1984 Foreword "fascistic disposition"

[jbor]

on 29/4/03 1:10 AM, Malignd quoted:

> Now, those of fascistic disposition - or merely
> those among us who remain all too ready to justify any
> government action, whether right or wrong - will
> immediately point out that this is prewar thinking,
> and that the moment enemy bombs begin to fall on one's
> homeland, altering the landscape and producing
> casualties among friends and neighbors, all this sort
> of thing, really, becomes irrelevant, if not indeed
> subversive. With the homeland in danger, strong
> leadership and effective measures become of the
> essence, and if you want to call that fascism, very
> well, call it whatever you please, no one is likely to
> be listening, unless it's for the air raids to be over
> and the all clear to sound.  But the unseemliness of
> an argument - let alone a prophecy - in the heat of some
> later emergency does not necessarily make it wrong.
> One could certainly argue that Churchill's war cabinet
> had behaved no differently than a fascist regime,
> censoring news, controlling wages and prices,
> restricting travel, subordinating civil liberties to
> self-defined wartime necessity. (ix-x)

I didn't have a problem with this. I get the impression that there is a bit
of sarcasm in the first sentence, and that Pynchon is implying that "those
of fascistic disposition" and "those among us who remain all too ready to
justify any government action, whether right or wrong" are more or less the
same cohort.

In the second sentence, "all this sort of thing", though the immediate
context is missing, would seem to refer to socio-political critique,
opposition to government policy or ideology, Orwell's stance etc.

The following sentence ("With the homeland in danger ... ") takes up the
point of view of "those of fascistic disposition" or "those among us" (which
indeed seems potentially more inclusive of Pynchon himself) who "justify"
government actions indiscriminately. This is putting into words what they
"will ... point out."

The following sentence ("But the unseemliness ... ") is offered as a
refutation of the attitude expressed in the previous sentence, and is also a
justification for Orwell's satire of British socialism (i.e. Orwell's
"argument") in the novel, which the final sentence reinforces.

Two points: if unintentional ambiguities exist in something like this
Foreword or the _SL_ 'Intro', then editorial sloppiness rather than
sloppiness of thought or writing is to blame. With the conveniences of
modern technology, how difficult or time-consuming would it be to flick it
back to the writer with a request for clarification? I agree that the
sentence in the _SL_ 'Intro' (p.12) is ambiguous, but from the context there
it's possible to get the general gist about the way racism has motivated
American ideology, and the way that "racial differences", or disputes
between different ethnic groups (both domestically and globally), are
manipulated by the ruling elite. But I don't see any such ambiguity in this
passage from the 1984 Foreword, even absent the surrounding context.

Secondly, Pynchon seems to throw the "fascist" label around with blithe
abandon. This, to me, seems one of the major stumbling blocks to taking his
political commentaries seriously. I get the impression here that he's
defining "fascism" (or "fascistic", if that's even a word) as the political
manifestation of nationalism, which in terms of the etymological derivation
of the term from the ancient Roman "fasces" (bundle of sticks tied together
with an axe head, symbolising the absolute authority of the higher
magistrates) is fair enough I guess. But the problem is that contemporary
associations of the term override this denotation, so that when we get to
the specifics of it (as here, lumping the British Labour Party and Clement
Attlee with the Third Reich and Stalin) it is bizarre. The term "fascism",
as used by Pynchon, is almost meaningless a result.

best


> I have read the above a number of times and I find it
> interesting and vexing; vexing primarily because of
> lack of a sure context within the larger piece, but
> also because of (what seems to be, anyway, given the
> lack of context) a sloppiness of attribution or flow
> on Pynchon's part.
> 
> The first sentence enunciates what Pynchon feels would
> be an argument from "those of fascistic disposition"
> and perhaps less rabid government justifiers that
> enemy bombs and casualties make "all this sort of
> thing irrelevant, if not indeed subversive."
> 
> I'm assuming this "sort of thing" is complaint against
> those who hold with "any government action, whether
> right or wrong."
> 
> Translated: {Those of a fascistic disposition would
> say that]people who complain about a too-controlling
> government shut up right quick when their protection
> is at stake.  So I read it, in any case.
> 
> Here it becomes tricky.  The second sentence,
> beginning "with the homeland in danger ..."  Is
> Pynchon continuing to enunciate the fascistic
> disposition?  If so, is he in agreement with it?  Or
> is he speaking there in his own voice?  And, in either
> case, is he not in (at least limited) agreement with
> the position, that "strong leadership and effective
> measures become of the essence"?
> 
> The unseemly argument would seem to be, in P's opinion
> (or P in agreement with the rhetorical fascist),
> Orwell's calling the British government fascistic,
> unseemly during time of war.  Further, Pynchon is
> saying that such complaint that a government is acting
> fascistically when there's a war on is "unseemly,"
> even if true.  Unseemly (even if true!) to point out
> that Churchill's war cabinet behaved no differently
> than a fascist regime ..."
> 
> Again, I'm hobbled by the lack of continuity and
> context as well as questionable syntax.  But, is
> Pynchon not saying here that, with a war on, one does
> best to shut up and support the troops?
> 
> Hardly a radical position, but one I should think not
> in accord with attitudes readily assumed and
> attributed to Pynchon by many on this board.