Take Note 

Published in the first issue of the new magazine Polemic,

reprinted and discussed ever since,

Liam McPartland describes his encounter with George Orwell’s

seminal essay and considers what it means to him today.

One of the first things I read by George Orwell was “Notes on Nationalism.” I had no idea that opening that green booklet would ignite a fascination with its author and, within a few years, lead me to consume his entire body of work. The fearlessness of Orwell’s prose provokes in his readers a willingness to unite thought and action, and treats dishonesty as a moral sin. Nonetheless, as I turned over the first few pages of the booklet, I read a paragraph that jarred me.

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

— George Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism” (1945)

Before reading this, I always thought patriotism and nationalism meant the same thing, which is ridiculous in hindsight. After that clear distinction, I began to think more deeply about both words and their social impact.

National identity is a recurring theme in Orwell’s work. He was born in Motihari, in what is now Bihar in India, but raised in England as the son of an imperial official. This juxtaposition may help explain why the subject keeps returning. Another reason is that Orwell wrote most actively during the 1930s and 1940s. His involvement in the Spanish Civil War and his move to London during the Blitz made national loyalty a pressing question.

Published at the close of the war in 1945, “Notes on Nationalism” tackles the wrath of Hitlerism but also attempts to understand why and how populations turn nationalist. If the German people, a highly educated and civilised population, succumbed to the fever of nationalism, any country can. Intellect is not a bulwark against tyranny; in fact, it makes tyranny hyper-efficient in propaganda, strategy, and administration.

World War II rightly produced a lasting rejection of aggressive, racial nationalism. What followed, in the aftermath and ashes, was the social conviction of patriotism for a crime it had not committed. One moral question of World War II was the difference between nationalism and patriotism: whether love of country means a right to dominate others, or a duty to defend a particular free life.

Every liberal democracy needs a unifying symbol to function coherently. Otherwise, it fragments and dissolves. The flag is not a symbol of pride in itself, but a testament to a nation’s resolve and unity. This is especially true in Western democracies, where many citizens come from different cultures and have different religions. The unifying force, therefore, is not blood or heritage but principles: freedom of speech, the vote, and the rule of law applied equally.

Where I find disagreement with Orwell’s quote is the inference that the desire for power has a negative connotation. I do not object to power for its own sake, but to its aim and its service. If power is distilled, integrated, and pointed at the highest good, it serves, not oppresses. Patriotism, at its best, distributes power as responsibility among its citizens. Nationalism, on the other hand, concentrates power and strips the individual of sovereignty. A nationalist state has no citizens; it has only soldiers. 

The difference in character also lies between a nationalist and a patriot. One mark of a nationalist is unearned pride: pride in wars they never fought, achievements they did not make, and a longing to rekindle a time they were never part of. Pride belongs to achievement. Birth is not an achievement; it is happenstance. The patriot, thus, reveres the triumphs of the past but does not claim their accolades.

“Notes on Nationalism” does not promote apathy toward one’s nation. It encourages one to recognise the role a citizen has within a nation. A nation’s fate is decided not only by ballot boxes or government officials, but by citizens who do not delegate their responsibility. Pride and prestige are earned through sacrifice and duty, not force. Citizens are the custodians of democracy. Take note.

*

Reference:

‘Notes on Nationalism’ by George Orwell was completed by May 1945 and published in the first issue of the British magazine Polemic in October 1945.