell observed this cultural normalization earlier in the 20th century, “To an increasing extent the rich and the poor read the same books, and they also see the same films and listen to the same radio programmes.” (p. 43) Orwell described this cultural change as a natural byproduct of capitalism and democracy. Of course, he did not look at this capitalism as necessarily good. In fact, he describes capitalism as a weak system, too weak to combat the totalitarianism of communism and Hitler. Even as he wrote certain passages in his book he complained of the bombs from the Luftwaffe. The beating of Hitler was of tantamount importance in this book, written at a time when the winning of the war was very far from certain. Orwell feels that Britain must inevitably progress to a different level of politics if the war is to be won and fascism vanquished. He ridicules both leftists and rich capitalists, while advocating for a sort of hybrid between socialism and capitalism.
Orwell’s future England: “It will not be doctrinaire, nor even logical. It will abolish the House of Lords, but quite probably will not abolish the Monarchy. It will leave anachronisms and loose ends everywhere, the judge in his ridiculous horse-hair wig and the lion and the unicorn on the soldier’s cap-buttons. It will not set up any explicit class dictatorship. It will group itself round the Old Labour Party and its mass following will be in the trade unions, but it will draw into it most of the middle class and many of the younger sons of the bourgeoisie. Most of its directing brains will come from the new indeterminate class of skilled workers, technical experts, airmen, scientists, architects and journalists, the people who feel at home in the radio and ferro-concrete age. But it will never lose touch with the tradition of compromise and the belief in a law that is above the State. It will shoot traitors, but it will give them a solemn trial beforehand and occasionally it will acquit them. It will crush any open revolt promptly and cruelly, but it will interfere very little with the spoken and written word. Political parties with different names will still exist, revolutionary sects will still be publishing their newspapers and making as little impression as ever. It will disestablish the Church, but will not persecute religion. It will retain a vague reverence for the Christian moral code, and from time to time will refer to England as ‘a Christian country’…It will show a power of assimilating the past which will shock foreign observers and sometimes make them doubt whether any revolution has happened.” (p. 83-84)
When I read this passage I was struck by what an accurate prediction of modern England this really is. Orwell also points out that if WWII did not break Britain in the end it would be the catalyst for this revolution-less revolution. He aptly points out that “war is the greatest of all agents of change.” (p.71)
It makes me wonder who Orwell really was. Who were his friends? What sort of information was he privy to? Maybe I’m over-suspicious. After all, he did work in British administration, albeit in lowly positions, any thinking person could have seen the trends in political and social thinking. The tendencies and qualities of bureaucrats speak mountains about the system they work for.
Which, additionally, makes me wonder about America and what it will be like after the next war–which we are at the beginning of–is over. North American Union? New currency? Of course, we don’t have the same traditional cultural ideals that Britain had. Americans have always been more open to change and the only cultural trait that Americans have in common is the pursuit of money. Somehow I don’t think this bodes well for the future revolution-less revolution of the U.S.A.
