You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
medium-paced
dark
informative
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
In this first-hand report, first published in 1937, Orwell informs us that families in the mining and industrial areas of the north of England live wretchedly. Government relief is inadequate and, in its present form, iniquitous. Socialism’s great drawback, Orwell argues, is its adherents, mostly cranks or otherwise objectionable. Socialist propaganda should emphasize the simple slogans of “liberty” and “justice” and remind people that socialism can mean warm-heartedness. The middle class should not object to merging with the working class: “We have nothing to lose but our aitches.”
This combination of sympathy for the downtrodden, distrust of (or even contempt for) other socialists, and exaltation of simple "warm-heartedness" or good feeling toward ones fellows would be characteristic of Orwell's journalism, novels and marvelously corrosive essays ("Politics and the English Language" among them) to the end of his life, at age 47, in 1950.
This combination of sympathy for the downtrodden, distrust of (or even contempt for) other socialists, and exaltation of simple "warm-heartedness" or good feeling toward ones fellows would be characteristic of Orwell's journalism, novels and marvelously corrosive essays ("Politics and the English Language" among them) to the end of his life, at age 47, in 1950.
Brilliant & brutal. Orwell's analysis of inequality, class prejudice and the need for socialism as the antithesis of fascism has never been as timely as in 2016, 79 years after it was first published.
It's a good book and interesting to read, just not my sort of topic.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
An interesting read, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. The fist part of the book is a discussion on poverty, and I think there's probably very little to disagree with there, dated as it is.
The second half however - Orwell's views on socialism - are a different kettle of fish, and obviously a product of the time that it was written in. One the one hand, he accurately predicts the rise of fascism (Hitler and WWII). On the other hand he did not yet know of Stalinist Russia and the terrible things done by a left-wing as extreme as Hitler's right. (moral of the story: extremism - of any kind = bad. World solved. We wish...)
It is interesting to note however, that some of the traits Orwell seems most upset about in the right (such as curtailing freedom of speech and resistance to progress) are now part of the ideology of the left.
It is obvious both political ideologies have undergone a great deal of change (and in some cases reversal) over the years between 1937, when this was first published, and now, and I'm finding it quite hard to judge this particular work by the standards of today, as the two simply don't correspond.
The second half however - Orwell's views on socialism - are a different kettle of fish, and obviously a product of the time that it was written in. One the one hand, he accurately predicts the rise of fascism (Hitler and WWII). On the other hand he did not yet know of Stalinist Russia and the terrible things done by a left-wing as extreme as Hitler's right. (moral of the story: extremism - of any kind = bad. World solved. We wish...)
It is interesting to note however, that some of the traits Orwell seems most upset about in the right (such as curtailing freedom of speech and resistance to progress) are now part of the ideology of the left.
It is obvious both political ideologies have undergone a great deal of change (and in some cases reversal) over the years between 1937, when this was first published, and now, and I'm finding it quite hard to judge this particular work by the standards of today, as the two simply don't correspond.
It continues to surprise me how few know that George Orwell was an outspoken Democratic Socialist. Orwell is best known for his anti-communist works of fiction, namely Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, so I can only imagine the confusion is due to a larger misunderstanding of the differences between 'socialism' and 'communism.' Either way, in his non-fiction work, The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell lays down many of his personal socio-political views.
The first half of the book is written as an ethnography of coal miners in northern industrial England. He explores the nature of how low wages and privatization have lead to a poor quality of life which includes numerous health problems, dangerous working conditions, poor nutrition, bad living conditions, and generally fewer options. He also explores the impact of mass unemployment on the working class, and how even though it was a nation-wide phenomena at the time, the unemployed were still blamed by society for their own unemployment.
The second half of the book takes this case study and further explores class differences. As Orwell conducted his research through participant-observation, actually living in these coal mining communities, he comes to have a greater understanding of how he makes sense of the world being from the middle class. He reflects on his own biases, 'snobbishness,' and how a cultural sense of superiority can be established and perpetuated (131). It is this internal self-reflection that is perhaps the strongest component of his social analysis.
Ultimately, Orwell argues that 'socialism' is the answer to improving the quality of life and dignity of the working class. Orwell also contends that 'socialism' is innately contrary to the tyranny of 'fascism' and 'communism' that were gaining popularity throughout Europe during the early 1900's. While I personally agree with these key points, I do feel that Orwell's argument is left somewhat underdeveloped in that he does not more clearly address economic policy that could facilitate his form of 'socialism.'
Orwell also speculates on why so many still reject the ideology of 'socialism' and blames the association of certain groups who tend to support it. He states that the masses typically assert that, "I don't object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialists" (173), which are people he groups as, "...every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in Europe" (174). Essentially, people who are not straight, white males with mainstream proclivities.
On the one hand, this is an astute observation that still holds true today in 2018; there are still working class conservatives that literally call progressives "sandal-wearers." More so, there are plenty of 'regular folks' who shudder to think they could benefit from the same policies as minorities and hippies. On the other hand, Orwell argues that to romanticize the working class is to patronize them, but by allowing his own prejudices to cloud his analysis of working class bias, he condescendingly depicts them as this fragile, homogeneous group. It's a flaw.
In undergrad, an anthropology professor once told me that ethnographies often have greater enduring relevance than cultural theory, because while analysis will inevitably change, data will always remain data. I would say that this essentially holds true for The Road to Wigan Pier.
I would still recommend it, especially the strong first half; just keep context in mind for the uneven analysis in the second half.
The first half of the book is written as an ethnography of coal miners in northern industrial England. He explores the nature of how low wages and privatization have lead to a poor quality of life which includes numerous health problems, dangerous working conditions, poor nutrition, bad living conditions, and generally fewer options. He also explores the impact of mass unemployment on the working class, and how even though it was a nation-wide phenomena at the time, the unemployed were still blamed by society for their own unemployment.
The second half of the book takes this case study and further explores class differences. As Orwell conducted his research through participant-observation, actually living in these coal mining communities, he comes to have a greater understanding of how he makes sense of the world being from the middle class. He reflects on his own biases, 'snobbishness,' and how a cultural sense of superiority can be established and perpetuated (131). It is this internal self-reflection that is perhaps the strongest component of his social analysis.
Ultimately, Orwell argues that 'socialism' is the answer to improving the quality of life and dignity of the working class. Orwell also contends that 'socialism' is innately contrary to the tyranny of 'fascism' and 'communism' that were gaining popularity throughout Europe during the early 1900's. While I personally agree with these key points, I do feel that Orwell's argument is left somewhat underdeveloped in that he does not more clearly address economic policy that could facilitate his form of 'socialism.'
Orwell also speculates on why so many still reject the ideology of 'socialism' and blames the association of certain groups who tend to support it. He states that the masses typically assert that, "I don't object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialists" (173), which are people he groups as, "...every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in Europe" (174). Essentially, people who are not straight, white males with mainstream proclivities.
On the one hand, this is an astute observation that still holds true today in 2018; there are still working class conservatives that literally call progressives "sandal-wearers." More so, there are plenty of 'regular folks' who shudder to think they could benefit from the same policies as minorities and hippies. On the other hand, Orwell argues that to romanticize the working class is to patronize them, but by allowing his own prejudices to cloud his analysis of working class bias, he condescendingly depicts them as this fragile, homogeneous group. It's a flaw.
In undergrad, an anthropology professor once told me that ethnographies often have greater enduring relevance than cultural theory, because while analysis will inevitably change, data will always remain data. I would say that this essentially holds true for The Road to Wigan Pier.
I would still recommend it, especially the strong first half; just keep context in mind for the uneven analysis in the second half.