How the left lost its language

iris-murdoch-1

From last week’s New Statesman:

Fifty years ago, the novelist and philosopher Iris Murdoch wrote a rather gloomy essay about the state of the “socialist movement” in Britain. There was, she said, a “moral void in the life of the country”, and on the left in particular. Where the left had once been the source of an animating vision of the good society, now it was the repository of a drearily technocratic utilitarianism. An obsession with central planning and the streamlined organisation of social relations had triumphed over older, more explicitly ethical traditions: Christian socialism, say, or the critique of injustice that had driven early Marxism (before it, too, had gone technical and scientific).

Read the rest here.

Public philosophy

20090605_2209sandel_w

Urban legend has it that the man chosen by the BBC to deliver this year’s Reith Lectures was the real-world inspiration for a character in The Simpsons. Montgomery Burns, the desiccated and occasionally malevolent owner of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, is said to have been modelled, in his phy­sical characteristics if nothing else, on Michael Sandel, Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University. Many Simpsons writers have been Harvard alumni, and giving Mr Burns, one of Springfield’s least morally upstanding citizens, Sandel’s broad forehead and thin lips was a kind of Harvardian in-joke: for nearly 30 years now, Sandel has taught the university’s most popular undergraduate course – “Justice”.

My profile of Michael Sandel, this year’s BBC Reith Lecturer, appears in the current issue of the New Statesman.

The sorcerer’s apprentice

holger2

Recently in this magazine, Holger Czukay recalled attending the first performance, in Bremen in 1968, of Kurzwellen (“short waves”), Karlheinz Stockhausen’s work for piano, electronium (an early monophonic synthesiser), tam-tam gong, viola and four short-wave radio receivers.

Read the rest of my review of Holger Czukay’s recent show at the Roundhouse in this week’s New Statesman.

On Anne Michaels

My review of Anne Michaels’ very fine new novel The Winter Vault appears this week in the New Statesman.

Fight for your rights

ben-wilsonThis review Ben Wilson’s book What Price Liberty appears in the May issue of the Literary Review:

At the centre of St George’s Circus, in a traffic-choked corner of south London close to the Elephant and Castle, stands an obelisk. On one side, and rather crammed in beneath the date the structure was built (’The XIth year of the reign of King George the Third’), is inscribed the name ‘Brass Crosby Esquire/Lord Mayor’. Aside from a blue plaque affixed to Crosby’s former home near Bromley in Kent, this is the only public commemoration of a man whom Ben Wilson describes in his splendid new book as a ‘liberty-loving guerrilla’ - one of a band of ’seedy adventurers’ to whom we owe the civil liberties we enjoy today.

The fact that most of those who pass the obelisk on the Number 63 bus each day won’t have heard of Crosby tells us, Wilson argues, something important about liberty in this country: about how it was achieved and about our attitudes towards it.

Brass Crosby merits a place in Wilson’s pantheon of ‘bloody-minded’ heroes of British liberty for a provocation he colluded in with John Wilkes in 1770. Wilkes was an alderman of the City of London and Crosby Lord Mayor. The two men decided to test those provisions in the Bill of Rights protecting parliament from criticism by encouraging a printer based in the City to flout them.

When the Speaker sent the Serjeant at Arms to arrest the printer, Crosby had him arrested and ruled that the emissaries of the Commons had no jurisdiction within the Square Mile. Crosby was sent to the Tower of London for his trouble. His eventual release was met with public rejoicing, however, and, according to Wilson, parliament subsequently learned to ignore, or at least to endure, newspaper reports of its activities.

It is one of the many merits of What Price Liberty? that its author has excavated forgotten stories like Crosby’s - and that of John Entick, a journalist who sued the King’s Messengers when they raided his home in 1762 looking for evidence of seditious libel, prompting the Lord Chief Justice to rule that ‘every invasion of property’, even when committed with government sanction, ‘is a trespass’.

For Wilson, the significance of such episodes is twofold. First, they remind us of the close connection in British history of what today we call ‘civil liberties’ with private property rights. Second, they show that, historically, such liberties have been arrived at in Britain inductively, read off from the experience of obscure and chippy individuals like Entick and Crosby, as opposed to being deduced from abstract principles.

In reading the history of political freedom in this way, as a story of uneven and laborious struggle rather than a serene and ineluctable convergence on a set of inalienable rights, Wilson is being decidedly un-Whiggish. For him, liberty in this country has always been hard won, the fruit not of some providential design but of what he describes as ‘calculated provocation and opportunism’. And in this respect, Wilson is closer in temperament and method to Hume than he is to great Whig historians of liberty like Macaulay or Henry Hallam. For Hume, moral and political gains were always to be regarded as precarious and vulnerable - not only to despotic usurpation, but also to benign neglect or indifference.

This last point is particularly important for Wilson, who believes that we have become dangerously insouciant about our liberties, and clearly intends his book as an intervention in current political debates. He writes approvingly, for example, of David Davis’s resignation from the Shadow Cabinet over the proposed extension of detention without charge to forty-two days, and observes, with some justification, that the debate over the Counter-Terrorism Bill was unhelpfully polarised as a choice between the rights of the individual on the one hand, and security on the other.

Wilson cites more than once Milton’s famous line about people preferring ‘bondage with ease’ to ’strenuous liberty’. And this is a reminder that many of the struggles over liberty have been struggles over its meaning. For Milton, the word ’strenuous’ referred to the nature of liberty itself, as well as to the way in which it was won.

Milton was writing in the ‘civic republican’ or ‘neo-Roman’ tradition, in which, as Wilson points out, ‘freedom is given meaning by one’s participation in the political life of the nation’. Republicans like Milton, and his contemporary James Harrington, valued ’strenuous’ civic engagement over slothful apathy, and government through popular deliberation over deference to crown or state. Drawing on the work of intellectual historians such as J G A Pocock and Quentin Skinner, Wilson brings out very sharply the difference between this neo-Roman conception of civic participation and the idea of liberties as ‘desiccated rights’ bestowed by some benevolent authority or other.

Instead of the Whiggish story that the English have liked to tell themselves, in which ‘liberty always triumphed in the end’, Wilson tells a much more complicated tale of how, after the Restoration, the republican association of freedom with civic virtue gave way to what he calls ‘licentious liberty’ - an idea of liberty as consisting merely in the absence of external interference in the lives of individuals. As John Stuart Mill put it, by the middle of the eighteenth century the ‘cry of the people was not “help us”, “guide us” … the cry was “let us alone”.’

Republican freedom didn’t disappear altogether, though: it crossed the Atlantic and ran like a red thread through the arguments of the American colonists. And for all that the word ‘liberty’ has been traduced in the intervening two centuries or more, the republican inheritance survives, not least in the rhetoric of President Obama, who won a historic victory in November with the promise of a politics of public participation and the common good.

Of course, redeeming that promise is another matter altogether - especially in countries like the US and Britain, where, Ben Wilson reminds us, an etiolated notion of ‘economic liberty’ has hollowed out the structures of ‘meaningful participation and public service’.

Prophet of collapse

The writer and political thinker John Gray is in the Bloomsbury offices of his agent and is talking about the world financial crisis. He recalls the critical reaction to a brief treatise on “the delusions of global capitalism” that he wrote a little over a decade ago.

My profile of John Gray appears this week in the New Statesman.

Making an Elephant

This review of Graham Swift’s non-fiction collection Making an Elephant appears in the new issue of Prospect.

Making an Elephant
By Graham Swift (Picador, £18.99)

There is a famous photograph, taken by Lord Snowdon in 1983, of Granta magazine’s first cohort of “best young British novelists.” Ian McEwan and Martin Amis, their shoulders rubbing collusively, are perched on stools slightly to one side, as if in premonitory acknowledgment of future distinction. Julian Barnes stands in the middle, at the back, powerfully projecting every inch of his six-foot- odd frame. And at the front, beside a startlingly youthful-looking Kazuo Ishiguro, sits the shyly bespectacled Graham Swift.

That same year, Swift was shortlisted for the Booker Prize, for his
third novel Waterland. He didn’t win, though he would eventually do
so in 1996, with Last Orders. Yet, for all his public recognition—as
well as the Booker, Swift has a Guardian Fiction Prize and the
Winifred Holtby Award on his CV, while both Waterland and Last Orders
have been turned into films—Swift’s career in the intervening 25
years has been conducted at an altogether lower temperature than
those of the more celebrated others captured in that picture.

One reason for this is that, as the novelist John Banville noted
approvingly in his review of Last Orders, Swift has always kept
himself at a distance from “what Gore Vidal witheringly refers to as
‘bookchat’.” Unlike Amis or Barnes, Swift has written little
journalism and—as far as one can tell—no criticism whatsoever. What’s
most immediately striking about Making an Elephant, in fact, is just
how occasional Swift’s non-fiction has been. The book is a jumble of
assorted fragments of memoir, interviews, a single piece of reportage
(by his own admission, the only such piece he has ever done), and 40
pages worth of poems.

Away from fiction, Swift’s natural element seems to be what he
describes in a short piece about the year he spent as an English
teacher in Greece in the early 1970s as the “self-protective”
atmosphere of “voluntary exile.” He had pitched up, he tells us, at
the Strategakis School of English in Volos, a port on the east coast,
after a three-year subterfuge during which he’d passed himself off as
a PhD candidate at the University of York in order to find the time
to write—or, rather, to find out whether he actually had the talent
to write (which is not at all the same thing). It was in Greece that
Swift wrote his first novel, later destroyed, and there that he came
to know “for certain [that he] would be a writer”.

It’s hard to imagine his contemporaries having to discover that about
themselves, but for Swift the discovery seems to have been hard-won
and somehow provisional, and thus something to be guarded—against
Grub Street, book parties and other temptations of the metropolitan
literary life. Among other things, therefore, Making an Elephant is
an account of the material conditions of the professional writer’s
life in the early 21st century, and an examination of the extent to
which that life has to be lived in public. One essay deals with the
structuring paradox of the public reading, an essential part of
modern book-PR that clearly sits uneasily against Swift’s preference
for the “unseen contact” of private reading: “I suspect most people
go to readings out of curiosity. Authors are not very visible and the
reading public has an urge to witness these usually closeted creatures.”

It’s not only the public with whom Swift has had a less ostentatious
relationship than his illustrious contemporaries. “For a long time”,
he writes, “really till Waterland, I knew virtually no other
writers.” And, for all the affectionate portraits here of his various
“writer-friends” (Ishiguro, Rushdie, Caryl Phillips), one gets the
sense that he could still happily do without the company of other
writers. He writes admiringly of JM Coetzee, who won the Booker the
year Waterland was shortlisted and pulled off the “brilliant tactical
stroke” of being “serenely absent” from the award ceremony.

Of course, no serious writer readily admits to enjoying such
occasions, but in Swift the urge to disappear runs deep. One of the
longest pieces in Making an Elephant, originally written for Granta,
is about an invisible man: the Czech author Jiri Wolf, whom Swift was
dispatched to Prague to track down, in the midst of the Velvet
Revolution in November 1989. Those momentous political events figure
as a kind of sideshow to Swift’s increasingly desperate attempts to
find Wolf, a dissident who had recently been released from prison.
“He was a writer,” Swift notes, “but he appeared to have no standing
in contemporary Czech literature.” It soon becomes clear that he
admires the recalcitrant Wolf much more than he does Václav Havel,
who he observes “being sucked into events at some cost to himself, a
writer uprooted from his true vocation.”

Again, in an interview with the novelist Patrick McGrath, Swift is
asked about the “fatalistic” theory of history developed in
Waterland. It’s a theory expounded by the narrator and protagonist of
the novel, Tom Crick, a history teacher eking out his last days in
the classroom sharing memories of his childhood in the Fens when he
should be telling his charges about the French revolution. Swift
bristles slightly at the suggestion that the ideas in the novel are
his: “You can call this sophistical if you like, but it’s my
character who says those things, it’s Tom Crick who holds those views.”

Waterland carries more obvious intellectual freight than the later
novels, but it resembles them not only in having a first-person
narrator, but also in Swift’s attempt there to subordinate his own
style to the style of his characters. As a novelist, he observes,
“you are vital to the whole enterprise… yet you are also redundant.”
By his own account, he has come closest to achieving this redundancy
or superfluity in his last three novels, Last Orders, The Light of
Day
and Tomorrow. Each of those books is an experiment with ordinary
speech, in which Swift takes a wager on a narrator (or narrators) who
is not conventionally eloquent or articulate. As the critic James
Wood has pointed out, there is considerable risk, not to mention
daring, in this approach, for it requires of the novelist a
commitment to the clichés and “thinned repetitions” of everyday
language.

The final piece in Making an Elephant is an introduction Swift wrote
to an edition of Montaigne’s Essays, a writer whom he admires almost
as a negative image of his own writerly self. Where the novelist
ought to disappear, he argues, the essayist is present in every line:
the “real joy” in reading Montaigne lies in the “little gift of
personality” and the author’s “unwithdrawing” proximity. In Swift’s
non-fiction, such gifts are severely rationed—but that is because he
is saving himself for his characters.

The Kindly Ones

Jonathan Littell has written a remarkable novel, expertly translated from the original French by Charlotte Mandell, out of the gaps in the historiography of the Final Solution and the war on the Eastern Front. He insinuates his narrator, an SS officer named Max Aue, into a series of actual events, running from the massacre of Ukrainian Jews at Babi Yar in 1941, through the doomed German assault on Stalingrad the following year, to the Third Reich’s ultimate ignominy in the Führer’s bunker in Berlin in April 1945.

My review of Jonathan Littell’s novel The Kindly Ones appears this week in the New Statesman.

Red Tory

Phillip Blond is sitting in his London office. “I think mine is a genuinely radical project,” he says. “Lots of people on the left have said to me that if the Tories do what I’m telling them to, they’ll vote for them.”

My profile of Phillip Blond, proponent of the “Red Tory” thesis and David Cameron’s new favourite intellectual, appears in this week’s New Statesman.

Progressive London

I attended the inaugural conference of Progressive London on Saturday. My report on proceedings appears in Time Out this week.