Notes On Nationalism
What is it about in 3 Sentences
This is an essay written during the final stages of World War II, wherein George Orwell discusses a particular notion of Nationalism that is so destructive that he calls it a disease of mind wherein people disregard common sense & fall into the traps of bias, hatred & dishonesty. Though it was written decades ago in the midst of changing political situation in Europe, the arguments he raised are still relevant in our era.
Who’s it for?
- A good read for a Political Reader.
- For the common public to get a deep insight to how bias, prejudice & hatred develops in society.
- For all Intelligentsias.
My Top 3 Quotes
Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakably certain of being in the right.
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.
In societies such as ours, it is unusual for anyone describable as an intellectual to feel a very deep attachment to his own country.
Summary + Reflections
This essay was written in 1945, in which George Orwell identifies a negative habit of mind, that has been so widespread among the English intelligentsia that it has really affected their thinking on every subject. He calls it “Nationalism”, though he admits that he chose this word as the nearest equivalent- for a lack of better. Though it was written a few decades ago, its message is still relevant now & is a timely reminder of the dangers of this self-deluded thinking.
His definition of Nationalism.
Orwell in his essay goes deeply to clarify the notion of “nationalism” that he is concerned with by clearly dissecting what he actually meant & what he didn’t. Surprisingly, it’s not about attachment to one’s country. Instead, he says nationalism is:
- 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 labeled ‘good’ or ‘bad’
- The habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or another unit, placing it beyond good and evil, and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.
He distinguishes patriotism from nationalism, he writes that patriots are devoted to their way of life & believe it to be the best in the world, but does not wish to force it upon other people. In contrast, a nationalist thought is inseparable from a 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.
By Nationalism, in the broad sense, he sites examples of movements and tendencies such as the likes of Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism, and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country or movements like Jewry, Islam, Christendom, or the Proletariat.
Principle Characteristics of Nationalist Thought:
Obsession: Nationalists are engulfed in a superior feeling of their own unit. He is over-sensitive, he can neither handle any smallest slur upon his own unit, nor any implied praise of a rival organization- it fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort. A nationalist would consider it a duty to spread their own language to the detriment of rival languages – for eg: Anglophobe American, who refuses to use a slang phrase if it has a British origin.
Instability: Orwell reasons that nationalism can be irrational & unstable in its nature as it can become ironic in various ways. Many of the leaders revered by nationalist factions are outright foreigners, who do not even belong to the country that they have glorified. For Example, Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, de Valera, Disraeli, Poincaré, and Beaverbrook. As you see Stalin was a Georgian and Hitler was an Austrian but both were respectively idolized in Russia and Germany.
Also, nationalist loyalty isn’t fixed, it’s transferrable, meaning a country or other unit which has been worshipped for years may suddenly become detestable, and some other object of affection may take its place with almost no interval. Orwell argues that Transferred Nationalism has been a common phenomenon among literary intellectuals, in his essay sites various examples of this inconsistency.
Transferred nationalism, like the use of scapegoats, is a way of attaining salvation without altering one’s conduct.
Indifference to reality: Nationalists have this incredible ability to “the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts”. For Eg; A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. This state of hypocrisy is a result of an inconsistent pattern of thinking developed by a nationalist.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
Types of Nationalism
Orwell’s essay then proceeds to categorize Nationalism into three types, which are as follows.
Positive Nationalism: Under this category, Orwell discusses the movements like Neo-Toryism, Zionism & Celtic Nationalism. The peculiarity of this group is that they focus on boosting the superiority of their group over the other.
Negative Nationalism: Examples of Negative Nationalism include movements like Anglophobia, Anti-Semitism & Trotskyism wherein the whole movement is centered around denigrating a particular group. In the modern context, Islamophobia falls under this category.
Transferred Nationalism: This includes Communism, Political Catholicism, pacifism, class feeling & color feeling, wherein Nationalists identify a scapegoat & start putting the blame on them without changing one’s conduct.
Conclusion
The gist of Orwell’s concern can be deeply sensed in the following passage written in his diary. He calls for moral effort & intellectual awakening to combat this issue.
We are all drowning in filth. When I talk to anyone or read the writings of anyone who has any axe to grind, I feel that intellectual honesty and balanced judgment have simply disappeared from the face of the earth. Everyone’s thought is forensic, everyone is simply putting [forward] a “case” with deliberate suppression of his opponent’s point of view, and, what is more, with complete insensitiveness to any sufferings except those of himself and his friends. . . One notices this in the case of people one disagrees with, such as Fascists or pacifists, but in fact everyone is the same, at least everyone who has definite opinions. Everyone is dishonest, and everyone is utterly heartless toward people who are outside the immediate range of his own interests and sympathies. What is most striking of all is the way sympathy can be turned on or off like a tap according to political expediency. . . . I am not thinking of lying for political ends, but of actual changes in subjective feeling. But is there no one who has both firm opinions and a balanced outlook? Actually there are plenty, but they are powerless. All power is in the hands of paranoiacs.
More Book Notes
The Art Of Creative Thinking by John Adler
Delegating Work
Atomic Habits by James Clear
For other book notes, click here