Can Literature Civilize?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Can good literature be used to civilize those unruly masses? Can it educate and tame those wild brutes whose “dull eyes see nothing but their own ungodly woe” or is the finest literature just for those few who have palates developed enough to enjoy its fine pleasures?

I’m thinking maybe in the style of Ruskin who taught and lectured the lower orders in the realms of art, not so that they would necessarily produce themselves, but so that they could at least be taught to really see.

Teaching morality through literature is nothing new of course, but I’m not talking about imposing morality on the hordes, I’m merely thinking about enlightening and opening, and even raising, the minds of the barbarian blind, by the mysteries and wonders of finer literature.

Can it be done? Should it be done? Or is it better to let the scary ruffians be?

[virginiawang]

I can feel the close link between fine literature and a barbarian mind, which belongs to an uneducated, untamed wild mountain animal. Perhaps it is hard to make it clear to people reading this post, but that was what came to me when I read this thread. I am utterly convinced that civilization does not change the essence of a heart, whether it be an enlightened one or a primary one. To be evil and unmoral fits better to wonderful literature, I think.

[blazeofglory]

This is a very interesting idea. Literature cannot basically change people of the Barbarian type. Literature can at times cultivate your minds but not always and to kind of :beatdeadhorse5:change their hearts there are other tools that can be strong tools.

[dfloyd]

H. L. Mencken used to call them the great unwashed. But I believe that these kinds of terms are outmoded by the educational levels reached today. Most of my frfends come from the upper strata of society. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, computer specialists, etc. No one could call them barbarians. Yet very few of them read.

For years educators have been preaching that a sprinkling of liberal arts couses should be integrated into the curriculum of those taking the more technical courses. But it is difficult to tell or teach those students in the throes of solving differential equations that they should devote some student time to the discovery of Shakespeare.

Let's face it. Those who are inveterate readers with a love of literature are probably born, not made. Literature will always be an elite occupation. Those who learn to read early and show early ability in the understanding of literature, will have a lifetime of pleasure. Those that don't, cannot be force fed into the pleasures and self assurance that literature brings.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Who do you mean when you say barbarians?


H. L. Mencken used to call them the great unwashed. But I believe that these kinds of terms are outmoded by the educational levels reached today. Most of my frfends come from the upper strata of society. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, computer specialists, etc. No one could call them barbarians. Yet very few of them read.

Oh, I like the phrase "the great unwashed"... Well, as a sort of educator myself in a roundabout sort of way, I'm personally interested in helping individuals find their own particular passion and trying to encourage them on that particular road, no matter what the field or area of study. So if someone was interested in computers or law or whatever then I wouldn't for a second push my own agenda, different people naturally have varied interests and that is fine and healthy.

What I think I was getting at, in a playful sort of way, is the old fashioned notion of "improving" the mind through art, in particular the written word. I just wondered what people thought on this issue really.

Personally, I agree, I do think that a person has to have some sort of inherent interest/passion for literature if they are going to be drawn into it fully - even if I have seen small sparks of interest from those who declare a total distaste for the written word on occasion.


I am utterly convinced that civilization does not change the essence of a heart, whether it be an enlightened one or a primary one.

No you are probably correct. As Wilde said that we are all the same under our masks, but it is the masks that are interesting. It probably leads us back to the essence of human nature and all that comes with that too.

[Virgil]

Can good literature be used to civilize those unruly masses? Can it educate and tame those wild brutes whose “dull eyes see nothing but their own ungodly woe” or is the finest literature just for those few who have palates developed enough to enjoy its fine pleasures?

I’m thinking maybe in the style of Ruskin who taught and lectured the lower orders in the realms of art, not so that they would necessarily produce themselves, but so that they could at least be taught to really see.

Teaching morality through literature is nothing new of course, but I’m not talking about imposing morality on the hordes, I’m merely thinking about enlightening and opening, and even raising, the minds of the barbarian blind, by the mysteries and wonders of finer literature.

Can it be done? Should it be done? Or is it better to let the scary ruffians be?

Good God, Neely, that is soooo snobish, it's breath taking. So I take it, you are civilized and most everyone else are brutes? ;)

Art (story telling, music, art) in general are elements of what makes a civilization and carry cultural traditions and norms. I think that's a different issue from what you're getting at.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Good God, Neely, that is soooo snobish, it's breath taking. So I take it, you are civilized and most everyone else are brutes? ;)

Well I was just asking because I once tried to civilize my personal chef (I forget his name) but it didn't work, he didn't take to it at all, damn fellow.

[jadrianne]

Some of them just can't break their mental limits .

[Paris]

Personally, I agree, I do think that a person has to have some sort of inherent interest/passion for literature if they are going to be drawn into it fully - even if I have seen small sparks of interest from those who declare a total distaste for the written word on occasion.

What an interesting discussion...

I totally agree..in my opinion..many of the ''wild brutes'' are quite content in their current states..although..having once been a wild brute myself..(a civilized one at that) many have hidden passions which only need cultivating..encouraging perhaps..my original passion for litterature came from an acknowledgement that there was actually something I could relate to in the works of many..often the assumption is that literature is far removed from the real world..(similar things have been said about the bible for instance)..people often want to be able to relate to what they read..hence the popularity of authors such as Martina Cole & Cecilia Ahern..

Literature can not civilise..but it can certainly go a long way to cultivate..broaden & feed the mind..it did for me!

[prendrelemick]

To play with words for a moment, literature is a product of civilization, not the other way round.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Literature can not civilise..but it can certainly go a long way to cultivate..broaden & feed the mind..it did for me!

Certainly, well put, it did for me too. Joking aside, (with the "brutes" and "ruffians") one of my biggest regrets in life is that I wasn't exposed to reading from an earlier age, instead I came to it quite by chance at about seventeen. I still feel incredibly frustrated at times the way I feel I sort of missed out here, I feel a little let down by the system, parents (I suppose) and my own stupidity that the little sparks I did have for reading were not fully lit. Though, I think that maturity has to play a natural part in matters too - and it is not all woe.

In this sense I suppose, to "civilize" the individual (that is an awful term, but I like to be playful sometimes) is in a sense to provide people with opportunities to discover the things that they might love, which in turn might lead them onto their own particular path in life.

I live and work in an environment in which reading books are almost something that are completely alien to the vast majority of people. Certainly in terms of quality books, though really just reading in general! This just feels quite wrong to me and I’ve never really got use to it – I can’t understand it.

I am an extremely strong advocator of books for children - books from birth. In the sense of improving literacy and writing skills there is absolutely nothing better for it, nothing. You only have to look at a child's writing and you can instantly spot that they are readers from their work, it is so much the better for it. I fully support the Sure Start scheme which offers free books from birth, though this is very limited and needs to be followed up with more.

All parents should flood their children with books from birth without exception.

[Amoxcalli]

No one is going to be influenced by literature without reading some.

These "barbarians" as you call them (which I find a degrading term for perfectly human human beings who are in general no more immoral than the intellectual elite) will have to read literature first, before it can influence them (for the better or for worse). I don't think this happens in current society. The masses are more likely to be influenced for the better by a good film.

[jadrianne]

to say this but : there are more and more people in the world that don't want to read and those people are more despisable for me than the ones that are uncultivated because they didn't get the chance of a proper education .

The people that don't understand culture think that it's sufficient enough to have the school of life as they call it .

[LitNetIsGreat]

No one is going to be influenced by literature without reading some.

These "barbarians" as you call them (which I find a degrading term for perfectly human human beings who are in general no more immoral than the intellectual elite) will have to read literature first, before it can influence them (for the better or for worse). I don't think this happens in current society. The masses are more likely to be influenced for the better by a good film.

I was merely being playful - I just woke up in silly mood this morning, I sort of thought that would be obvious, but maybe not...

It is a good point though, actually getting children to even consider reading, if they are not used to it, can be incredibly hard, that's why, like I said above, you have to introduce books as early as possible - from birth really. The amount of young people who totally dismiss the very notion of reading is really shocking. If it is true what it is said about the purpose of education is to open minds then is doesn't appear to be doing a very good job - though that one is perhaps for another day.

[jadrianne]

you must turn the books into the forbidden fruit : when it is forbidden to read the people will begin to read .( as seen also in the movie Fahrenheit 451 ).

[stlukesguild]

"Can" literature cultivate or civilize? I suppose literature "can" do a great many things (good or bad). The question may be "should" it be expected to civilize... is that its purpose? And does it always do so? In another thread the question of reader's empathy arises and I find that I greatly agree with Anna Quindlen as she wrote:

Books are the means to immortality: Plato lives forever, as do Dickens, and Dr. Seuss, Soames Forsyte, Jo March, Scrooge, Anna Karenina, and Vronsky. Over and over again Heathcliffe wanders the moor searching for his Cathy. Over and over again Ahab fights the whale.Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque.

This sort of empathy... the willingness to experience other lives... is perhaps something understood by readers... but one questions whether reading inspires this empathy... or the empathy inspires the desire for reading. One also doubts whether this sort of "empathy" results in a degree of civilizing of the individual.

[blazeofglory]

In point of literature does not necessarily civilize or cultivate us; at times if literature imparts moral education it seems to civilization to a considerable extent. But literature at times become expressions of a barbarian society and it becomes indifferent to moral issues and just express the culture of that society.

In point of fact literature must be simply reflective or expressive of the land it is written about.

[aquarium444]

Can good literature be used to civilize those unruly masses? Can it educate and tame those wild brutes whose “dull eyes see nothing but their own ungodly woe” or is the finest literature just for those few who have palates developed enough to enjoy its fine pleasures?

I’m thinking maybe in the style of Ruskin who taught and lectured the lower orders in the realms of art, not so that they would necessarily produce themselves, but so that they could at least be taught to really see.

Teaching morality through literature is nothing new of course, but I’m not talking about imposing morality on the hordes, I’m merely thinking about enlightening and opening, and even raising, the minds of the barbarian blind, by the mysteries and wonders of finer literature.

Can it be done? Should it be done? Or is it better to let the scary ruffians be?

School is used to control the masses, but unruly or uncivilized people are mostly people who are exposed to poverty and violence (Note: not the correct word). We are all placed in the same education system and forced to adapt the best we can. There is no such thing as a barbarian in our civilization. A barbarian in the past is a completely different individual and it has nothing to do with people in our society who become aggressive. The question has nothing to do with literature.

more....

This is a barbarian. You live in a culture that has a totally different standard and a different set of laws than what we have. Killing or survival is looked upon a something honorable, and held in high esteem, etc. Totally different concept than what we have in our society.

more....

What I think that you are suggesting is that can the people who do not respect literature, be converted. Yes, it might be possible but you probably can't force them to enjoy the palate unless you add something different. Anyway, that might happen naturally over a long period of time, and they themselves might have to create their own literature or else it might not be possible and the answer is no.

Look at how much culture has changed over the different eras. It does change. It isn't that friendly toward literature at this time. What the real answer could be is what is the best variety of readings that allow a person to enjoy literature to the extent that nothing at all matters.

last....

Drugs creates the modern pseudo barbarian and for some reason the use of developed language is missing. It is hard and lonely work to read literature, and to talk about it is now obviously impossible. Anything can happen and nobody would know the difference. Try not to kill yourself by eating too much. It is just a bunch of nosy people worship these days. Good writing was something to get up for. It is good that it is finished, nobody deserves it.

[JonathanLockely]

I would say yes and no.

You bring one of the great unwashed into a civilized society, there is a chance that literature can civilize him with the proper environment.

You however cannot take Literature to uncivilized people. It is not the equivalent of Prometheus bringing fire to man. We might consider literature essential, but that is only in reference to how many things we take for granted.

There are numerous references throughout history of this happening mostly driven by that great changer Christianity. Where the bible is brought to the masses, two things happen. they reject it, and wage a terrible war against encroaching Christianity, or they accept it, but it doesn't bring civilization. as seen in modern African nations where they have interpreted it into witch hunts and sorcery.

[aquarium444]

If I was civilized I might not be able to appreciate the little classics that I read. I might not be in awe of the details.

[Virgil]

In point of literature does not necessarily civilize or cultivate us; at times if literature imparts moral education it seems to civilization to a considerable extent. But literature at times become expressions of a barbarian society and it becomes indifferent to moral issues and just express the culture of that society.

In point of fact literature must be simply reflective or expressive of the land it is written about.

Absolutely!! Perfectly said and I can't say it any better. What about war novels and jingoistic literature and literature that justifies slavery and what not? Literature, art in general, stems from the values of the writer and his society.

Five stars for you Blaze for the perfect comment!!

http://www.contracosta.cc.ca.us/math/fivestar.gif

[LitNetIsGreat]

Absolutely!! Perfectly said and I can't say it any better. What about war novels and jingoistic literature and literature that justifies slavery and what not? Literature, art in general, stems from the values of the writer and his society.


Certainly art is a product of the author's social circumstance - to a large degree (wasn't that Marx's position anyway?) and that literature can do many other things, like forward propaganda or corrupt as you suggest too, but I was just interested in hearing thoughts about the use of literature as a "civilizing" tool. I'm not personally for or against it at all, as I said (apart from the want to improve literacy which is my job) I'm merely forwarding a question or position which I thought was interesting enough to forward.

Personally, literature only has to do one thing for me and that is to give pleasure, it doesn't have to serve any other purpose except to fill my life with beauty and wonder which is arts ultimate aim if it has to have one.

However, in terms of "civilizing" I have seen rough kids mellowed by Mozart and eyes light to the wonder of a few lines by Keats, to know that, at least as one poster said, if not to "civilize" at least literature can cultivate, broaden and fill the minds of those who immediately reject it.

[Griffith]

No, literature cannot civilize plebeian scum. Even the rabble that read books today - an insignificant parcel of the world population - just read degenerated morons like Kafka or commercial books like The Da vinci Code or Twilight.

[Drkshadow03]

No, literature cannot civilize plebeian scum. Even the rabble that read books today - an insignificant parcel of the world population - just read degenerated morons like Kafka or commercial books like The Da vinci Code or Twilight.

Yes, we wouldn't want them reading Kafka or the likes of The Da Vinci Code or Twilight books!

Did you seriously just throw out the term plebeian scum? I mean I know Neely, St. Luke, and company like to joke about how everyone thinks they're elitist, but jeez . . .

[Virgil]

Certainly art is a product of the author's social circumstance - to a large degree (wasn't that Marx's position anyway?) and that literature can do many other things, like forward propaganda or corrupt as you suggest too, but I was just interested in hearing thoughts about the use of literature as a "civilizing" tool. I'm not personally for or against it at all, as I said (apart from the want to improve literacy which is my job) I'm merely forwarding a question or position which I thought was interesting enough to forward.

Personally, literature only has to do one thing for me and that is to give pleasure, it doesn't have to serve any other purpose except to fill my life with beauty and wonder which is arts ultimate aim if it has to have one.

However, in terms of "civilizing" I have seen rough kids mellowed by Mozart and eyes light to the wonder of a few lines by Keats, to know that, at least as one poster said, if not to "civilize" at least literature can cultivate, broaden and fill the minds of those who immediately reject it.
But haven't people been inspired to war and violence with literature? I'm sure there are plenty of examples. The ones that come to mind are the Arthurian tales of knighthood, where men will challenge each other to duels to the death over honor as delineated in the tales. Literature is a mixed bag when it comes to "civilizing." What it does is project the values of a society. Knights fighting to the death we today would consider uncivilized, but in there day that was the civilized thing to do.

[Drkshadow03]

But haven't people been inspired to war and violence with literature? I'm sure there are plenty of examples. The ones that come to mind are the Arthurian tales of knighthood, where men will challenge each other to duels to the death over honor as delineated in the tales. Literature is a mixed bag when it comes to "civilizing." What it does is project the values of a society. Knights fighting to the death we today would consider uncivilized, but in there day that was the civilized thing to do.

Also according to some literary critics, like Terry Eagleton, pride in one's literature and culture played a crucial part in British Imperialism. After all, those barbarians didn't produce Shakespeare!

Hence, why the language of this thread is extremely problematic, and that's putting it lightly.

[BienvenuJDC]

Can literature lead a civilization from being civilized?