Table Of ContentSOCIALIST THOUGHT IN IMAGINATIVE
LITERATURE
SOCIALIST
THOUGHT IN
IMAGINATIVE
LITERATURE
Stephen Ingle
© Stephen J. Ingle 1979
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1St edition 1979
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without permission
First published 1979 by
THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD
London and Basingstoke
Associated companies in Delhi
Dublin Hong Kong Johannesburg Lagos
Melbourne New rork Singapore Tokyo
Typeset in Great Britain by
Santype International Limited, Salisbury and Waiford
Britillh Library CatalogaiDg ia PublicatioD Data
Ingle, Stephen
Socialist thought in imaginative literature
I. English prose literature-19th century
History and criticism
2. English prose literature-20th century~
History and cri ticism
3. Socialism in literature
I. Title
828'.8'oBogo3 PR778.S/
ISBN 978-1-349-04110-7 ISBN 978-1-349-04108-4 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-04108-4
This book is sold subject
to the standard conditions
oj the Net Book Agreement
For my parents
Acknowledgements
The author and publishers wish to thank the following who
have kindly given permission for the use of copyright material.
Chatto & Windus Ltd and Harper & Row Publishers Inc.,
on behalf of the Estate of Aldous Huxley and Mrs Laura
Huxley, for the extracts from Brave New World; A. M. Heath
& Co. Ltd on behalf of the George Orwell Estate and Mrs
Sonia Brownwell Orwell for the extracts from Nineteen Eighty-Four
and Homage to Catalonia; Lawrence & Wishart Ltd for the
extracts from News from Nowhere, by William Morris; A. D.
Peters & Co. Ltd, on behalf of Arthur Koestler, for the extracts
from Darkness at Noon, published by Jonathan Cape Ltd; and
A. P. Watt Ltd, on behalf of the Estate of H. G. Wells, for
the extracts from A Modern Utopia.
VI
Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction: 'The Most Effective Means of
Propaganda'
Section One A CRITIQUE OF CAPITALIST
SOCIETY 13
2 The Poverty of the Many 17
3 A Charge ofImmorality 37
4 Muddle and Inefficiency 55
Section Two WHICH WAY FORWARD? 77
5 'Revolution, Revolution Is the one correct solution' 82
6 The Gradualness ofInevitability 107
Section Three VISIONS OF SOCIALISM 129
7 'No Masters and no Masters' Men' 135
8 The Benefits of' Regimen' 159
9 Conclusion: Socialist Thought in Imaginative 183
Literature
Notes 195
Index 208
Introduction: 'The Most
I
Effective Means of
Propaganda'
The importance of literature in the study of politics, especially
in the development and propagation of political ideas, has
not been investigated in any depth in Britain; at least, not
by students of politics. Several recent studies indicate a growing
interest in the relationship between politics and literature, but
none was written by or principally for students of politics.
One such study was written by a sociologist, Alan Swingewood.
Indeed, there has been a considerable upsurge in interest in
the sociology of literature over the last few years, prompted
by a growing awareness of the influence of imaginative literature
upon Marx himself.1 As its title, The Novel and Revolution,2 sug
gests, Swingewood's book deals almost exclusively with the
theories and practices of revolution. Naturally enough, its
emphasis is sociological and, more specifically, Marxist, though
it contains much to interest and inform the student of politics.
The second study is part of an older and, from the point
of view of the student of politics, less fruitful tradition. I t is
called Writers and Politics in Modern Britain3 and is written by
an English specialist,]. A. Morris. The book is organised themati
cally but not, from the point of view of the student of politics
(for whom it was not written), systematically. Neither book
sets out to examine the contribution of creative writers to politi
cal thought, though the first more nearly does so, and so neither
fills the gap. A third work, Politics and Literature in Modern
Britain,4 is a collection of essays by George Watson which,
2 Socialist Thought in Imaginative Literature
by its nature, would not claim to provide a systematic treatment
of the relationship. All the same, these essays probably provide
the best example to date of an exploration of the connections
between imaginative literature and political thought.
In a collection entitled Literature and Politics in the Nineteenth
Century," John Lucas begins by admitting that his subject is
a daunting one. The relationship between literature and politics
is 'problematic, elusive and uncertain', he says, yet these very
difficulties make the subject fascinating. Not merely fascinating
but important! To the student of literature it is important
because-as Lucas says a propos of the great nineteenth-century
writers-so many chose, at some time or another, to confront
political issues in their work. To the student of politics, however,
the relationship is more important because of one simple fact:
major writers have always been widely read. If any group
of men deserve to enjoy the status of opinion-formers, then
imaginative writers surely do. Bernard Shaw, an active figure
in politics as well as literature, was equally confident of the
opinion-forming function of the imaginative writer. He claimed
that' fine art is the subtlest, the most effective means of propa
ganda in the world except only the example of personal conduct.'6
Imaginative writers, after all, are highly intelligent men con
cerned with human affairs and relationships; many of them,
as Lucas's book shows, write with the conviction that they
can influence men and events. Moreover, though they have
received little attention from students of politics in Britain,
writers-and intellectuals generally-are certainly considered
to be politically important in some societies, notably in France.
How then are we to account for this omission in Britain?
Richard Hoggart illuminated an important problem when he
pointed out that British social scientists are prone to 'mistake
the technical boundaries between academic disciplines for divi
sions within human experience'.7 This lapse tends to result
in students of politics, for example, ignoring material in disci
plines not immediately related to their own. Yet as far as politics
is concerned, the problem goes deeper than Hoggart indicated.
First of all, the study of politics is usually divided into two
quite separate categories: political theory and political institu-
'The Most Effective Means of Propaganda'
3
tions. Although in principle this represents more a distinction
of approach than of subject matter, in practice it distinguishes
what is actually being studied. Despite its clear advantages
for the organisation of the study of politics in academic institu
tions, such a division has very little to do with the real world.
Its artificiality is potentially misleading to the student and
its rigour creates the possibility that important aspects of politics
will be insufficiently studied because they fail to fit neatly
into either category. This, it can be argued, partially accounts
for the fate that has overtaken imaginative literature. Because
it does not fall squarely into either camp it is frequently ignored
by academic institutions.
But there is more at work here than the sin of omission.
That influential group of scholars associated with the behaviour
ist movement, which has tried to make a science of the study
of politics, tends to be highly suspicious of those who, unsympath
etic to scientific enquiry, mix opinion with 'knowledge', intui
tion with 'objectivity'. And quite rightly suspicious, as the
words ofW. H. Auden clearly show: 'In grasping the character
of a society, as in judging the character of an individual, no
documents, statistics, "objective" measurements can ever com
pete with the single intuitive glance.'8 To behaviourists the
'intuitive glance' is anathema; it strikes at the very basis of
their expertise. As Hoggart points out, 'like the early natural
scientists, they fear a relapse into alchemy.'9 For those who
wish to approach the study of politics scientifically, imaginative
literature does not fit happily into the scheme of things. The
possibility that Greenwood's Love on the Dole might give a deeper
insight into the social attitudes of the working class in Lancashire
than any number of sociological surveys, or that Orwell's Animal
Farm might lead to a fuller understanding of the nature of
revolution than any 'scientific' analysis, is not to be coun
tenanced readily. We need not attempt to register so ambitious
a claim for imaginative literature, but should certainly maintain
that works such as the above add substantially to an understand
ing of the topics with which they deal; topics, it need hardly
be said, of great interest to students of politics.
The natural opposition of the behaviourists to the study of
literature's 'intuitive glances' is strengthened by the fact that
literary critics have scarcely held out a welcoming hand to
the student of politics. F. R. Leavis, for example, although
