The Obscurer

George Orwell gets quoted so much nowadays that I wouldn’t be surprised if something from “Homage to Catalonia” has been used as a reading at a wedding. And why not? He is, in my opinion, one of the finest English writers and thinkers of all time. This is one Blair whom everyone loves. One of the things I like about him is the way he publicly changed his mind on matters, and his writings could sometimes be contradictory; in other words he was a very human writer.

What everyone seems to agree on is that he was a great visionary. His works, in particularly “1984“, describe a future world which daily seems to be unfolding in front of us. But I am not sure how accurate this is. Orwell did show a nightmarish vision of a totalitarian society in “1984”, but I feel this should be seen in context. Orwell was born in 1903, still twenty-five years before full and equal universal suffrage for men and women was realised. He was educated first at St. Cyprians, a brutal regime he described in “Such, such were the joys”.

He grew up in a world where the British Empire was at its height, and he played his part in administering justice in the colonies as a police officer in Burma from 1922 until 1927. When he returned to England he saw National Socialism, Fascism and Communism rise to power across Europe, then witnessed the Second World War and a National government in the UK.

This was the background to Orwell’s life, when he wrote “1984”, after Kafka’s “The Trial”, Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon”. Totalitarianism was not a terrifying fiction but was very much a part of his world, and “1984” was to some extent not so much a prophesy as just 1948 given a tweak.

What would Orwell think if he were able to see the world in 2004? Would he be shocked, and agree with everyone who invokes his name on such matters as CCTV cameras and Political Correctness, and rail that his predictions of Big Brother and the Thought Police were coming true? Or would he not instead marvel at just how much the world has changed since 1950; at the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the huge increase in democracy across Eastern Europe and South America? Of course the world is not perfect; there are still far too many despotic regimes, and a few unconvincing democracies, and there is of course still the small matter of terrorism – there is still much to do (oh no, now I am sounding like the other Blair!) – but would Orwell not be interested in the important issues like the human right to freedom of expression across the world, rather than the human right to go 40 mph in a built up area without a GATSO catching you.

Of course, I don’t know what Orwell would think, but that doesn’t stop everyone else from having a go. Another great English writer, William Shakepeare, wrote in “The Merchant of Venice” that “the Devil can cite scriptures for his purpose”, and I cannot help thinking that, should he not find what he was looking for in the Bible, old Satan would use something Orwell has written to suit his needs.

For Orwell is quoted by such diverse writers as George Monbiot when talking about globalisation, and referred to by Melanie Phillips to attack the bill on inciting racial hatred. Peter Hitchens uses him in his lament to a lost Britain, while Christopher Hitchens sometimes appears to think that he is George Orwell, or at least his heir. Michael Moore in his film Fahrenheit 9/11 compares Bush’s War on terror to Orwell’s theory of a perpetual war, while the website Moorewatch quotes Orwell to attack Moore’s film “Bowling for Columbine“. Perhaps they are all right.

Quoting Orwell has become a way to give instant kudos to your argument. Anyone can do it, and it doesn’t really matter if it is an appropriate quote or not. It says I am on the side of Orwell, light and freedom; those who disagree with you, and who you criticise, be it George Bush, Michael Moore, the Government, the EU, or whatever, are therefore on the side of darkness and totalitarianism. Ironically, his words on freedom are often used to try and gain the moral high ground and can be used to silence debate.

This is not meant as an attack on Orwell, rather to express concern at the way his name is bandied about. If he is used to defend everything, then eventually his writings will mean nothing. “1984” is a fine novel, and Orwell’s warnings about totalitarian rule should of course be taken seriously; alongside the writing of others and the teaching from history they are a constant reminder of where society can go, and where it should not go. We should never be complacent about sleepwalking into totalitarianism and there is still much to learn from Orwell’s writings; but not necessarily from those who quote him.

Do you ever watch “The Daily Politics” on BBC2? You probably don’t. It’s on every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday around midday, and so is mainly the preserve of shift-workers, the workshy, and those people at home looking after their 15 month old son.

I am lucky enough to belong to all 3 groups! As a result I regularly watch the programme. Believe me it is a welcome relief from wondering whether or not they have changed the actress who does Bella’s voice on the Tweenies, or the “will they/won’t they” antics of Miss Hooley and PC Plum on Balamory!

Anyway, the other week the presenter Andrew Neil was talking to the former BBC political commentator John Cole. The subject was Shirley Williams, and they were talking about her legacy now that she has stepped down as Liberal Democrat’s leader in the Lords. They covered the obvious aspects of her being one of the first prominent female MP’s, her leaving the Labour Party to form the SDP, and then her part in merging the SDP with the Liberal Party. But eventually they covered her role as Education secretary in the Wilson Labour Government, and the closure of many Grammar Schools on her watch. Andrew Neil mentioned the fact that Northern Ireland had been spared this policy, and still had many excellent Grammar schools. “Yes,” said John Cole, and although I am paraphrasing wildly, he then stated “but we still have a lot of very poor Secondary Moderns we really need to work on.”

What is remarkable about that statement is that it is the only occasion in recent years that I can remember Secondary Moderns even being mentioned in the debate on Grammar Schools. It is almost as if they don’t exist. Perhaps the proponents of the Grammar system are ashamed of them, as if they were a rather embarrassing Aunt. But if you have the grammar school system then you must have secondary moderns; or something like them with a different name.

I attended a Comprehensive school, and I don’t have any complaints. I got my O levels (showing my age there), I got my A levels, I scraped a 2:2 in Economics at Bradford University, and they don’t just give them away, you know. I even got a Post-graduate Diploma in Marketing, although I am sure that is because my exam paper got mixed up with one belonging to someone who knew what they were talking about. So I think my Comprehensive education did me alright, and I suppose as a result I feel some loyalty to the system. Could I have achieved more if I had been educated in a Grammar school. Possibly; we will never know. But what if I had failed my 11-plus? What then. Just taking the, admittedly, narrow field of academic success, how would I have fared? Would my sights have been set on attending university at all? Would I have even sat my O levels, marked out instead for CSEs and vocational qualifications?

I am not closed to the possibility that there is an alternative. I certainly don’t discount the fact that there is a role for setting and streaming within Comprehesives; the Grammar school versus Comprehensive argument often gets confused with the argument for or against mixed-ability schooling, but it shouldn’t. The problem is that whenever the issue is discussed, Grammar school supporters talk of the greater success rates at Grammar school, which is probably not surprising if they have a greater proportion of the more intelligent pupils in the first place. But what happens to the pupils in those areas who fail to get into Grammar schools? Do they similarly do better than they would do under a Comprehensive system. I don’t know, because they never get mentioned. Where are the glowing descriptions of Secondary Modern successes, to complement the Grammar school tales?

Perhaps if I analysed all the figures comparing Comprehesives, Grammar schools and Secondary Moderns, I would find the grammar system is better, although let’s face it, if I were given the figures, I probably wouldn’t understand them. And perhaps there is an argument for splitting people into Grammar schools and Secondary Moderns, so each group of pupils can get an education tailored to their ability range; except historically the Secondary Moderns were the dumping grounds, the sink schools, the schools for the forgotten. Why would that be different now? Where would the better Teachers prefer to teach?

Those who support the grammar system I am sure deeply believe it is better, and they may be right. But until they start talking about what happens to those who fail the 11-plus, I will stay loyal to the Comprehensives.

PostScript: while I am talking about education, (tenuous link alert!) it seems an appropriate time to mention “rooblog“, a website I have been reading recently which appears to be written by a system support worker at a college in Salford. I am not usually a fan of personal type blogs – there is only so much I can read about a sophomore’s love life, and how she has just flunked a whole semester of math – but this is great. Funny, quirky, off-beat and very well written; if you love “Walking Like Giant Cranes” you will love this.