Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens was a British-American journalist, essayist, and writer. He was one of the most famous public intellectuals of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. He wrote about politics, literature, religion, and many other subjects. He was known for sharp arguments, beautiful prose, and a willingness to take unpopular positions. He was born in 1949 in Portsmouth, on the south coast of England. He came from a middle-class British military family. His father was a navy officer. His mother was Jewish, though he only learned this as an adult. He studied philosophy, politics, and economics at Oxford from 1967. He was active in left-wing student politics. After university he became a journalist. He wrote for left-wing magazines including the New Statesman. In 1981 he moved to the United States. He wrote a regular column for The Nation, a major American left-wing magazine, for nearly 20 years. He became an American citizen in 2007. He wrote for many other publications including Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, and Slate. He was prolific. He wrote 17 books and thousands of articles. For most of his career, he was on the political left. He was a friend of writers like Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis, and Ian McEwan. After the September 11 attacks in 2001, his politics shifted. He supported the Iraq war in 2003. Many of his old left-wing friends saw this as betrayal. He defended his position fiercely. In 2007 he published God Is Not Great, an aggressive attack on religion. The book made him one of the New Atheists alongside Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. He was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in 2010. He continued writing about his illness with extraordinary honesty. He died in December 2011, aged 62.

Origin

United Kingdom (later United States)

Lifespan

1949 - 2011

Era

Modern / 20th-21st Century

Subjects

Journalism Atheism 20th Century 21st Century Political Writing

Skills

Creative Expression Critical Thinking Ethical Thinking Research Skills Emotional Intelligence

Why They Matter

Christopher Hitchens matters for three reasons. First, he was one of the great essayists of his time. His prose was clear, witty, and sharp. He could write about literature, politics, history, or religion with the same care and energy. He admired George Orwell and tried to write in Orwell's tradition of clear public prose. Many younger writers learned from his example. His 2001 book Letters to a Young Contrarian remains a useful guide to thinking and writing about contested topics.

Second, he was a model of public argument. He was willing to take unpopular positions and defend them in detail. He criticised figures across the political spectrum, including Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton, and many others. He attacked positions held by his own friends. He was sometimes wrong. He was often interesting. His willingness to disagree publicly with whoever needed disagreeing with became a kind of trademark.

Third, his 2007 book God Is Not Great helped launch the New Atheist movement alongside Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. The book argued that religion was harmful and should be rejected. The book sold millions of copies. It made Hitchens famous beyond literary circles. The New Atheist movement has been heavily debated. Some see it as useful. Some see it as crude. Hitchens's role in it shaped how religion has been argued about in English-speaking culture in the 21st century.

Key Ideas

What Was His Job?

His Heroes and Models

Writing About His Own Death

Key Quotations

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

— Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great (2007)

This sharp principle has come to be called Hitchens's razor. It is a guide for handling claims made without evidence. If someone tells you something is true and offers no evidence, you do not need evidence to dismiss it. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the person hearing it. The principle is useful in many contexts. It applies to claims about ghosts, conspiracy theories, miracle cures, and many other subjects. Hitchens applied it most often to religious claims. Religious traditions, he argued, often expect believers to accept extraordinary claims without evidence. He thought this was wrong. The principle is not original to Hitchens. Earlier philosophers including Bertrand Russell had stated similar rules. Hitchens stated it in particularly memorable form. For students, the principle is genuinely useful. The next time someone tells you something surprising, ask what evidence supports it. If there is none, you are entitled to be sceptical.

"It will happen to all of us, that at some point you get tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party's over, but slightly worse: the party's going on, but you have to leave."

— Christopher Hitchens, Mortality (2012)

This passage is from Hitchens's writing about his cancer. The image is striking. Death is not really the end of the party. The party goes on. The world keeps existing. Other people keep eating, drinking, talking, laughing. We just have to leave. The party-image makes the universal experience of dying more concrete and personal. Hitchens wrote about his own dying with extraordinary honesty. He did not pretend to be brave when he was scared. He did not become religious at the end, despite many religious people writing to invite him to. He kept writing, kept thinking, kept being himself, until he could not. The line above is one of his most loved. Many readers have found it moving. For students, the passage shows what unflinching prose about hard subjects can do. Death is one of the hardest subjects. Hitchens did not flinch. The work has helped many readers think about their own mortality.

Using This Thinker in the Classroom

Creative Expression When introducing students to good public prose

How to introduce

Read with students a short essay or column by Hitchens. His writing on books, on travel, or on politicians from the 1990s and early 2000s is often readable for general audiences. Discuss with students what makes the prose work. Long sentences that stay clear. Wide vocabulary used naturally. Wit that does not become silly. Strong opinions delivered with care. Hitchens is one of the best models for clear, vivid public prose in English. Students who want to write essays, columns, or commentary can learn from him. Note also where his style can mislead. The same techniques that make ideas vivid can also make wrong ideas seem more right than they are. Reading carefully means noticing both.

Critical Thinking When teaching students about evaluating claims

How to introduce

Read with students Hitchens's razor: 'What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.' Discuss what this means. If someone tells you something surprising and offers no evidence, you do not need evidence to be sceptical. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Discuss with students examples from their own lives. Conspiracy theories online. Miracle cures advertised on social media. Claims about famous people that have no source. Hitchens's principle is useful in all of these. It does not mean every claim needs absolute proof. It means that wild claims should not be accepted just because someone has stated them. The tool helps students filter information.

Emotional Intelligence When teaching students about facing hard things

How to introduce

Read with students passages from Mortality, Hitchens's book about his cancer. He wrote about chemotherapy, about losing his voice, about being asked to convert to religion at the end. He kept his sense of humour. He did not pretend to be brave when he was scared. He did not become someone he was not. Discuss with students what it means to face a hard thing without pretending. Hitchens did not have a happy story to tell. He had a true one. The honesty made the writing helpful for many readers facing illness, loss, or fear. The book is also funny in places. Hitchens did not stop being himself. The example is useful for students who will eventually face their own hard things.

Further Reading

For deeper reading, God Is Not Great (2007) is the major statement of his anti-religious views. Why Orwell Matters (2002) is excellent on Orwell and on Hitchens's own ideals. The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001) is his case against Kissinger as a war criminal. The Missionary Position (1995) is his book on Mother Teresa. For criticism, Terry Eagleton's Reason, Faith, and Revolution (2009) and various essays by religious and secular critics give the other side.

Key Ideas

His Style

Why He Polarised People

His Limits

Key Quotations

"I'm an atheist. I'm not neutral about religion, I'm hostile to it."

— Christopher Hitchens, in many interviews and lectures

Hitchens often clarified what kind of atheist he was. Many atheists are simply not interested in religion. They have no belief in God and they leave religious people alone. Hitchens was different. He was not just unconvinced by religion. He was actively against it. He thought religion did harm. He wanted to argue with it. He wanted to weaken its influence. He wanted to defend secular reason against what he saw as religious encroachment. The position was deliberate. The line above made it clear. He did not pretend to be neutral. He was hostile. The honesty was part of his style. Many critics, including atheists, thought this hostility was counterproductive. Religious traditions are diverse. Hostile attacks against them all flatten the differences and make conversation harder. Some atheists prefer respectful disagreement. Hitchens preferred hostility. The choice cost him potential allies. It also gave his work a sharpness that many readers found bracing. For advanced students, the line is a useful place to think about what kind of disagreement is most useful in different situations.

"The grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

— Christopher Hitchens, in lectures and writings

Hitchens used this line to defend his willingness to keep speaking and writing on contested topics. He was often told to be quiet, to be more polite, to soften his arguments. He refused. The grave, he said, would give plenty of time for silence. While he was alive, he would speak. The line captures something important about his sense of public duty. Writers, he believed, had the privilege of being heard. They should use that privilege. They should not waste it on safe positions. They should say what they actually thought, including what was unpopular, until they could not say anything any more. The view is admirable in some ways. It is also limited. Some writers might do more good by listening more and speaking less. Some causes need quiet patient work, not loud public attack. Hitchens did not believe in restraint. The position served him well. It served him badly when his loud public attacks (like his support for the Iraq war) turned out to be wrong. For advanced students, the line is worth thinking about carefully. The duty to speak is real. The duty to speak well is also real.

Using This Thinker in the Classroom

Critical Thinking When teaching students about figures whose positions changed

How to introduce

Discuss with advanced students how Hitchens's politics shifted over his career. For most of his life he was on the left. After September 11 in 2001, he supported the Iraq war and other policies most of his old colleagues opposed. The shift broke many friendships. Discuss with students how to think about figures whose views change dramatically. Some changes are honest responses to new evidence. Some are betrayals of earlier commitments. Some are difficult to judge. Hitchens defended his shifts as honest reactions to a world that had changed. Critics saw them as moves towards safer positions. The truth is probably mixed. The Iraq war turned out badly. His support for it has aged poorly. Honest engagement holds the changes together with the rest of his work. He was not just wrong about Iraq, and he was not just right about everything else.

Ethical Thinking When teaching students about how reputations age

How to introduce

Discuss with advanced students how Hitchens's reputation has shifted since his death in 2011. Some of his work has aged well. His writing on books, on personal subjects, on his own dying remains valuable. Some has aged badly. His support for the Iraq war was a serious mistake. His comments on women and sexual harassment in Hitch-22 have been re-examined and found uncomfortable. His attacks on certain figures look unfair in retrospect. Discuss with students how to think about figures who did valuable work but also did harm. The honest position holds both together. We do not have to choose between worship and dismissal. We can read carefully, take what is useful, and notice what is not. The same approach applies to many writers and thinkers, including some students will read at university and beyond.

Common Misconceptions

Common misconception

All atheists agreed with Hitchens.

→

What to teach instead

Many did not. Hitchens's New Atheist style faced serious criticism from other atheists. Mary Midgley argued Hitchens and his colleagues misrepresented religion and drifted into a crude scientism. Terry Eagleton wrote a book attacking the New Atheists from a left-wing position. Many secular humanists preferred respectful engagement with religion to outright hostility. The picture of all atheists supporting Hitchens flattens a real diversity of opinion. Atheist thought is as varied as religious thought. Hitchens represented one strong style. Other styles exist and are worth taking seriously. Honest engagement with atheism requires reading widely beyond the four New Atheist authors.

Common misconception

He was always right because he was confident.

→

What to teach instead

Hitchens was confident but often wrong. His support for the Iraq war was a major mistake by almost any reasonable assessment. The war killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destabilised the region, and produced ISIS. Hitchens defended the war until his death. Some of his attacks on famous figures were unfair. Some of his comments on women have aged badly. Some of his arguments against religion attacked simple targets while ignoring serious religious thinkers. Confidence is not the same as being right. Hitchens's strong style sometimes hid weaknesses in his arguments. Reading him carefully means evaluating his arguments, not just admiring his style. He was a great writer who was sometimes badly wrong.

Common misconception

He stayed on the political left throughout his life.

→

What to teach instead

He did not. For most of his career he was on the left. He wrote for left-wing magazines including The Nation. He was active in left-wing student politics at Oxford. After September 11 in 2001, his politics shifted significantly. He supported the Iraq war in 2003. He defended American military and intelligence policies that the left opposed. Some of his writing in this period was published in conservative magazines. He maintained some left-wing positions to the end (he opposed the death penalty, supported abortion rights, criticised Christian conservatives). But he had moved substantially. Treating him as a lifelong leftist or a lifelong rightist both misrepresent the actual shape of his career. He was a writer whose politics moved over time, with serious consequences for his friendships and his readership.

Common misconception

His attacks on Mother Teresa and others were entirely unfair.

→

What to teach instead

They were sometimes unfair, but often included real points. His book on Mother Teresa noted that her medical care for the dying was poor by modern medical standards. Independent investigations have confirmed parts of this critique. Her support for some reactionary religious causes was real. His critique of Henry Kissinger as a war criminal connected to genuine documented actions, though many of his arguments were contested. His attacks on Bill Clinton sometimes crossed into personal cruelty but also raised real issues about Clinton's conduct. The picture of Hitchens as a man who attacked admired figures unfairly is too simple. Some attacks were unfair. Some were largely justified. Some were a mix. Reading them carefully requires evaluating each one on its merits, not dismissing them all because of his confrontational style.

Intellectual Connections

Develops

George Orwell

Hitchens openly admired Orwell and tried to write in his tradition. He wrote a whole book, Why Orwell Matters (2002), about Orwell's importance. Both writers prized clear plain prose, political honesty, and willingness to attack their own side when they thought it was wrong. Both wrote about the abuse of language by political movements. Both believed writers had public duties. Reading them together gives students a sense of how a tradition of clear public prose can pass from one writer to another. Hitchens was probably the closest 21st-century writer to Orwell's spirit, though his style was richer and more literary than Orwell's.

Complements

Richard Dawkins

Hitchens and Dawkins were two of the four New Atheists, alongside Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. They worked together on talks, debates, and projects. Their styles were different. Dawkins came from biology and emphasised scientific arguments against religion. Hitchens came from journalism and emphasised political and historical arguments. Both faced serious criticism for their treatment of religious traditions. Reading them together gives students a sense of how the New Atheist movement combined different intellectual styles into a single public project. The combination was powerful. It also faced the criticism that came with high-profile public campaigning.

In Dialogue With

Mary Midgley

Midgley criticised the New Atheist movement, including writers like Hitchens, for misrepresenting religious traditions and drifting into scientism. She argued that hostile attacks on religion ignored serious religious thinkers and made productive conversation impossible. Hitchens did not engage with Midgley directly, but his work is exactly the kind of writing Midgley criticised. Reading them together gives students a sense of how serious atheist philosophers (like Midgley) could disagree strongly with the public atheist style of writers like Hitchens. The disagreement was substantial and worth taking seriously.

Complements

Edward Said

Said and Hitchens overlapped at The Nation magazine and were friends in the 1980s and 1990s. Both wrote sharp political and cultural criticism. They came to disagree fundamentally after September 11. Said was a major Palestinian-American intellectual who continued to oppose American foreign policy. Hitchens supported the Iraq war and many policies Said attacked. The two stopped speaking. Reading them together gives students a sense of how serious public intellectuals can move in different directions on major events. Both wrote with care about politics and culture. The disagreement on Iraq was one of the most important intellectual breaks of the early 2000s.

Complements

James Baldwin

Baldwin, the great African American essayist, was one of the masters of long-form public prose in the 20th century. Hitchens worked in a related tradition of major essayistic writing. Both wrote books, essays, and columns. Both took strong public positions. Both saw themselves as writers with public duties. Their politics differed in important ways. Both, however, valued clear writing and serious engagement with hard subjects. Reading them together gives students a sense of how the role of the public essayist has been filled by very different kinds of writers across the 20th century.

In Dialogue With

Albert Camus

Camus, the French essayist and novelist, was one of Hitchens's significant influences. Both writers were committed to clear secular thinking, opposed to ideological closure, and willing to take unpopular positions. Camus broke with the French communist intellectuals over the Soviet Union; Hitchens broke with the American left over Iraq. Both became somewhat isolated as a result. Reading them together gives students a sense of how a tradition of independent left-wing public intellectuals has navigated major political shifts in different generations. Hitchens admired Camus deeply, though their styles and conclusions differed in many ways.