The Future of the English

J. B. Priestley

Text Appreciation

Ⅰ. Text Analysis: Introduction

"The Future of the English” is part exposition and part persuasion or argument. In many respects exposition and argument are closely related. All argument contains a large amount of exposition, for we must make our hearers and readers understand before we can really convince them that our opinion is the right one. The chief difference between exposition and argument is this:

Exposition is an explanation of facts or of the way in which something is done, to make other people understand;

Argumentation is an attempt to lead other people to believe that our opinion about something is the correct one and to induce them to adopt this opinion as their own.

“The Future of the English” is loosely organized and as aforementioned. The thesis of the exposition is stated in the title. The writer is trying to explain the future of the English people but he doesn’t really state what that future is going to be. He leaves the question open and concludes the essay with statements pointing out what he thinks will help the English people to face the future properly and not be defeated by a poorer and harder way of life.

Ⅰ. Text Analysis: Theme

The future of the English: depends on the outcome of the struggle between their Englishness and Admass; on the role the English workers and their union bosses play; on the role the men and women in the professional classes play; on how the young develop; on the kind of political leaders they have; on whether they reject their Englishness or not.

Ⅰ. Text Analysis: Text Organization

Part 1 (Paras.1-3): Introduction: pointing out the central idea that “The English are different”. Part 2 (Paras.4-13): Development: battle between the “Englishness and Admass” &what does the future of the English hang on . Part 3 (Para.14-15): Conclusion: The writer’s voice: to face the future properly it needs both a direction and a great lift of the heart.

Ⅰ. Text Analysis: Further Understanding           

Questions:

1. What role, according to Priestly, does instinctive feeling play in the behavior of an Englishman?

2. What does the writer mean when he says, “Some cancer in their character has eaten away their Englishness” in Para.2? Whom is he referring to?

3. How, according to the writer, are the real English people different?

4. What is the conflict between Admass and Englishness?  

5. What importance does the writer attach to the outcome of this conflict?

6. What force may play a decisive role in this battle between Admass and Englishness according to the writer? How?

"The Future of the English," taken from Priestley's book The English(1973); is loosely organized and it is partly exposition and partly argumentation. The thesis of the exposition is stated in the title. The writer is trying to explain the future of the English people but he doesn't really state what that future is going to be. He leaves the question open and concludes the essay with statements pointing out what he thinks will help the English people to face the future properly and not be defeated by a poorer and harder way of life He thinks the English need both a direction and a great lift of the heart and they must not reject their Englishness.

The writer points out in Paragraph l that "The English are different". Around this central idea, Priestley develops five points of the argument: 1) It is instinctive feeling and not rational thought that shapes and colors actual events in England. 2) The English do not feel at home in the contemporary world, representing the accelerated development of our whole age. They are suspicious of largeness, severe efficiency and Admass. 3) The English are also deeply suspicious of change for changes sake. 4)The English have a sense of community, decent fellow feeling, fairness.5)The English are at heart and at root an imaginative people immediately responsive to any suggestion of drama in their lives.

The writer talks about the future of the English because a battle has been going on for some time: the conflict between"Admass", which has already conquered most of the Western world, and "Englishness", ailing and impoverished in no position to receive vast subsidies of dollars, francs, Deutschmarks and the rest for public relations and advertising campaigns. Then the author focuses on what will decide the result or future of the conflict. He argues that "while things are important states of mind are even more important." Though he doesn't say what the future of the English is he does explain what the future of the English hangs upon. Their future depends on the outcome of the struggle between their Englishness and Admass; on the role the English workers and their union bosses play; on the role the men and women in the professional classes play;on how the young develop; on the kind of political leaders they have;on whether they reject their Englishness or not.

"The Future of the English" is a rather informal piece of argumentation so the writer doesn't marshal enough evidence to prove his points. In fact he appeals more to the emotions of his English readers than to their reason to drive home his point of view.

We don't have to agree with everything Priestley says to conclude that the essay is highly readable. The reader is moved by the sincerity and intensity of the feelings of the writer and feels that the writer, perhaps, has the right instinctive feeling of what the English are like. Priestley's smooth and polished style makes the essay a pleasure to read.

At the time when this essay was written, Admass only concerned the Western world, but now through globalization it has spread to almost all parts of the world. China is no exception.

Ⅰ. Text Analysis: Language features:

This essay is rather informal and loosely organized. The writer does not demonstrate enough evidence to prove his points. Instead, he appeals more to the emotions of his fellow countrymen to drive home his point of view. For example, in Paragraph 1 he states that it is instinctive feeling and not rational thought that shapes and colours actual events in England. To prove this argument, he puts forward the evidence that there are fewer Communists or neo-or potential Fascists in England than in most other countries. But this evidence seems somewhat weak, for readers can not find a sound logical connection between the evidence and the argument.

However, the writer is very successful in appealing to emotions by using a variety of sentence patterns and rhetoric devices. For instance, in the last paragraph he sighs for the lack of wise leaders in England by saying "There has been little or no appeal from deep feeling to deep feeling, from imagination to imagination", which touches his readers rather deeply and makes them agree with his idea even without knowing.

In fact, this essay is just an expression pouring from the writer's "deep feeling" and "deep imagination".

Another feature of this essay is its British English. As the writer us an Englishman himself, he uses idiomatic British words and expressions. For example, "the usual Left-Centre-Right stuff", "it is safe to say", "it is worth noting along the way", "nudging everybody for more money.", etc.