46 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
at crucial moments and prove himself an utter failure in politics*
It is imperative for a creative writer, on the other hand, to avoid all oversimplifications and to strive for as comprehensive a view of the human reality as possible. As against a man of politics, he is in no desperate hurry to arrive at some definite and final conclusions) nor does he have to feel inhibited by any wordly prudence regarding the immediate consequences that might flow from the position he is likely to take after an honest and thorough examination of facts. Since his primary concern is with truth rather than with action, he can go on pondering over a particular situation as long as he pleases, and the process will end only when he comes to feel that all the essential elements have been taken into account and properly illuminated. Since his contemplation does not have to be translated into immediate action, he is liberated from the compulsions of expediency which characterise the thought and behaviour of a politician.
It is thus concluded that the real intelligence of the creative writer which shows itself in his awareness of the full complexity of human experience is very likely to be stifled if he gets involved in politics and falls into the habit of keeping his mind fixed only on what is of immediate relevance or consequence. Furthermore, it is asserted that the broad sympathies and general responsiveness on account of which a creative writer can easily establish rapport with every human being irrespective of the class or party to which he belongs will also be seriously hampered by the partisan spirit that will overtake him as soon as he has identified himself with some particular political movement.
Taking all this into consideration, it is confidently asserted that a really intelligent and sensitive person interested in achieving excellence in his literary works should keep himself aloof from the crude and dirty game of politics. Otherwise, once he gets tempted into politics, he will incur the risk of a total eclipse of his genuine artistic talent and he may have to rest satisfied for his whole life with producing only third rate propaganda stuff.
This sort of specious reasoning is based on some very questionable assumptions regarding the true nature of politics and a false romanti-cisation of the true nature of a creative writer's genius. The separation between thought and action, between the universal and particular and between sympathy and commitment envisaged in this kind of thinking shows a lack of clear understanding of how a writer^ confrontation with the objective reality around him does really take place. To imagine that there is no scope for maturity of thought or depth and complexity of feeling in political action is to reduce it to a low level of politicking which is the only form of politics comprehensible to the petty-bourgeois mind. Raymond Williams has rightly protested against the vulgar depreciation of politics which is implicit in the false antithesis between politics and literature :
It has passed too long for a kind of maturity and depth in experience