Orwell, Burnham and International Relations
Brock
of Burnham in both "James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution"
(published May 1946) and "Burnham's View of the Contemporary World
Struggle" (published late March 1947) is that they are both much more
optimistic than the picture presented in 1984. Both are strong
critique's of Burnham's views, and yet it appears fairly clear that
Burnham makes a strong appearance in 1984. So for example, in 1984,
Orwell's summary of The Managerial Revolution is very distinctly
present -
"The new 'managerial' societies will not consist of a patchwork of
small, independent states, but of great super-states grouped round the
main industrial centres in Europe, Asia, and America. These
super-states will fight among themselves for possession of the
remaining uncaptured portions of the earth, but will probably be
unable to conquer one another completely. Internally, each society
will be hierarchical, with an aristocracy of talent at the top and a
mass of semi-slaves at the bottom." (cejl, vol 4 161)
However, Orwell goes on to criticize Burnham for false predictions and
these sorts of things, and saying "fortunately the 'managers' are not
so invincible as Burnham believes" (179), criticizes Burnham, somewhat
correctly, though not fully enough, I should think, for his 'realism'
(181), and criticizes Burnham's apparent notion that "anything can
become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it"
because "It ignores the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be
observed if human society is to hold together at all." (180)
So clearly, Orwell has significant optimism here, an optimism some
might suggest is not apparent in 1984.
(Interesting is Orwell's somewhat different suggestion, it seems in
his essay on the atom bomb where he suggests "For Burnham's
geographical picture of the new world has turned out to be
correct..."(cejl vol 4 8-9))
There is also a discussion of Britain's very problematic global
position in the essays which I think is interesting. This problem is
perhaps more clearly outlined in Orwell's later essay.
Orwell indicates that he has
"...several times overheard or taken part in conversations something
like this:
'How I hate the Americans! Sometimes they make me feel almost
pro-Russian.'
'Yes, but they're not actually our enemies. They helped us in 1940,
when the Russians were selling oil to the Germans...in the end we may
have to choose between knuckling under to Russia or going in with
America.'
'I refuse to choose. They're just a pair of gangsters.'
'Yes, but supposing you had to choose....Which would you choose,
Russia or America?'
'Oh, well, of course, if one had to choose, there's no question about
it - America.'(cejl vol 4 323)
Orwell goes on to say "[Britain has] been almost a dependency of the
United States ever since 1940, and our desperate economic plight
drives us in this direction all the faster. ... The mass of the
British people would never accept this [integration with Soviet
Russia], but the thinking ones among them do not regard the probable
alternative - absorption by America - with enthusiasm." (323)
Orwell continues to criticize Burnham. However, 1984 appears to
reflect more of Burnham's views than it does of Orwell's optimism.
Also interesting is Orwell's citation of Burnham as indicating the
growth of American empire (eg. 322), and also a curious indication of
American attitudes -
"Whatever happens, the United States will survive as a great power,
and from the American point of view it does not make much difference
whether Europe is dominated by Russia or by Germany. Most Americans
who think of the matter at all would prefer to see the world divided
between two or three monster states which had reached their natural
boundaries and could bargain with one another on economic issues
without being troubled by ideological differences."
Orwell then cites a 1945 poll indicating that American troops, after 5
years of anti-Hitler propaganda, still thought Hitler had done much
good before 1939, and suggesting the same attitude would not have been
felt toward Britain.(cejl vol 4 175-176)
These also are very interesting observations, I would suggest, and
these ideas appear also to make their way into 1984.
So, I have a few questions about this -
- why is Orwell's view so much more pessimistic, apparently, in 1984?
Is it simply that he wishes to paint a bad picture in order to warn
people about trends that he himself thinks can be avoided?
- historically, how accurate is Orwell's indication that Britain was
becoming a client state of (or even stronger perhaps, 'absorption'
into) America?
- historically, how accurate are Orwell's observations about American
attitudes towards other powers, such as Soviet Russia, and Hitler? ie
to what extent, keeping in mind, perhaps, that this was before the
launching of the Marshall Plan (and after, suggestions - as early as
October 1945 - of the commencement of a 'cold war'(cejl vol 4 9)),
were Americans not terribly committed to the promotion of liberal
democracy in the post-war world?
- how should Orwell's observations be seen, and perhaps 1984 also, in
light of Orwell's essay on European Unity, where he suggests in
July-August 1947 that "a Socialist United States of Europe" is "the
only worth-while political objective today" (cejl vol 4 372)?
- how accurate is Burnham's suggestion of the promotion of 'American
empire'? Ie, is America imperialist? Or also of the accuracy of
Orwell's conversation suggesting America is a 'gangster'?
I would very much appreciate some assistance in this regards.
- Brock Trenchard
Alan Allport
news:4b9ea7f8.03061...@posting.google.com...
> So, I have a few questions about this -
Considering how much she's helped you in other threads, don't you think
Martha's not-unreasonable question deserves its own answer before we go any
further?
"As long as we're helping with your research, why don't you tell us what it
is you're working on and why?"
Alan.
Brock
Oh yes, both you and Ms. Bridegam have been ever so helpful. As for
the question, somebody who may be writing something I think should be
provided the courtesy of not disclosing what their project may or may
not be. I believe Orwell, for example, was of this view.
- Brock Trenchard
Alan Allport
> Oh yes, both you and Ms. Bridegam have been ever so helpful. As for
> the question, somebody who may be writing something I think should be
> provided the courtesy of not disclosing what their project may or may
> not be. I believe Orwell, for example, was of this view.
Having read and re-read the above sentence a few times, I'm still not quite
sure what "this view" actually is, let alone if Orwell would have agreed
with it or not. But if you are saying, essentially, Mind Your Own Business,
then I agree that you've every right to do so. It might not be the wisest
position to take if you want your elaborate requests for free research
assistance to be taken seriously by other posters, but that's a somewhat
different issue. Good luck on your mystery project.
Alan.
Brock
> "Brock" <bt...@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:4b9ea7f8.03062...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Oh yes, both you and Ms. Bridegam have been ever so helpful. As for
> > the question, somebody who may be writing something I think should be
> > provided the courtesy of not disclosing what their project may or may
> > not be. I believe Orwell, for example, was of this view.
>
> Having read and re-read the above sentence a few times, I'm still not quite
> sure what "this view" actually is, let alone if Orwell would have agreed
> with it or not.
I gather what I mean by 'this view' is that Orwell did not discuss his
works in progress with many people - if any people, so far as I
gather. I gather he fel there were certain issues of privacy involved.
Does that amount to 'mind your own business'? I don't know.
But if you are saying, essentially, Mind Your Own Business,
> then I agree that you've every right to do so. It might not be the wisest
> position to take if you want your elaborate requests for free research
> assistance to be taken seriously by other posters, but that's a somewhat
> different issue. Good luck on your mystery project.
>
> Alan.
Hey, I'm not an Orwell expert, but the questions I have raised I
consider interesting Orwell questions. I would think most Orwell
observers would agree. So my thinking is, if people interested in
discussing Orwell want to discuss those questions, I think those would
be interesting topics. If you say I have to disclose what I'm writing
about - if indeed, I'm writing about anything other than the issues
simply raised - in order for you to be involved in a discussion of
those issues, well, I suppose that is your prerogative, and others, if
that is how they feel, as well - but I personally am not going to pay
much attention to it.
- Brock Trenchard
Jonathan Mason
have a right not to reveal what you are writing about, if you are
writing about something. But if you do ever publish a thesis or
article about this subject, just don't forget to give us credit for
our brilliant thoughts!
Brock
Thanks for the reply. I should think that if I do write something on
such issues, then I would do my very best to give credit and citations
where it is due. I shall presume that the essential principles of
freedom of academic criticism also apply.
- Brock Trenchard