Evaluate Leavis’ objections against the Wordsworthian theory of poetry

Answer

Question: Evaluate Leavis’ objections against the Wordsworthian theory of poetry.

Frank Raymond Leavis (1895-1978), in his essay “Literature and Society” (1937), presents a clear criticism of the Wordsworthian theory of poetry. Wordsworth (1770-1850) emphasizes the poet’s role as a passive reflector of nature and emotions. Leavis challenges this view, arguing that poetry should be seen as an active engagement with society and human experience. Through a careful examination of Leavis’ objections, it becomes clear that his perspective offers a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between literature and society.

The Neglect of Social and Political Realities: According to Leavis, Wordsworth’s theory neglects the influence of social and political realities on human behavior and consciousness. He argues Wordsworth’s focus is on universal emotions. Wordsworth says,

“Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.” 

Leavis argues Wordsworth fails to account for the impact of social and political forces on individual lives. Leavis suggests that a broader understanding of society is essential for interpreting poetry accurately. 

Lack of Social Engagement: Leavis criticizes Wordsworth for his failure to engage with the social and political realities of his time. He argues that Wordsworth’s focus on nature and personal emotions neglects the broader social context in which poetry operates. Leavis states Wordsworth is criticised for lacking a sense of social responsibility. This analysis highlights the importance of poetry as a tool for social commentary rather than a retreat into personal reflection. Leavis states,

“Literature is the supreme means by which you renew your sensuous and emotional life and learn a new awareness.”

Cultural Elitism: Leavis suggests that the Wordsworthian theory perpetuates a form of cultural elitism by prioritizing individual experience over collective social concerns. He argues that this approach alienates poetry from the broader masses and reinforces hierarchies of taste and privilege. This highlights the need for poetry to resonate with diverse audiences and address the concerns of society as a whole. 

Escapism: Leavis criticizes Wordsworth for promoting a form of escapism through his idealization of nature and the rural paradise. He argues that this romanticized view of the countryside serves to distract from the pressing social issues of the day. Leavis highlights the importance of poetry as a means of engaging, rather than avoiding, the complexities of society. 

Lack of Moral Purpose: Leavis claims that the Wordsworthian theory fails to recognize the poet’s moral responsibility to engage with ethical and social questions. He suggests that poetry should not be divorced from moral considerations but should instead aim to illuminate and challenge societal norms. Leavis emphasizes the need for poetry to grapple with moral dilemmas and ethical complexities in order to contribute meaningfully to society. 

Neglect of Human Suffering: Leavis highlights Wordsworth’s neglect of human suffering and social injustice in his poetic vision. He argues that Wordsworth’s focus on nature and personal emotions covers the harsh realities faced by many in society. This highlights the importance of poetry as a vehicle for sympathy and social criticism. Poetry is capable of shedding light on the struggles of the less fortunate. But Leavis appreciates Wordsworth from the viewpoint of individual talent. Leavis states,

“Without the individual talent there is no creation.”

In conclusion, Frank Raymond Leavis’ analysis of the Wordsworthian theory of poetry offers valuable insights into the role of literature in society. By challenging Wordsworthian notions, Leavis encourages a more socially engaged and morally aware approach to poetry. His arguments remind us of the power of literature to shape, review, and reflect upon the world around us.