AS I PLEASE
On the Hunger for Respect and Approval
The desire to be approved of is one of the most corrosive of
human desires, for a writer it is fatal. For the majority of my life, certainly
in my professional career in addictions offending and mental health, I never
felt very driven by a desire to be liked or to gain the approval of others.
Confident in my own abilities and with a clear sense of what I was doing, if
others thought well of me all well and good, if not too bad. Of course that is
not to say that there were not times that I did not enjoy being on the
receiving end of the approval of others, even times when it might have
influenced my behaviour; but I did not court it.
When it comes to my writing however, particularly when I
write about politics and current affairs I find a nagging sense in me of
wanting approval. One of the reasons I chose to write under a pen name was
precisely this fear. But you cannot outwit a neurosis with a smart move like
this.
The psychological roots of this hunger for approval belongs
to a desire to belong, to be recognised as a member of your chosen gang. In my
case the Christopher Hitchens crew, led in this country by Nick Cohen, the gang
including loosely affiliated figures like David Aronovitch and Richard Dawkins.[1]
I only became acutely conscious of this hunger to be
approved of when I started to use Twitter, a place where it is possible to
interact with political commentators and writers whom you admire, sometimes
even to converse with the authors of books that have influenced your thinking.
However whilst you ‘know’ them they of course do not know you. The
conversations are consequently apt to be one sided. Very quickly you find yourself
reduced to being just another irritating ‘follower.’ Writers want admirers not
debating partners. Failing that they settle for bizarre Trolls whom they can
hold up to ridicule. The rest is just background noise.
And why would this not be the case? If writers responded to
all the tweets aimed in their direction they would have no time to do anything
else. Twitter presents the opportunity, indeed the ‘right,’ to speak, but there
is no corresponding right to be heard. Thus the vast majority of tweets are
ignored. With soap stars and other 'celebrities' this process is magnified.
Serious commentators will sometimes respond to serious tweets, celebrities are
less likely to do so; the more celebrated the tweeter the greater the number of
disappointed followers. It being
made clear that the object of their admiration will only respond to the tweets
of those whom they like admire and respect.
For the celebrity fan this can be particularly unsettling,
it’s as if a whole new side of your idol was suddenly exposed,- indifferent,
sometimes rude, even hostile. I saw one prominent sports reporter describe
one of his followers, who rather persistently was asking for a response to a
question he had asked, as “a saddo.” It’s a thin line between love and hate and
even thinner between hate and admiration. In such moment a troll is born.
But, to paraphrase Mark Steyn, enough of general theorising
let’s get back to me, albeit by way of George Orwell.
From 1943 to 1945 George Orwell contributed a regular column
for the left wing newspaper Tribune, under the by-line ‘As I Please.’ The by-line
said it all. Orwell’s contributions were independent from, and sometimes even
in opposition, to the editorial position of the newspaper. Orwell was given
free reign. The journalism he produced represents the gold standard of such
writing and he influenced generations of political writers, including the late great Christopher Hitchens.
Orwell, as should be crystal clear by now, is something of a
hero of mine, but he did not always call it right, he is no secular saint. Up
until September 1939 he stood in opposition to any war with Germany. In a piece
written for the Adelphi magazine in July 1939 in which he wrote,- in reference to
the Colonial empires of Britain, France and the other European states.
“What meaning would
there be, even if it were successful, in bringing down Hitler’s system in order
to stabilize something that is far bigger and in it’s different way just as
bad?”... [what he argued was needed] “…is a real mass party whose first pledge is to
refuse war and right imperial justice” [2]
The article is ethically very persuasive and powerfully
argued, it is also wrong. The defeat of fascism in Europe was a prerequisite
for the dismantling of the British Empire, not an impediment, as indeed history was to demonstrate. Twenty years after the end of the war the British Empire had
almost vanished from the world map.
Orwell came to change his mind, a Damascene conversion
produced by the Nazi-Soviet pact.[3] For me I
find this extremely reassuring, Orwell whose instincts were always so sound got
it wrong on this one. If Orwell could get it so wrong then so, without shame,
can I.
Orwell also famously derided what he called ‘smelly
orthodoxies.’ Constantly desiring approval carries the danger of
eventually towing a particular ‘party’ line.
For me this demands that I abandon the hope of being
accepted or approved off by people whom I admire and respect. I need to be able to write
as I please.
[1]
Please be aware that this is not intended as a serious statement about these
people’s views, I am parodying myself.
[2]
‘Not Counting N**gers’ A headline guaranteed to startle and shock even then.
Orwell’s argument being that as far as the ‘Popular front’ crowd went the black
and Asian people of the Empire didn’t figure in their thinking. See Collected
Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume 1 ‘An Age Like This,’p.434,
Penguin Books 1968.
[3]
You can find resonances of this Damascene moment in Christopher Hitchens
reactions to the events of 9/11 and I can’t help thinking that ‘The Hitch’ had
absorbed this into his psyche.
