Notes on Nationalism by George Orwell.

Notes on Nationalism is my final George Orwell essay of the year. It was first published in Polemic in October 1945, and despite being published over 70 years ago it is, in parts, disturbingly relevant. It begins,
Somewhere or other Byron makes use of the French word longeur, and remarks in passing that though in England we happen not to have the word, we have the thing in considerable profusion. In the same way, there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty.
It's interesting: anyone who reads or watches the news has heard the word "nationalism". We (most of us) know it conjures up images of Hitler's Nazis or Mussolini's Fascists, that it is alarming and, well, not a good thing. It involves what I can only describe as an excessive and harmful patriotism to the extent that, in Britain, one would be cautious of describing oneself as a patriot or hanging the British flag as it has been commandeered by some rather ugly movements. But what precisely is it? Orwell continues:
By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
Orwell then again notes that he uses the term "Nationalism" for want of a better word, and reinforces his argument that it is not necessarily confined to one's country, as we saw in the Second World War in Nazism and Fascism:
Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. 
The rest of the essay, having attempted to define 'nationalism' is, as the title suggests, a series of notes on the matter. The first and perhaps more obvious is the link of nationalism with megalomania:
Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also — since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself — unshakeably certain of being in the right.
Another key point is that Orwell focuses on the 'intelligentsia' as opposed to the 'masses' who are usually, at least today, targeted in these discussions. He then outlines "principal characteristics of nationalist thought":
  1. Obsession: "As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort..." 
  2. Instability: "The intensity with which they are held does not prevent nationalist loyalties from being transferable. To begin with, as I have pointed out already, they can be and often are fastened up on some foreign country. One quite commonly finds that great national leaders, or the founders of nationalist movements, do not even belong to the country they have glorified. Sometimes they are outright foreigners, or more often they come from peripheral areas where nationality is doubtful..." 
  3. Indifference to reality: "All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side...." 
Next Orwell writes on "Positive Nationalism" (note the word "positive" does not mean that Orwell approves of it", giving three examples:
  1. Neo-Toryism: "The real motive force of neo-Toryism, giving it its nationalistic character and differentiating it from ordinary Conservatism, is the desire not to recognise that British power and influence have declined..."
  2. Celtic Nationalism: "Welsh, Irish and Scottish nationalism have points of difference but are alike in their anti-English orientation..."
  3. Zionism: "This the unusual characteristics of a nationalist movement, but the American variant of it seems to be more violent and malignant than the British. I classify it under Direct and not Transferred nationalism because it flourishes almost exclusively among the Jews themselves. In England, for several rather incongruous reasons, the intelligentsia are mostly pro-Jew on the Palestine issue, but they do not feel strongly about it. All English people of goodwill are also pro-Jew in the sense of disapproving of Nazi persecution. But any actual nationalistic loyalty, or belief in the innate superiority of Jews, is hardly to be found among Gentiles...."
Next, "Transferred Nationalism" in which feelings for 'the other' are transferred into being viewed as more positive than their own (there are five examples including Communism, political Catholicism, race, class, and pacifism). Finally, "Negative Nationalism", in which Orwell gives three examples: Anglophobia, Anti-Semitism, and Trotskyism.

From here Orwell discusses the limitations of his essay:
In the classification I have attempted above, it will seem that I have often exaggerated, oversimplified, made unwarranted assumptions and have left out of account the existence of ordinarily decent motives. This was inevitable, because in this essay I am trying to isolate and identify tendencies which exist in all our minds and pervert our thinking, without necessarily occurring in a pure state or operating continuously. It is important at this point to correct the over-simplified picture which I have been obliged to make. To begin with, one has no right to assume that everyone, or even every intellectual, is infected by nationalism. Secondly, nationalism can be intermittent and limited. An intelligent man may half-succumb to a belief which he knows to be absurd, and he may keep it out of his mind for long periods, only reverting to it in moments of anger or sentimentality, or when he is certain that no important issues are involved. Thirdly, a nationalistic creed may be adopted in good faith from non-nationalistic motives. Fourthly, several kinds of nationalism, even kinds that cancel out, can co-exist in the same person.
As for the rise of nationalism, Orwell does not really attempt to get into it, saying it is "far too big a question to be raised here." He then concludes,
It is enough to say that, in the forms in which it appears among English intellectuals, it is a distorted reflection of the frightful battles actually happening in the external world, and that its worst follies have been made possible by the breakdown of patriotism and religious belief. If one follows up this train of thought, one is in danger of being led into a species of Conservatism, or into political quietism. It can be plausibly argued, for instance — it is even possibly true — that patriotism is an inoculation against nationalism, that monarchy is a guard against dictatorship, and that organised religion is a guard against superstition. Or again, it can be argued that no unbiased outlook is possible, that all creeds and causes involve the same lies, follies, and barbarities; and this is often advanced as a reason for keeping out of politics altogether. I do not accept this argument, if only because in the modern world no one describable as an intellectual can keep out of politics in the sense of not caring about them. I think one must engage in politics — using the word in a wide sense — and that one must have preferences: that is, one must recognise that some causes are objectively better than others, even if they are advanced by equally bad means. As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one's own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias. If you hate and fear Russia, if you are jealous of the wealth and power of America, if you despise Jews, if you have a sentiment of inferiority towards the British ruling class, you cannot get rid of those feelings simply by taking thought. But you can at least recognise that you have them, and prevent them from contaminating your mental processes. The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality. But this, I repeat, needs a moral effort, and contemporary English literature, so far as it is alive at all to the major issues of our time, shows how few of us are prepared to make it.
It's an interesting bit of writing: I'm hesitant really to call it an essay, these truly were notes and felt like notes, as well as being very dense and not so easy to read. I can't say I agreed with all of it, but there were some interesting points to keep in mind. The essay can be read in full here.

And that was my 51st title for this year's Deal Me In Challenge. The next post can therefore only be The Tragedy of Tragedies by Henry Fielding.


  1. "Acceptance of reality..." got my attention... Orwell does a good job of summarizing one of the major characteristics of humans: adherence to mass movements... and he's probably correct in saying that regardless of philosophical leanings, a person should actively counteract evil... but, imo, there are over six billion universes living on the planet, and total chaos seems to be the main tendency most of the time... interesting post; tx...

    1. I agree about chaos. The more we know, the madder it all seems.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Getting up on Cold Mornings by James Henry Leigh Hunt.

The Prevention of Literature by George Orwell.

Moments of Being: Slater's Pins Have No Points by Virginia Woolf.