182
PARTISAN REVIEW
responsibility as a writer is paramount. He cannot commit himself
to party membership or, unreservedly, to any political program. His
attitude must be completely opportunist. He cannot remain neutral,
but it is not his business to work out political programs or to sell his
pen to the propaganda machine of any of the parties. He should
only take part in politics in so far as it is necessary to safeguard his
interests as a writer. The nature and scope of his activities are dic–
tated by the immediate political situation. In peaceful times he should
give no more than a limited support to the party which is likely to do
least damage to
his
interests as a writer. In times of political strife like
the present he
is
bound to become more active. This necessarily makes
the task of harmonizing his literary and his political views more
diffi–
cult and brings me to my final point.
Baudelaire's general attitude remains valid, but the enemy
is
no longer the same. It would be sheer waste of time and energy to
engage in sham fights against the bourgeois. We are faced with a
far more serious threat to our independence and we should be clear
about the nature of the enemy. It
is
doubtful whether the writer can
today give even a limited support to any party; he must work and
vote against the party which constitutes the greatest threat to his inde–
pendence.
In a broadcast discussion on "The Artist and Society" in July
1948 Mr. V. S. Pritchett remarked: "Writers are saved by what can
only be called the inherited professional instinct of party disloyalty."
Mr. Graham Greene went one better: "And that is a genuine duty we
owe society; to be a piece of grit in the State machinery."
As
things are, there is virtually nothing to add to these statements
of the writer's attitude. For the role of the patrician in the police
State can only be that of saboteur and resistance leader.
