Social pespondsibiility in Science and Arts
% B$ Q( f: Q" w+ F- j, r
$ L1 v9 f" ~5 ]compared with the immediate practical responsibility of the scientist,the responsibility of the artist must seem puny.the decision which faces him is not,i think ,one of practical action:of cuz he will try to throw his weight into the scale,an dthat weight,if he is a writer or even a painter of genius,may have its effect.for the novelist-in our society the only artist who has a mass aduience and at the same time effective economic control of the means of addressing it-the hope of some descive influence is a reasonable one.for him,since he taked of all artists what is probably the lagest portion of his culture as material,there is no more escape from the necessity for treating the content of his work seriously then there is for the social psychologist he is coming so closely to resemble.the dichotomy which people have tried to establish between artistic proficiency and artictic content is becoming unbearable to almost all sensitive minds.i doubt if it has ever been real—we might have admired Shelley as much if he had been indifferent to such things as war and tyranny ,though i doubt it,centainly had he been indifferent we should never have been led by him.
0 K! ~7 K2 b! p7 W( r( ?1 wThere is no Hippocratic oath in literature,and i am not attempting to draw one up,as far ad i am concerned,the artist is a human being writ large and his ethics are the ethics of any human being.perhaps i can best illustrate what seems to me the new consciousness of those duties of assertion and refusal from one writer,and i do not think it is without significance that this writer projects the whole situation of choice into a scientific parable,the parable of a pesilence,a pestilence many human beings are called to fight against,called not by any supernatural obligation but by the simple fact that the fight against a plague is something like a biological human obligation.Albert Camus seems to me to be the first modern write,though i am certain he will not be the last,to put the problem of respinsibility in specific terms:”i only know”he wrote,”that in this world there ar epetilences and there are victims,and it is up to us not to ally ourselves with pestilences”for the mind and of body,in psychological and bacteriological warefare that statement has a meaning clearer,i think,and more imperative then its suthor untended.but for the scientist as general enemy of pestilences and the artist as general representive of humanity,the basic pestilence which ,by its epidemic spread in our time challenges his alleniance,is the same—it is the pestilence which,through the spread of irrational fears and irrational hatreds,through the appeptance of coercion,through the neglect of what one can only call social and personal sanitation in our attitudes to society,leads us to forget who we are and who our fellow men are:the pestilence which exterminates”gooks”or dissidents,which apologizes for torture and massacre in any shape or form,whether it be called for the moment revolution or collective security,the pestilence of atm bombs and cencentration camps.in the last resort,there is only one ethically satisfactory reply to that pestilence;an unqualified and unargued”No”this “No”does not spring,i think,from any idealistic or metaphysical imperative,but simply from the fact that by saying anything else we should cease to be human beings
4 G( a5 b0 Q5 B9 H8 X9 j5 e- R$ u% C1 E- V
[ Last edited by giftedkoala on 2004-6-4 at 21:21 ]