Tristram Hunt is a former
Labour MP and British Historian who is now director of Victoria and Albert
Museum. In 2016 he gave a speech at Winchester University entitled: The Lion
and the Unicorn: Socialism and England in the 21st Century. The speech was a
clumsy attempt to bring George Orwell's original essay into the 21st century.
Orwell's essay was an
extraordinary piece of work in that, among other things called for a social
revolution during the Second World War in England. Suffice to say that Hunt a
right-wing Labourite is not calling for that.
Hunt's speech is a dishonest
attempt to use Orwell's confusing support for patriotism for his right-wing
politics. Some of Orwell's work in this essay is confusing and just wrong, but the
overall thrust of his essay is spot on and far more left-wing than Hunt will
ever be. At no stage in Hunt's essay does he call for a social revolution
against one of the oldest bourgeoise in the world.
Much of Hunt's speech is flippant
and shallow. His speech is a cover for Labour's incredibly right-wing trajectory.
The word socialism in the title of his speech is mostly for show, similar to how
the Nazi's used it in the 1930s in order to confuse the working class. Hunt's real
perspective is the revival of a particularly nasty form of English nationalism
and a thinly disguised one at that. Hunt begins the lecture with
a paean to the good old days of the English "dissenting tradition" of
Watt Tyler, the Peasants revolt and the radicals of the English revolution.
While pretending to be a
radical Hunt is in fact on the right-wing of the Labour Party. As part of the
offensive to shift the party even further to the right he argues that it must "take
English identity and cultural affiliation seriously".
He then says that Labour "needs
a much greater honesty in how we navigate Englishness and politics -
particularly when it comes to questions of immigration". To do this, the
party must not oppose populist English culture, and instead learn to embrace it".
In reality, Hunt's appeal is directed at the most degenerate, parochial and
right-wing in society.
Hunt goes on to attack the working
class for abandoning the Labour Party because "They value home, family,
and their country. They feel their cultural identity is under threat. They
yearn for a sense of belonging and national renewal. Tradition, rules, and
social order are important to them".
To be honest, Hunt's
politics are not dissimilar to that of the Tory party, or for that matter any
number of fascist parties that exist in Britain. Like the fascist's Hunt wraps
himself up in the St George's flag. Paraphrasing the writer Paul Kingsnorth Hunt
believes that there is an analogy "between the spread of St. George's
Cross and the Confederate Flag in the South of the United States. An
unofficial, unspoken act of defiance by a people which says "we are still
here".
He continues "Although
it is not as entrenched as often suggested, there is a reluctance amongst some
in the party to embrace patriotism and promote national pride… An aversion to
the institutions and traditions people hold dear has helped to create the perception that the Labour-party is anti-English and does not share the values
of the nation".
Immigration
Hunt's extreme right-wing comments
regarding immigration would not look out of place with Enoch Powell's Rivers of
Blood Speech. You do not have to share Gordon Brown's politics to agree with his comments that Duffy was a bigot. Hunt says "We
had nothing to say to Mrs Duffy and the millions of voters like her who, first
and foremost, had sincere, legitimate worries about immigration". This is
shocking. Duffy's patriotism should have been treated as Samuel Johnson so beautifully
put it as being "the last refuge of a scoundrel".
As Hunt's praise of Derek
Blunket in an article in the Guardian is just plain bizarre. In the article, he
praises David Blunkett MP as "One of the few politicians brave enough to
confront this dilemma has been David Blunkett. The teaching of citizenship in
schools, the introduction of citizenship ceremonies, and the publication by
Bernard Crick of an official history of Britain have served to return the
emphasis to British values. Meanwhile, Blunkett himself has happily broken with
the left's usual reserve on these matters, speaking of his patriotic ardour for
English music, poetry, drama and humour".
This supposed defence of
English culture is nothing more than an excuse to wrap himself in the union
jack. Does Hunt' really believe that Blunkett's tacky and clumsy appeal to
British nationalism against the 'Muslim Hoards' is progressive? Historically
Hunt is not the only historian to promote the so-called British values of
Justice and fair play, but he does so to empty any class content behind these
slogans. After all these concepts were espoused by a ruling elite that has a
lot of blood rather on its hands and has routinely cloaked their imperialist
adventures in such terms. Finally, on this matter, Hunt's attempt to justify
his defence of British imperialism aims in the garb of the Enlightenment is a somewhat
disgusting spectacle.
George
Orwell
It is hard to know where to
start with Hunt's use of George Orwell as a cover for his right-wing conservative
perspective. To start with, it must be said that Orwell wrote his famous essay
when actual bombs were falling on England; that was hardly the case facing
Hunt.
One
of the significant problems of Hunt's choice of the Lion and the Unicorn is not
only what he says about it but what he does not say. It should be said that
Orwell is wrong and a little confused on the question of patriotism. Orwell
writes "England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are
ashamed of their nationality. In left-wing circles, it is always felt that
there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a
duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet
puddings". This could be seen as an attack on left-wing intellectuals it
also could read as his position as regards patriotism.
However,
this is not the main point and misses the thrust of Orwell's attack on British
capitalism. It must be said that Orwell's analysis would not have looked out of
place with much of the perspective of the British Trotskyists during the Second
World War. Orwell's answer to the war was the call for a social revolution.
Some of his work, although he does not acknowledge it, is heavily influenced by
the great Russian Marxist Leon Trotsky.
Orwell's
essay was not just a knee jerk reaction to the war Orwell had in the words of Gregory
Claeys "before he wrote The Lion and the Unicorn Orwell had briefly
suggested three of its central themes: first, patriotism was not inherently conservative
or reactionary, but might be expressed as a legitimate sentiment among those on
the left; second, patriotism alone would not prevent England's defeat, but
instead the social revolution must progress (and here his Spanish ideals were
clearly carried forward). Third, Orwell argued that in fact, it was those who
were most patriotic who were least likely to "flinch from revolution when
the moment comes." John Cornford, a Communist, killed while serving in the
International Brigades, had been "public school to the core." This
proved, Orwell thought, that one kind of loyalty could transmute itself into
another and that it was necessary for the coming struggle to recognize
"the spiritual need for patriotism and the military virtues"[1].
The
more you read Orwell, the more you see how far politically he was from Hunt. "The
Lion and the Unicorn" is an extraordinary book written at the height of
the war it is a damning indictment 0f the war.
Orwell is crystal clear that
the only way to beat the fascist is for the working class to make the war a
revolutionary one. Orwell writes "It is only by revolution that the native
genius of the English people can be set free. Revolution does not mean red
flags and street fighting; it means a fundamental shift of power. Whether it
happens with or without bloodshed is largely an accident of time and place. Nor
does it mean the dictatorship of a single class. The people in England who
grasp what changes are needed and are capable of carrying them through are not
confined to any one class, though it is true that very few people with over
£2,000 a year are among them. What is wanted is a conscious open revolt by
ordinary people against inefficiency, class privilege and the rule of the old.
It is not primarily a question of change of government. British governments do,
broadly speaking, represent the will of the people, and if we alter our
structure from below, we shall get the government we need. Ambassadors,
generals, officials and colonial administrators who are senile or pro-Fascist
are more dangerous than Cabinet ministers whose follies have to be committed in
public. Right through our national life, we have got to fight against
privilege, against the notion that a half-witted public schoolboy is better for
command than an intelligent mechanic. Although there are gifted and honest
individuals among them, we have got to break the grip of the monied class as a
whole. England has got to assume its real shape. The England that is only just
beneath the surface, in the factories and the newspaper offices, in the
aeroplanes and the submarines, has got to take charge of its own destiny."
To collude in our current
time of crisis although no bombs are falling on our heads we do face an even
more deadly foe. It is a pity we do not have a George Orwell, we have instead
Hunt who thankfully has remained silent.
[1] "The Lion and the Unicorn",
Patriotism, and Orwell's Politics-Gregory Claeys-The Review of Politics-Vol.
47, No. 2 (Apr., 1985), pp. 186-211
