If I get out of the rhythm of regular reading, I have to read quite a bit of light fare (usually about music I like) to get back to the point where I can tackle the big-n-heavy stuff. I have just completed a long cycle of the easy and am now deeply immersed in a biggun' - one that might get me into trouble. The good kind.
I can generally count on the non-fiction work of Henry Miller to get me totally worked up and dwelling on fantasies of myself as the wild-eyed bohemian outsider following my muse anywhere and everywhere it happens to go. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary I still nurse the notion that I retain enough of the good "alt." to be able to pull it off in whatever stage of life I find myself. I have never had a problem imagining myself as "the other" (feel free to chuckle), and stuff like Miller's Stand Still Like The Hummingbird, or Air Conditioned Nightmare stoke my desire to cut the tether I have to normality completely and go wherever that takes me.
That really isn't all that bad an idea, but I have never come close to pulling the trigger on it for a variety of reasons. For my purposes here, I might best be able to explain it by mentioning how heavy the impact of George Orwell's (primarily) non-fiction writing is on me as well. Henry Miller calls me to indulge the notion of being elevated by devoting myself to creativity. Orwell's writing, by way of contrast, creates a desire to reorient life so that any fidelities I may have be devoted first and foremost to myself. In reading Orwell I reacquaint myself with my long-time goal to be to others exactly the person I am to myself. This is a difficult task, but I am convinced Orwell achieved it long before he died. Orwell's fidelities were primarily, if not entirely, to himself. I am convinced that the truths he sought to convey to his audiences were the same truths he came to believe in himself, totally unfiltered. He represents an almost-radical individualism, one in which liberty is paramount and it is based entirely on being free - in both spirit and letter - to think anything one wishes, and for one's expression to be no different than that which they genuinely feel.
Can you not see how Orwell also gets one in deep trouble? He saw it, and pretty much said "bring it on". Actually, he did better than that; he basically laid down a pre-emptive bitch-slap to anyone who might even thing to challenge him in his fidelity-to-self. Orwell knew that the degree to which a society was actually free was equal to the degree to which one had a real/practical/practicable freedom to live as they were, to think as they please, and to express what they saw fit. Every modern society is going to claim that their citizens are absolutely free, an idea I think everyone realizes is usually horseshit. While I don't want to simply rewrite what he says on this topic in the book I am reading, he - correctly I believe - noted that you can watch the intellectual and cultural output of a society and usually will find that the quality and quantity of the work will fluctuate with the actual liberty enjoyed by the individual. What the law says about freedom of speech is hardly the indicator to look for! The laws are gonna look the same on paper, the difference comes in the degree to which those in power operate as authoritarians, and the degree to which the individual will self-censor (or lie) to avoid social or political sanction.
You really need to read Orwell on Freedom Of Speech; what he said 60 years ago is absolutely relevant to the modern era. What is amazing about him is that his "angle" (ha!) was to simply not self-censor and to speak his mind in as clear and simple terms as possible. Yeah, he was very well read, and capable of capital T Thinkin', but one need not be as well read as he was to follow the distillations he lays out so well, time and again. Clear thinking, an informed mind, and total dedication to real & practical liberty are the sharpest of his instruments, and I find myself floored by them over and over again.
What is most important for me is the comfort I am finding in his work at a time in which I am wholly culturally dis-spirited and civic-ally demoralized. By remaining largely within the Blue Archipelago I am still able to find much to be proud of, and much to believe in for the future; but to keep hopping between safe-zones cannot change the fact that I/We are still WAY outnumbered. Even among those who know, and have known, just how sick the national soul has become, there are far too few willing to say anything. The election and prospect of change may start loosening some tongues & minds, but it is too late; they were needed when the beasts were loose in the herd.
Orwell knows too that many of the biggest lies are told long after things play out, and saved for when the history of events are written. This is a big danger facing us as a nation to be sure, but for me personally, I know what I saw behind the curtain. If one can assess the character of a person or a people based on how they act in a time of crisis, then the lies to come are going to have to be even bigger than the whoppers being floated now and throughout the bulk of the new millennium. I would say that those who know better must get organized and get vigilant so that the narrative created for history is an honest one, but I believe it is going to have to suffice for me to know the story for myself. As Orwell took great pains to point out, just saying there is Freedom Of Speech isn't the same as actually having the freedom to speak.
The number one weapon of those responsible for (or in) the Bush government has been to try to levy incredible social sanction on those who would dare question, resist, or speak to the contrary of their version of events. When is the last time the Iraq War was debated on the actual merits of the actions undertaken? When has the right's answer to any question been to explain the specifics of why what's been done is correct? How much time has been spent discussing whether or not Obama wears a flag pin? Perhaps the biggest sore spot for me over the last 7 years is the complete unwillingness of the "reasonable right" to reign in their kooks and to maintain the long-held standards on which point-counterpoint has been handled in this country. Not only do the "mainstream" Bush supporters/voters not try to distance themselves from the kooks, they decided it was better to align with them than to do ANYTHING that might be conciliatory to those who may not agree. The silence is bad enough, but the types of people that the moderate right were willing to build a coalition with represents the complete collapse of a political center. That is just plain over.
I suppose this is where I cannot adopt the Orwell method fully. Ol' G.O. seems to be able to remain quite dispassionate about these things because he never participates in any US -v- THEM construct - there is no "US" to which his heart would defer to. I suppose I could be happy going that route myself, I am just not there yet. Orwell was a lot like Abe Lincoln in that respect. Both men were so in-tune with their own feelings, ideas, and desires that they had no need to look beyond them. This isn't to say they couldn't see beyond the end of their noses, but rather that they so well knew their own right from wrong that they could have complete fidelity to it and thereby have no need to horse-trade with others or create any coalition. They were each one-man "US". They were more than happy to flip "sides" on any issue because there's nothing wrong with having company! I suppose this is why both Abe & George are claimed by both the left and the right. It actually makes things more fun that way, and to my mind, there is no doubt that the world would be a better place if we all could be so finely tuned and self-aware.
Orwell does make the point that one can be free anywhere if they are free within their own mind. One may lack the freedom to express their thoughts, but if they retain the ability to think freely within their minds, there is still a kernel of freedom. The major turn-off for me - and also a source of incredible grief - is that we are becoming a society in which we can say we are free because the laws say we are, but in any practical sense, we are lucky to settle for whatever part of the kernel we can salvage. G.O. well knew - and 1984 was his supreme expression of the idea - that one can be robbed of freedom within their own mind. Brainwashing need not be as extreme as is done in cults to deprive one of the freedom of their own mind. The insane amount of labeling and demonizing done in modern politics is absolute poison. There are those willing to go so far to squelch opposition (and cover their own mistakes) that the nuclear option gets deployed first against those who might speak against what the majority has done. It is frightening. A child who was 5 in 2001 is almost a teenager now. What opinions do you think they will develop about how a society deals with war? What have they seen? A left largely unwilling to speak and stand their ground, a vicious right with anything-goes rules of engagement, and a big middle who says nothing about either side! Do they live in a nation in which public issues are given thorough and reasoned debate on the way to building a consensus on action? HA! Hell no...they get Recreate68 and Operation Chaos, or total silence in the face of such shit.
For me to follow where Miller & Orwell's books lead me is for me to have to imagine a total overhaul of what my day-to-day life is. That isn't a bad thing per se, but I am disgusted that one really would end up an outsider in our society if they chose fidelity to their calling - be it creative, political, or otherwise. What that says of our society is entirely unflattering. It actually - and I am not kidding - hurts my feelings to know that this is how things really are. We should be so much better than that. I really thought we were - and not just when I was a kid! There is no reason for us to force an exile within the city walls on those who live by the dictates of their conscience.
I have come to realize it already makes me a radical kook to believe that the principles behind the best of our creeds should not apply only to the individual's relationship to the government. Equality before the law is awesome. Is our time before the law the only place where equality is a good idea? Think hard. If you say "equality is a good idea in general, not just in relation to the government", think about how you might be labeled (and thereby dismissed.) If you allow yourself to imagine that the marketplace should not be completely exempted from the principles upon which we want to be governed, are you comfortable mentioning such thoughts in "mixed company"? You better not be sucker! You can get a slap for that!
It is certainly true that social sanction isn't sticks or stones, but the point is less about the punishment and more about what we lose by handling civic debate like the run-up to the main event at Wrestlemania. The elevation of "Gotcha!" to high sport is so devastating to the health of our culture and society. I would suggest there isn't really an "our culture" or "our society" anymore, largely as a by-product of the toxic environment that exists around civic and cultural debate. It is also true that I would rather see the nation split in two if the only way to preserve real freedom would be to do it with the Blue Archipelago. The fidelity really should be to liberty for the individual, above all. That is what you fight and die for. That is what is worth protecting at all costs. To love one's country is not the same as loving one's government.
I suppose it wasn't too long ago where I would have been inclined to try tying things together by saying "C'mon team! We are better than this! Let's work together and get back to being the high-minded civic giants we were born to be!" I just don't have that feeling in me. I could hedge and say "I just don't have that feeling right now", but the hedge would be a sop to the kind of lying Orwell seems to most despise. It is primarily a lie to one's self to go that route, and I agree with George that lying to one's self is where the real danger is, and while it is dangerous to the individual, I suppose the danger that it represents to the society is the one that most bothers me. We have long crossed that line. Crossing that line is inevitable as Orwell points out - all societies lie to themselves about who they are at some level - but I cannot reconcile myself to the fact this nation finds itself on the wrong side of that line. I guess I can say in all candor that I still think we are better than that, and I even mean to use the word "we". I still believe Abe was right in the Gettysburg Address - we are still The Great Experiment, and if we fail, that would signal the end of that experiment on the earth. Ugh. There is no good reason for that failure to happen. It just shouldn't.
Ultimately I am using y'all here. This is really just another extended pep talk to myself...just one more peek into the chasm between where I am and where I want to be. As I said at the top, there are certain authors that really put a fine point on these issues for me, and for me to immerse myself in it all carries a degree of danger I loathe as much as I love. I love the idea of getting where I want to go...imagining myself as the bridge between the Orwell and Miller constructs of freedom (favoring Orwell, but in each I find elements I consider heroic.) It is a great fantasy. I loathe that I have to stop daydreaming and get back to my desk. I am grateful to have the desk to go to, don't get me wrong; but the desk feels like the 2nd Place in the Beauty Contest. Eventually I want to win the contest.
I suppose if I were to do that it would make me Mr. America!!!
Posted by rudayday at May 06, 2008 04:55 PM