Justify the title of the essay Literature and Society

Answer

Critically comment on the title of the essay “Literature and Society.” [2018] ✪✪✪ Or, Justify the title of the essay “Literature and Society.” [2015]

Frank Raymond Leavis CH (1895-1978) is one of the greatest English critics of the twentieth century. He believed that literature and society are deeply connected. His essay “Literature and Society” (1937) shows how great art grows from the union of individual talent and social culture. The title itself reflects this relationship. Justifying the validity of naming a literary work means finding the similarity between its title and its content. Let us do this.

Connection between Literature and Society: Leavis clearly states that literature and society depend on each other. A good writer must be aware of the culture, tradition, and moral spirit of his time. He said, 

“It is only in individuals that society lives.”

This means that every work of literature expresses both personal feelings and social experience. Literature reflects human values, beliefs, and emotions that belong to a living community. The title is justified because it highlights the interdependence between art and social life.

Influence of Eliot’s Idea of Tradition: Leavis’s thought was deeply influenced by T.S. Eliot’s essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” Eliot said that the writer’s work must be part of the “mind of Europe.” Leavis agreed and wrote, 

“The individual writer is to be aware that his work is of the literature to which it belongs.”

For him, “mind” in Eliot’s essay is equal to “society.” The title “Literature and Society” thus suggests that true art grows from the social heritage of mankind.

Balance between the Individual and the Social: Leavis believed that literature must strike a balance between the personal and the collective spirit. He said, 

“Without the individual talent there is no creation.”

However, he also cautioned against making art too private or too public. The Augustans made literature overly social, and the Romantics made it purely individual. Both failed to achieve