This paper was published in 1941 in a book of essays titled The Intent of the Critic, ed D A Stauffer,

Princeton ni!ersity Press"

Criticis# in a $ass Society
W H Auden
%e are fre&uently and correctly told that one of the #ost precious pri!ile'es of a
de#ocratic state is the ri'ht to free self(criticis#" If we care, then, about the
preser!ation of that de#ocracy, our first duty is to disco!er how this ri'ht is, in fact,
e)ercised" It will not take us lon' to disco!er that in a #odern society, whate!er its
political for#, the 'reat #a*ority prefer opinion to knowled'e, and passi!ely allow the
for#er to be i#posed upon the# by a centrali+ed few,I need only #ention as in
e)a#ple the influence of the Sunday book supple#ents of the newspapers upon our
public libraries"
If we are concerned, as I think we should be, at this trend, we shall acco#plish
nothin' by cries of la#entation or superior sneers- we cannot hope to effect any refor#
unless we can disco!er, firstly, what it is in the structure of our society that #akes for
this state of affairs, secondly- how far the #oldin' of the opinions of the few by the
#any is ine!itable, and then what steps it is possible to take within the ine!itable to
#ini#i+e its dan'ers and take ad!anta'e of its possibilities"
1" There are two types of society. closed societies and open"
/" All hu#an societies be'in by bein' of the closed type, but, e)cept when they ha!e
sta'nated or died, they ha!e always e!ol!ed toward an e!er #ore and #ore open type"
p until the industrial re!olution this e!olution was so 'radual as hardly to be
perceptible within the life(span of an indi!idual, but since then the rate of de!elop#ent
has e!er increasin'ly accelerated"
0" The e!olutionary process is co#plicated by the fact that different sections of the
co##unity pro'ress toward the open society at different speeds" At any 'i!en point in
history there are classes for who# econo#ic, political, and cultural ad!anta'es #ake
society relati!ely open, and, !ice !ersa, those for who# si#ilar disad!anta'es #ake it
relati!ely closed, but in co#parin' one historical epoch with its precedin' one, all
classes are seen to ha!e #ade so#e e!olution in the sa#e direction"
4" %hen we use the word de#ocracy we do not or should not #ean any particular
for# of political structure- such #atters are secondary" %hat we #ean or ou'ht to #ean
is the co#pletely open society"
1" The technical obstacles to this ha!e been o!erco#e" %hat is holdin' us back is the
failure of totalitarians and de#ocrats alike to reali+e how open society has already
physically beco#e, so that we continue to apply habits of #ind which were #ore or less
ade&uate to the relati!ely closed society of the ei'hteenth century to an open society
which de#ands co#pletely new ones" The failure of the hu#an race to ac&uire the
habits that an open society de#ands if it is to function properly, is leadin' an increasin'
nu#ber of people to the conclusion that an open society is i#possible, and that,
therefore, the only escape fro# econo#ic and spiritual disaster is to return as &uickly as
possible to a closed type of society" 2ut social e!olution, fortunately or unfortunately, is
irre!ersible" A #echani+ed and differentiated closed society is a self(contradiction" %e
ha!e in fact no choice at all- we ha!e to adapt oursel!es to an open society or perish"
3o hu#an co##unity of course has e!er been co#pletely closed, and none probably
will e!er be co#pletely open, but fro# the researches of anthropolo'ists and historians,
we can construct a Platonic idea of both"
Ideally, a closed society is physically se're'ated, econo#ically autono#ous and
without cultural contact with other co##unities" 4ccupationally it is undifferentiated-
e!eryone does the sa#e kind of work, a'riculture, fishin', huntin', etc"- such
differences as e)ist are based on biolo'ical differences of se) and a'e" In the education
of the youn' there is no distinction between !ocational or technical and cultural or #oral
trainin'- all acti!ities are 'o!erned by tradition- the ri'ht thin' to do is inseparable fro#
the ri'ht way of doin' it 5an identity found today only in co#pulsion neurosis6" 7ducation
ends with puberty- to be #ature #eans to be socially nor#al" In contrast to its pri#iti!e
econo#y, the character type i#posed on all its #e#bers is e)tre#ely speciali+ed and
#ay !ary fantastically fro# one closed society to another- the Arapesh type, for
e)a#ple, is cooperati!e and pacific, the Dobu type is a paranoiac" Aberrant indi!iduals
who fail to be conditioned #ust beco#e either her#its or saboteurs" Art as a #eans to
satisfy internal psychic needs and science as a #eans to satisfy e)ternal #aterial
needs, are included in an undifferentiated co#ple) of co##unal acti!ities- it is not
reali+ed that an incantatory curse is intrinsically different fro# a stab with a knife"
The reli'ion by which it li!es is polytheistic. little or no distinction is drawn between the
particular and the uni!ersal, the si'n and its si'nification" In its taboos and re'ulations it
has not learned to distin'uish between propositions or state#ents which can be pro!ed
true or false by i##ediate e)peri#ent, and presuppositions or professions of faith"
Since the indi!idual is scarcely differentiated fro# the whole and techni&ue is pri#iti!e,
freedo# consists lar'ely in a consciousness of causal necessity either in the for# of the
forces of nature or of the social pressures of tradition, and to only a !ery sli'ht de'ree in
a consciousness of lo'ical necessity" The #otto of such a society is that of the trolls in
Peer 8ynt,to thyself be enou'h"
The ideal open society on the other hand would know no physical, econo#ic or
cultural frontiers" Conscious both of what it possessed and what it lacked, it would
e)chan'e freely with all others" 4ccupationally speciali+ed, the ran'e of occupations to
choose fro# would be so wide that there would be no one, howe!er e)ceptional his
nature, who could not find his 'enuine !ocation" Such a co##unity would be tolerant
because it found e!ery kind of person useful, and its #e#bers socially responsible
because conscious of bein' needed"
$echani+ed, it would ha!e con&uered nature but would reco'ni+e that con&uest for
what it is,not the abolition of necessity, but the transfor#ation of #uch of the e)ternal
causal necessity of #atter into the internal lo'ical necessity of #oral decision"
The concept of nor#ality would ha!e disappeared, for, since an open society re&uires
open indi!iduals, #aturity would be re'arded as an ideal 'oal that is ne!er reached"
The ai# of education would be to assist the child who is born as a closed syste# of
refle) responses to 'row up into an adult who is open to the de'ree to which he ceases
to be #erely accessory to his position and beco#es aware of who he is and what he
really wants" 9or we do not essentially chan'e as we 'row up- the difference between
the child and the adult is that the for#er is not conscious of his destiny and the latter is"
:is #otto is that of the hu#an bein's in Peer 8ynt,to thyself be true"
9ar as we are and perhaps always #ust be fro# reali+in' this in our social life, in our
cultural and intellectual life we ha!e #o!ed a lon' way toward it" Instead of workin'
within, the li#its of one re'ional or national esthetic tradition, the #odern artist works
with a consciousness of all the cultural productions, not only of the whole world of his
day, but also of the whole historical past" Thus one sculptor #ay be influenced by the
for#s of electrical #achinery, another by African #asks, another by Donatello and so
on" The three 'reatest influences on #y own work ha!e been, I think, Dante, ;an'land,
and Pope"
If we talk of tradition today, we no lon'er #ean what the ei'hteenth century #eant, a
way of workin' handed down fro# one 'eneration to the ne)t- we #ean a
consciousness of the whole of the past in the present" 4ri'inality no lon'er #eans a
sli'ht personal #odification of one<s i##ediate predecessors, as for e)a#ple the #usic
of :aydn or Schubert differs fro# that of $o+art- it #eans the capacity to find in any
other work of any date or locality clues for the treat#ent of one<s own personal sub*ect
#atter" Stra!insky and Picasso are 'ood e)a#ple of artists who at different ti#es ha!e
#ade personal #odifications of entirely different techni&ues"
4!er a'ainst this cultural unity of ti#e and space, howe!er, stands the increasin'
uni&ueness in #odern life of the indi!idual<s social position" %hen I hear critics talk of
an A#erican art, I a# at a loss to know which A#erica they #ean- the A#erica of a
3e'ro *anitor in the 2ron) is al#ost as different fro# the A#erica of a prosperous white
far#er in %isconsin as 9rance is fro# China"
The i#portance that criticis# and belles(lettres take today can be understood only if
we reco'ni+e these two characteristics of our society. the tendency toward indi!iduation
of e)perience, and the chan'e in the #eanin' of the word tradition"
The conte#porary critic has two pri#ary tasks" 9irstly he #ust show the indi!idual that
thou'h he is uni&ue he has also #uch in co##on with all other indi!iduals, that each
life is, to use a che#ical #etaphor, an iso#orph of a 'eneral hu#an life and then #ust
teach hi# how to see the rele!ance to his own e)perience of works of art which deal
with e)periences apparently stran'e to hi#- so that, for e)a#ple, the coal #iner in
Pennsyl!ania can learn to see hi#self in ter#s of =the world of >onald 9irbank, and an
An'lican bishop find in The 8rapes of %rath a parable of his diocesan proble#s"
And secondly the critic #ust atte#pt to spread a knowled'e of past cultures so that
his audience #ay be as aware of the# as the artist hi#self, not only si#ply in order to
appreciate the latter, but because the situation of all indi!iduals, artist and audience
alike, in an open society is such that the only check on authoritarian control by the few,
whether in #atters of esthetic taste or political choice, is the knowled'e of the #any"
%e cannot of course all be e)perts in e!erythin'- we are always 'o!erned, and I hope
willin'ly, by those who# we belie!e to be e)pert- but our society has already reached a
point in its de!elop#ent where the e)pert can be reco'ni+ed only by an educated *ud'(
#ent" The standard de#anded of the #an in the street 5and outside our own special
field, we are all #en in the street6 rises with e!ery 'eneration"
This cannot be e#phasi+ed too stron'ly" In earlier phases of social de!elop#ent a
#an could be a #e#ber of a 'roup 5i"e", not, in our sense, an indi!idual6, and yet be a
person- he could be accessory to his position because the latter was a real necessity,
and by !irtue of bein' a necessity, could #ake hi# free" Today a #an has only two
choices. he can be consciously passi!e or consciously acti!e" :e can accept
deliberately or re*ect deliberately, but he #ust decide because his position in life is no
lon'er a real necessity- he could be different if he chose" The necessity that can #ake
hi# free is no lon'er his position as such, but the necessity< of choosin' to accept or
re*ect it" To be unconscious is to be neither an indi!idual nor a person, but a
#athe#atical inte'er in so#ethin' called the Public which has no real e)istence"
This is, alas, what only too often happens" %e ha!e heard #uch in the last twenty
years of the separation of the #odern artist fro# the crowd, of how #odern art is
unintelli'ible to the a!era'e #an, and it is co##only but falsely supposed that this is
because the artist is a special case" In #y opinion, on the contrary, the lack of
co##unication between artist and audience pro!es the lack of co##unication between
all #en- a work of art only un#asks the lack which is co##on to us all, but which we
nor#ally #ana'e to 'loss o!er with e!ery trick and con!ention of con!ersation- #en are
now only indi!iduals who can for# collecti!e #asses but not co##unities"
4ne co##on reaction to this is to place responsibility for our defects upon fate, by
sayin' that we are li!in' in an a'e of transition, i#plyin' that if only we are patiently
passi!e Pour faults will disappear of the#sel!es when the new order has stabili+ed
itself" This is a false and dan'erous way of statin' a !aluable truth- perhaps the only
decisi!e ad!anta'e we possess o!er our ancestors is a historical knowled'e which
enables us to see that all a'es are a'es of transition" =This reali+ation robs us of false
hopes, of belie!in', if we are fortunate, that the Absolute Idea has been at last
historically reali+ed, or of e)pectin', if we are unfortunate, a #illenniu# around the
corner" At the sa#e ti#e it should keep us fro# despair- no error is final"
%hate!er our nationality, occupation, or beliefs, we are all a'reed on one thin'- that
the ti#es throu'h which we are now li!in' #ark the end of a period which, for
con!enience, we can say be'an with the >enaissance" %e are all consciously or
unconsciously seekin' so#e for# of catholic unity to correct the #oral, artistic, and
political chaos that has resulted fro# an o!er(de!elop#ent of protestant di!ersity 5usin'
these ter#s in their widest sense6" 4ur differences, and they are !ital, are as to the
essential nature of that unity and the for# which it should take" The cohesion of a
society is secured by a #i)ture of three factors, co##unity of actions, co##unity of
faith and beliefs, and coercion by those who possess the #eans of e)ercisin' it" In a
differentiated society like our own, the first factor has in lar'e #easure disappeared" If
we are a'reed that the third should be as s#all an influence as possible, we #ust
e)a#ine the second !ery carefully"
I ha!e used two words, faith and belief, to describe two different for#s of assent.
assent to presuppositions which cannot be i##ediately pro!ed true or false, as, for
e)a#ple, science presupposes that the world of nature e)ists- and assent to
propositions that can be e)peri#entally tested, e"'", the proposition that water boils at
one hundred de'rees centi'rade" In proportion as a society is closed and traditional it
tends to re'ard all propositions as presuppositions and so to discoura'e initiati!e and
research because it fears the destruction of its funda#ental assu#ptions" Con!ersely,
in proportion as a society beco#es open and e)peri#ental it is in dan'er of denyin' the
necessity of #akin' any presuppositions at all" 9urther, in any society where there is a
stru''le for the power of control, the Ins will tend to preach a static #onis# which
identifies the absolute and uni!ersal with their own concrete and particular, while the
4uts, in e)posin' this ideolo'ical pretension, will tend toward a relati!e dualis# which
denies or i'nores absolutes alto'ether" This is dan'erous" The state#ent, ?$an is a
fallen creature with a natural bias to do e!il,@ and the state#ent, ?$en are 'ood by
nature and #ade bad by society,@ are both presuppositions, but it is not an acade#ic
&uestion to which one we 'i!e assent" If, as I do, you assent to the first, your art and
politics will be !ery different fro# what they will be if you assent, like >ousseau or %hit(
#an, to the second"
The history of art and esthetic criticis# is an e)cellent field for the study of these
difficulties" In the first place, since the breakdown of patrona'e in the ei'hteenth
century, the artist has been the e)tre#e case of the free indi!idual, the one for who#,
#ore than for any other, society has beco#e open and untraditional- and in the second
place, since art by its nature is a shared, a catholic, acti!ity, he is the first to feel the
conse&uences of a lack of co##on beliefs, and the first to seek a co##on basis for
hu#an unity"
The >enaissance broke the subordination of all other intellectual fields to that of
theolo'y, and assu#ed the autono#y of each" The artists of the >enaissance sou'ht
canons of esthetic *ud'#ent which should be independent and self(supportin', and
belie!ed that they had found the# in the classics, for'ettin' that the esthetics of the
8reeks were inseparable fro# social habits and reli'ious beliefs which they the#sel!es
did not share" The atte#pt to #ake esthetics an autono#ous pro!ince resulted in
acade#ic esthetics, the substitution of the pedant for the priest"
The ro#antic reaction defied the pedant in the na#e of liberty for the i#a'inati!e
ori'inal 'enius, but thereby only accentuated the two 'reat esthetic proble#s, the
proble# of co##unication and the proble# of !alue" 9or the absolutely uni&ue would
be absolutely inco##unicable- and unless, in so#e respects, all #en are alike, that is,
unori'inal, all taste is purely personal" Thus e!en the #ost ro#antic artists ha!e
atte#pted to *ustify their art by correspondence to a 3ature which all can reco'ni+e"
So#e assu#ed that the only point of a'ree#ent between indi!iduals lay in the
si#ilarity of their sense perceptions and beca#e ?realists,@ i"e", they atte#pted to 'i!e
an e)act description of pheno#enal facts" nfortunately, since the facts are infinite in
nu#ber and their selection is not perfor#ed by the sense or'ans the#sel!es, unless we
assu#e #ore than this, such art #ust lo'ically end in #anufacturin' nature herself- it
will not be enou'h to paint a lake, one will ha!e to #ake one"
4thers turned to the unconscious and instincti!e as a basis of unity and beca#e
?surrealists"@ nfortunately a'ain, since one cannot create without beco#in' conscious
of so doin', unless we assu#e #ore than this, such art #ust end in silent, unconscious
telepathy"
7sthetics since the last war has therefore been forced to take seriously the proble# of
belief in art" So#e, like Dr" I" A" >ichards, ha!e subordinated esthetics to psycholo'y" A
poe# or'ani+es our e#otional attitudes- it is the efficiency of this or'ani+ation, not the
truth or falsehood of< the belief e)pressed, that deter#ines the esthetic !alue of the
poe#" In ad#ittin' that there is such a thin' as a 'ood poe# or a bad poe#, it
de#ands an i#personal ob*ecti!e standard for *ud'in' the &uality of the or'ani+ation
achie!ed" If I understand Dr" >ichards ri'htly, this standard is to be found not in ethics
or #etaphysics or reli'ion but in psycholo'y" 3ow psycholo'y, considered in isolation
fro# other fields, is either a descripti!e account of the result of introspection, or a
practical science whose !alues are pra'#atic- i"e", that is !aluable which achie!es #ost
successfully a predeter#ined end" %hat is the end that Dr" >ichards< psycholo'y
assu#es is 'i!enA I suspect that it is truth, ri'hteousness and peace- I hope so" 2ut
suppose it is notA Then the psycholo'ical approach #ust end, as the 9reudian
psycholo'y does, in #akin' local, social, and historical conditions the criteria of
nor#ality a'ainst which e!ery de!iation is neurotic- art then beco#es only a circuitous
route to ?:onor, power, 'lory and the lo!e of wo#en"@ This either denies any esthetic
!alues at all, or #akes the latter in direct proportion to popular appeal, and the
appreciation of any art of another period i#possible" This is to subordinate esthetics to
politics and, thou'h it #ay be the real !iew of the #ilitant #ar)ist, it is certainly not what
Dr" >ichards intends"
In seekin' to account for the e)perience of all readers of poetry, that the #etaphysical
beliefs e)pressed in a poe# are not solely decisi!e in our assess#ent of its !alue, he
denies the# any role at all" This is 'oin' too far" %hat he really establishes is the
interdependence of belief and e)pression of belief, the %ord and the 9lesh, 9aith and
%orks, that what we think cannot be isolated fro# what we say and do" 9alse beliefs in
fact lead to bad poetry, and bad poetry leads to a falsification of belief" Thus in his poe#
?Trees,@ a false esthetic has caused Boyce Cil#er to #ake state#ents which e!en fro#
his own Catholic standpoint are heretical, while a false conception of hu#an nature led
Tho#as %olfe to write the 'randiose rubbish he #istook for 'reat prose"
Dr" >ichards once said that The %aste ;and #arked the se!erance of poetry fro# all
beliefs" This see#s to #e an inaccurate description" The poe# is about the absence of
belief and its !ery unpleasant conse&uences- it i#plies throu'hout a passionate belief in
da#nation. that to be without belief is to be lost" I cannot see how those who do not
share this belief, those who think that truth is relati!e or pra'#atic, can re'ard the poe#
as anythin' but an interestin' case history of $r" 7liot<s neurotic state of #ind"
The co#bination of this acceptance of all !alues as relati!e with the social conditions
of a #odern industrial society #akes confusion worse confounded" The #achine has
destroyed tradition in the old sense and the refusal to replace it by absolute
presuppositions deliberately chosen and consciously held is leadin' us to disaster" In
the first place when tradition disappears so does popular taste- in sayin' that he can sell
anythin', the ad!ertiser is ad#ittin' that there is no such thin' as the taste of the #an in
the street. and in the second, the centrali+ation of an industrial society places the
dictatorship of taste in the hands of a !ery s#all 'roup of people" If we are e!er to
achie!e anythin' re#otely rese#blin' a de#ocratic culture, we #ust all be'in by
ad#ittin' the fact of this dictatorship, and the critics the#sel!es #ust accept their
responsibility and not #islead the public"
;et #e take as an illustration of irresponsibility a re!iew by a distin'uished A#erican
critic" I choose this e)a#ple because the critic who wrote it is #ore fortunate than #ost
in not ha!in' to be a publisher<s lackey and because thou'h I ha!e not read the no!el I
think that I should probably a'ree with his !erdict"
?As one whose heart is coated, I fear, with a thick daubin' of co##on clay, I see in
The Doya'e a be'uilin' ro#ance and not a piece of profound sy#bolis#" Thou'h far
less oracular and pretentious than $r" $or'an<s other no!els, it is still fairly fancy for
'ross tastes like #y own"@
%hy does he really find $r" $or'an pretentiousA 2ecause his sensibility is too trained
to be decei!ed" 2ut this is not the reason he 'i!es" :e pretends he is *ust a plain #an
who can see throu'h all that- in other words it is the untrained intellect and sensibility
that alone can #ake sound critical *ud'#ents" This is irresponsible, for he knows as well
as anyone that it is precisely the hearts daubed with clay and the 'ross taste that fall for
the 'enteel and the bo'usly spiritual" Certainly we are all co##on clay and should
ad#it the fact,but with sha#e, not pride" %hat the critic ou'ht to say is. ?>e#e#ber
that like you and e!eryone else I a# a weak fallible creature who will often #ake false
*ud'#ents- and therefore you #ust not take e!erythin' I say as 'ospel" I as a re!iewer
pro#ise to do #y best to o!erco#e #y natural la+iness and wooly(#indedness, and
you who read #e #ust try to do the sa#e"@
This would be a be'innin', but a 'reat deal #ore should be e)pected" 3ot only should
the critic reali+e the necessity of coordinatin' his esthetic !alues with !alues in all other
spheres of life, but he has a duty in a de#ocracy to tell the public what they are" If I a#
to trust a re!iewer<s *ud'#ent upon a book I ha!e not read, I want to know a#on' other
thin's his philosophical beliefs" If I find, for instance, that he belie!es in auto#atic
pro'ress I shall no #ore trust hi# than I would trust a philosopher who liked 2rah#s or
Shelley"
I do not, of course, #ean to su''est that the State or anyone else should decree an
orthodo)y to which all critics #ust confor# or fore!er hold their peace, but only that,
since life does not e)ist in a series of autono#ous depart#ents, esthetic !alues do not
nourish the#sel!es, and that the critic who does not reali+e this will be a bad critic who
#isleads the public and at best can only be ri'ht on occasions by luck"
7arlier in this lecture I su''ested that de#ocracy and fascis# are disa'reed, not on
the need for cultural unity, but on its nature and for#" I would su##ari+e these
differences thus"
Social Democracy
1" %e cannot li!e without belie!in' certain !alues to be absolute" These !alues
e)ist, thou'h our knowled'e of the# is i#perfect, distorted by the li#itations of
our historical position and our personal character" :owe!er, if but only if we
reali+e this, our knowled'e can i#pro!e"
/" 2ecause the e)istence of absolutes i#plies the unity of truth, the truths arri!ed at
in different fields cannot ulti#ately conflict" All the arts and sciences #ust
therefore be assu#ed to be of e&ual !alue, iso#orphs of one co##on
cooperati!e task, and no one of these #ust be subordinated to another"
0" $an is not, as the ro#antics i#a'ine, 'ood by nature" $en are e&ual not in their
capacities and !irtues but in their natural bias towards e!il" 3o indi!idual or class,
therefore, howe!er superior in intellect or character to the rest, can clai# an
absolute ri'ht to i#pose its !iew of the 'ood upon the#" 8o!ern#ent #ust be
de#ocratic, the people #ust ha!e a ri'ht to #ake their own #istakes and to
suffer for the#, because no one is free fro# error"
4" To deny to those who are in fact the elite of their a'e the ri'ht to i#pose their
authority by force, does not deny their obli'ation to educate and persuade"
>esponsibility is in direct proportion to capacity"
Fascism
1" The #asses cannot li!e without belie!in' certain !alues to be absolute" Such
!alues, howe!er, do not e)ist- therefore the state #ust coerce the #asses into
acceptin' as absolute what are in fact are #yths" The choice of #yth is dictated
by its pra'#atic !alue as concei!ed by the leaders of the state"
/" 2ecause the none)istence of absolutes i#plies the relati!ity of truth, the truths
arri!ed at in different fields #ust ulti#ately conflict" nity and stability can
therefore only be achie!ed under social pressure" Since it is the politician who
co##ands the #eans of pressure, all the other arts and sciences #ust be
subordinated to the political"
0" All #en are not as the ro#antics i#a'ined 'ood by nature, nor are they e&ual"
9urther, since the political field is the deter#inin' one and the first ele#ent of
political 'oodness is the capacity to e)ercise power, that capacity takes
precedence o!er all others in definin' the 8ood" The #a*ority are bad, but a few
are 'ood and ha!e therefore a ri'ht to direct the rest" 8o!ern#ent #ust be
authoritarian- the people #ust be protected fro# the conse&uences of their own
#istakes by those who cannot err"
4" The power to e)ercise authority i#plies the obli'ation to do so"
If we accept the de#ocratic assu#ptions what conse&uences will follow in the field of
criticis#A
1" The critic who assu#es that absolute !alues e)ist but that our knowled'e of the# is
always i#perfect will *ud'e a work of art by the de'ree to which it transcends the artist<s
personal and historical li#itations, but he will not e)pect such transcendence e!er to be
co#plete, either in the artist or hi#self" :e will e&uip hi#self with social and historical
knowled'e in order to o!erco#e his own pre*udices and to help the reader to see,
throu'h all the apparent differences in the techni&ue and sub*ect #atter of 'reat works,
their underlyin' unity" :e will be suspicious of all that is partisan, naturalistic, and
personal, and of all such antitheses as Traditional !ersus $odern"
/" Assu#in' the unity of truth he will reali+e the interdependence of ethics, politics,
science, esthetics, etc" and do his best to ac&uire as all(round a culture as possible"
Assu#in' the e&ual !alue of these fields, he will in *ud'in' a book atte#pt to keep the#
all in #ind without bein' do#inated by any one of the#" :e will try to a!oid, for
e)a#ple, both the puritanical attitude of the bour'eois censor of #orals and the nihilist
attitude of the bohe#ian who i'nores or denies the effect of #oral !alues upon works of
art and the #oral influence which they do in fact e)ert" Slo'ans like Art for Art<s Sake or
Art for Politics< Sake will be e&ually ob*ectionable to hi#"
0" Ad#ittin' ori'inal sin, he will not belie!e in his own infallibility, or cause others to
belie!e in it" :e will be as chary of utterly conde#nin' a book as of acclai#in' it a
#asterpiece" :e will flatter neither the #asses by assurin' the# that what is popular
#ust be 'ood nor the hi'hbrow by assurin' the# that what is avantgarde #ust be
superior" 9urther he will concei!e of art, like life, as bein' a self(discipline rather than a
self(e)pression" ;ike :enry Ba#es he will re'ard ?Clu#sy life at her stupid work@ as
so#ethin' to be #astered and controlled" :e will see artistic freedo# and personality
as dependent upon the !oluntary acceptance of li#itations, which alone are stron'
enou'h to test the 'enuine intensity of the ori'inal creati!e i#pulse- he will distrust the
for#less, the e)pansi!e, the unfinished, and the casual"
4" Acceptin' his responsibility, he will see his position of influence as an accident, an
inheritance which he does not deser!e and which he is inco#petent to ad#inister" 9or
thou'h it is absolutely re&uired of a #an that he should intend to help others, the power
to do so is outside his control" 3o #an can 'uarantee the effect upon others of the acts
he does with the intention of helpin' the#" Indeed all he knows for certain is that, since
his actions are ne!er perfect, he #ust always do others har#, so that the final ai# of
e!ery critic and teacher #ust be to persuade others to do without hi#, to reali+e that the
'ifts of the spirit are ne!er< to be had at second hand"
Thus no critic or teacher #ust decei!e hi#self or others by pretendin' that he
critici+es for their sake- he has no ri'ht either to critici+e or teach unless he can say. ?I
do this, whate!er its effects, because I cannot help doin' it"@
In the last analysis e!ery act of critical *ud'#ent, like e!ery other act in life, like life
itself, rests on a decision, a wa'er which is irre!ocable and in a sense absurd" 2ut
unless we ha!e the coura'e and faith to take such decisions with full reco'nition of their
arbitrary and conditional character, nothin' can sa!e us, indi!idually or collecti!ely, now
or at any other ti#e, fro# a dictatorship which we shall re'ret" Dictatorship has been
defined as a state where e!erythin' that is not obli'atory is forbidden, and in that sense
#an has always li!ed under a dictatorship and always will" 4ur only choice lies between
an e)ternal and false necessity passi!ely accepted and an internal necessity
consciously decided, but that is the difference between sla!ery and freedo#" =
2ack to Carl Popper