p>
This means that literature grows from the life of society through individual minds. For him, great writers do not live apart from their people. They speak the language of their age and represent the values of their time. Leavis thus believed that good literature must express both the individual talent and the collective spirit of society.
Rejection of One-Sided Theories: Leavis rejected both Romantic and Marxist ideas because they focused on only one aspect of life. The Romantics praised individual emotion and largely ignored society, while the Marxists focused solely on material and class forces. He said,
“Without the individual talent there is no creation.”
However, he also believed that individual genius cannot exist apart from its cultural context. For him, the balance between the personal and the social makes art meaningful.
The Augustan and Romantic Contrast: Leavis studies English literature through different ages to prove his point. The Augustan writers like Dryden, Pope, and Addison stressed social manners and public order. They made man only a social being. But Leavis warned,
“Such insistence on the social has a discouraging effect on originality.”
The Augustan writers killed the freshness of imagination. Then came the Romantics who reacted too strongly. Blake and Wordsworth turned away from society and created art that was too personal.
The Ideal Balance in Bunyan: Leavis found the perfect harmony of individual and society in John Bunyan’s “The Pilgrim’s Progress.” He said,
“A humane masterpiece resulted because he belonged to the civilization of his time.”
Bunyan’s work joined the popular and the refined, the moral and the social. He expressed deep religious and human feelings through the simple language of ordinary people. Leavis also praised Cecil Sharp’s study of English folk songs. This demonstrated how ordinary people can possess high moral and cultural standards. Such works demonstrate that true art emerges from both high and common culture.
Need for Cultural Health: Leavis believed that literature must grow from a healthy social tradition. He asked,
“What is the best conceivable public?”
This question shows his concern for cultural balance. A good writer needs a good audience: educated, sensitive, and rooted in tradition. If society loses its shared values, literature also weakens. Modern industrial life, he thought, had broken this link between writer and society. To restore true culture, both must come together again. Literature should speak for the whole community, not only for a class or a few individuals.
In conclusion, Leavis’s idea that literature should be based on the whole of social culture comes from his deep moral and cultural beliefs. He saw literature as a bridge between the individual and the community. Popular and refined cultures, as well as ethical and artistic values, must all unite to keep literature alive. For him, true literature expresses the complete experience of human life. It grows from both personal genius and social tradition and thus keeps civilization spiritually healthy and human.
Continue Reading
Subscribe to access the full content
Upgrade to Premium