Após um século de Orwell : Política, Pós-Modernismo e reputação
Miniatura indisponível
Data
2007
Autores
Título da revista
ISSN da revista
Título do Volume
Editora
Edições Universitárias Lusófonas
Resumo
Orwell é o padrão sob o qual ou contra o qual os críticos se lançam na guerra. É um lugarcomum
que Orwell tem sido reclamado como a luz orientadora de quase todas as doutrinas políticas existentes, desde o velho Labour até ao neo-liberalismo, mas em lado nenhum é o seu lado icónico mais evidente do que na utilização
que dele é feita como figura de proa na batalha contra o pós-modernismo académico. Nada nos
escritos de Orwell, clar, nem sequer os seus mais cáusticos ataques ao “relativismo”
induzido pelo Partido de intelectuais de Esquerda, sugere que tenha inventado ou mesmo previsto o pós-modernismo e a oposição a este. Mas um público institucional particular
insiste em reclamá-lo como profeta do primeiro e, similarmente, como líder espiritual da segunda. São eles, não ele, que fazem a ligação
entre reescritas ideológicas da história e da ciência nazis e soviéticas (ou de inspiração
soviética) e as práticas dos académicos ocidentais de hoje, e extrapolam consequências totalitárias deste facto. Que ambas as actividades são exemplos flagrantes da falácia do tipo “se
Orwell aqui estivesse hoje pensaria como eu”, foge à sua atenção. Que os escritos de Orwell,
com selecção e interpretação adequadas, possam servir como arma de eleição na cruzada
anti-pós-moderna confirma o seu valor instrumental mais do que fundacional. Também constituem a matéria-prima para este tipo de
crítico mais preocupado com a política britânica moderna, que trata de pendurar a sua,
discutivelmente mais fiel, versão de Orwell na parede.
Orwell is the standard, under or against which critics go to war. It is a common place that Orwell has been claimed as the guiding light of almost every political doctrine in existence, from old Labour to neo-liberalism, but nowhere is his iconic status more evident than in the use made of him as the figurehead in the battle against academic postmodernism. Nothing in Orwell’s writings, of course, not even his most virulent attacks on the Partyinduced “relativism”of Left intellectuals, suggests that he invented or even foresaw postmodernism and the opposition to it. But a particular institutional audience insists on claiming him as the prophet of the former and, correspondingly, as the spiritual leader of the latter. It is they, not he, who make the connection between Nazi and Soviet (or Sovietinspired) ideological rewritings of history and science and the practices of today’s Western academics, and extrapolate totalitarian consequences from this fact. That both activities are blatant instances of the “If Orwell were alive today he would think like me” fallacy, escapes their notice. That Orwell’s writings, given proper selection and interpretation, can serve as the weapon of choice for the antipostmodernist crusade confirms their instrumental rather than foundational value. They also provide the raw material for the type of critic more concerned with modern British politics, who proceeds to hang up his own, arguably more faithful, version of Orwell on the wall.
Orwell is the standard, under or against which critics go to war. It is a common place that Orwell has been claimed as the guiding light of almost every political doctrine in existence, from old Labour to neo-liberalism, but nowhere is his iconic status more evident than in the use made of him as the figurehead in the battle against academic postmodernism. Nothing in Orwell’s writings, of course, not even his most virulent attacks on the Partyinduced “relativism”of Left intellectuals, suggests that he invented or even foresaw postmodernism and the opposition to it. But a particular institutional audience insists on claiming him as the prophet of the former and, correspondingly, as the spiritual leader of the latter. It is they, not he, who make the connection between Nazi and Soviet (or Sovietinspired) ideological rewritings of history and science and the practices of today’s Western academics, and extrapolate totalitarian consequences from this fact. That both activities are blatant instances of the “If Orwell were alive today he would think like me” fallacy, escapes their notice. That Orwell’s writings, given proper selection and interpretation, can serve as the weapon of choice for the antipostmodernist crusade confirms their instrumental rather than foundational value. They also provide the raw material for the type of critic more concerned with modern British politics, who proceeds to hang up his own, arguably more faithful, version of Orwell on the wall.
Descrição
Caleidoscópio : Revista de Comunicação e Cultura
Palavras-chave
COMUNICAÇÃO, ESCRITA, LITERATURA, ORWELL, GEORGE, COMMUNICATION, WRITING, LITERATURE