Personal Life & Career Of Thomas Stearns Eliot, An Author Of "The Waste Land"
Eliot was born to a well-established Anglo-American family in 1888 in which he confronted both frightening alienation of the early twentieth century and the collapse of the synthesis of Western bourgeois. The replacing of the western thought with the Christian religion had taken place with a combination of progress, capital and the reification of positive philosophy and natural science. The world war disaster had proved to Eliot and other thinkers like him that the technology’s stomping progress and the material wealth without the presence of a wider meaning or system of values was hopeless and bankrupt. Since the period of Renaissance, the philosophers had tried in filling the vacuum that was left by the abandonment of Christian religion, but no system they could design had the authority of the religion of traditional nature. Their faith had gone and its substitute is revealed as a charlatan who is not effectual, the Americans and the Europeans stumbled about in a daze, in a desperate attempt of scrabbling for a foothold of authority and hope and is able to find none.
Eliot gave a detailed description of this alienation in his poems like “The Love Song of J.Alfred Prufrock" and the “Waste Land”. He himself participated in this search in the way of exploring the philosophy of aestheticism, idealism, humanism and even Buddhism for giving the explanation of doctrines and for repairing the fragmentation of culture. Eliot's and intellectual rigor and disposition needed something more of substantial nature for solving his inner conflicts. Five years after the writing of "The Waste Land," he discovered the stability that he sought, by converting to Anglicanism in the year of 1927. Eliot believed in the encouraged skepticism rather than belief, so this conversion constituted a completely new system of belief for Eliot. It has shaped everything he wrote starting from drama to poetry to criticism, from that particular point onward. It also provided the foundations of his theories on culture and history.
Thomas Stearns Eliot who is best known for writing "The Waste Land," also wrote cultural philosophies and literary criticism. In the confrontation with the world and its past, present, and future in philosophy and art, he developed an approach to history as mature and complex as any historian who is professional in his field. Similar to Vico and Toynbee, Eliot perceived history in terms of the progress of cultures. By grounding himself in the ultimate authority of Anglo-Catholic Christianity, Eliot considered religion as the origin of all cultures, describing how the development of these cultures took place through the interactions of dynamic nature of diversity and unity, novelty and tradition, and perspective of individual and the context of culture. Unlike to the manner of the Enlightenment historians and their heirs, he did not perceive progress as an improvement of escalating type in culture, but as the regeneration of tradition of culture. Similar to the manner of many thinkers of his time, Eliot believed that the culture of the West was a fragmentary mess. He showed that the decay of religion which is the origin of culture and tradition as the reason behind cultural collapse.
Although he believed that this decay had proceeded so far that it cannot be easily reversed, he enjoined the thinkers for adopting his theories and for drawing hope from the understanding they offered. And although Eliot was conservative in his disposition and outlook, his focus always remained on the individual perspective that made him one of the fathers of thought in the postmodern periodFrom this basis of religion, the formulation of his most basic tenet of his cultural theory took place which states that that culture and religion are essentially "related." In fact, Eliot debated that no culture has developed or appeared except along with a religion Thus in accordance to the point of view of the observer, the culture appears to be the product of the religion, or the religion appears to be the product of the culture. They can be thought of as distinct aspects of the similar thing.
Civilizations which appeared to be humanistic or secular, such as ancient Rome and Greece were in an actual way the cultures of religion in the decline. Culture could not be preserved, developed or extended without the presence of religion, neither could religion be maintained nor preserved if culture is not developed. Culture, in accordance with Eliot initially began in primitive societies as an entity of unification, then it got expanded and specialized developing a relationship of dynamic nature among its unity and diversity. The cultural aspects which incorporated politics, religion, art and science gradually became different from one another; the king and the witch doctor came to have distinct roles. As the diversion takes place in interests and goals so these divisions in society struggled with one another in order to obtain dominance. In spite of this rivalry, cultural aspects like urbanity and civility, philosophy, arts, learning and so on could flourish in dependence of the others. There are few definitions of culture that incorporated all of the attributes which can be taken into consideration, but no one of them could alone confer to the wholeness of culture. Culture out of sheer needs had various other divisions. In one of his assertions which is the most controversial, Eliot insisted that, for a culture to be transferred in the hereditary manner the preservation of its social classes is needed.
Culture according to Eliot, was not some holding of exalted nature of the upper classes, rather it is the sum total of the activities of all classes combined together. The preservation of the more conscious and specialized domains of culture is done merely by the upper classes. Privilege gives reward the efforts of the upper classes, and love of familial nature motivates them to pass this culture and privilege on to their children. Eliot stressed the fact that he has no interest in the aristocracy as a ruling class so much as the specialized classes gradation in which the aristocracy played a crucial role. Eliot had the belief that in a democracy in which all had an equal share of responsibility in everything would be proved oppressive for the conscientious. Eliot toyed with the concept of rule by the elite who rose to power and prestige by their capabilities, but rejected it as he was worried that the elite would not possess the camaraderie and the social commonality that the classes would as he had not perceived an elite system work.
The system of elite would also serve in disenfranchising the masses from their privileges and duties in the society. Eliot did not show much sympathy for the unwashed masses, although they are almost as crucial to his system as the upper classes. The unity of each and every class would facilitate in passing of their cultural trusts to their posterity, and it took all of the classes working in tandem for it to take place. He never gave the assertion that the members of the upper class are better people in comparison to the masses, though his upbringing and passion gave suggestion of such chauvinism, and his theories reified the position of the high classes in society which permitted for little or no social mobility. He was vocal against the over education of working people in the belief that it lowered total standards of learning and was not necessary. Only the Marxists would debate against Eliot in the favor of a classless society, but Eliot should have been able to argue for the appreciation of a society in which social mobility was made possible.
Despite the execution of its ideals that is flawed in nature, the U.S. had always strived for such a society, and many countries in the Europe had followed suit by the time of Eliot. Regardless of that the class system was needed to the unity and diversity in the theory of the culture of Eliot. Eliot also searched for this dynamic in the regions of geography in culture and in the religion of the culture. He staunchly believed that in a healthy and fit culture, many regions surrounded central region which is dominant. People in the central region had a national allegiance to the culture, while people who reside in the satellite regions balanced their loyalties among their larger culture and the region. The distinctive character of the subculture then gave contribution to a broader perspective and flavor of special nature to the generally less passionate central culture. To Eliot, the main mover of culture was the preservation of tradition in the changing world in a constant manner.
All of the cultural aspects that he enumerated especially class worked in case of maintaining tradition. Tradition was not a antiquarian stuffiness symptom, but rather it is the preservation of something from the past for an timely utilization in the appropriate manner in the present. This canon of accepted expressions in a continued manner and the tradition took in new material in a periodic manner, new stimuli which kept it to the present in a relevant manner. This development of evolutionary nature was not just a shift in quantity, but also a shift in quality, as the new information changed the perception of the culture of the older matter. As Eliot mentioned it: The artist must have awareness that the mind of Western culture is the mind of his own country and a mind which he learns in time to be much more crucial than his own private mind is a mind which goes through changes, and that this change is a development that abandons nothing in route, which does not superannuate either Homer or Shakespeare and the Magdalenian draughtsmen rock drawing.
The distinction among the present and the past is that the present which is conscious is an awareness of the past in a way and to the extent which the awareness of the past cannot show itself. The purpose of tradition lay not in antiquarianism that is futile, but in the instance of improving the present, and to an extent the future. If a tradition or teaching had no proper utilization or relevance to a culture that is contemporary, the culture threw that teaching out. The study of past cultures gave the present culture a distinct perspective through which it could become more self-aware by the contrast. At the similar time, expression of culture could not simply study the traditional canon, but had to strive in a constant way to build upon it. If the culture’s propagation fell into decay, there will be no present culture and the culture would lose its touch with the past and will lose all sense of being a culture. A culture which is robust would apply to the canon its reflection of mercurially changing standards. Every new addition to the tradition would bring change to the perspective that is contemporary, thus provides the society a larger tradition than it had previously. Each generation had a distinct interpretation of each work of culture which was suitable to its time.
The theory of Eliot was a progressive theory, not one of hope for inevitable and steady improvement, but one of utility for regeneration. Eliot has the belief that the experience of art not only brought greater joy to the people, but also greater understanding of the self: It is the role of art in an ultimate way to impose a credible order upon ordinary reality, and thereby elicits order perception in reality, to bring us to a condition of stillness, serenity and reconciliation. The appreciation of art served to organize beliefs, taste and experiences into a whole, thus satisfies the desire of human for the realization of the self. “It was a combination of what was not one with oneself". The self-awareness is granted in a reflexive way by the study of the facilities of art, the understanding of other aspects of culture and art that the individual might encounter. This conception of the individual relative to his or her culture and to the rest of the world served as the point of center in the philosophy of Eliot. Grounded in the belief of Anglicism, Eliot stressed upon the imperfectability of humanity. No one could perceive with a holistic, unprejudiced, perfect view of God. A human being who had made an attempt to perceive with such unstructured sight perceived nothing at all in real. Though whole objectivity was beyond reach, Eliot had the belief that tremendous effort, empathy, and understanding could make it possible to merge horizons of the individual with those of another human being or an artist, and thus the horizons gets broadened.
Eliot also gave assertion to the role of the individual in bringing a viewpoint to a work of art. The interpretation standard was not the artist’s intent but rather the reading of the observer, who might perceive the work from a much later viewpoint. Moreover, that perspective was not just the culture’s worldview of the interpreter but a wholly individual bias that is unique. This focus on the perspective of the individual, which approached relativism but had groundings in the belief of Eliot in local cultures, religion and traditions, made him one of the main literary innovators toward the thought of post-modern period. The willingness of Eliot to permit innovation originated from his belief that a healthy culture is dependent on the balance among the old and the new. He only stressed tradition in a fervent manner because of the times in which he lived his life. The rapid nature of change in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries threatened to move away tradition of the West in a sudden manner in a Heraclitian hurricane. Eliot wanted to sound alarms for stopping the quick decay of tradition; reification of temporary nature of that tradition seemed to him the suitable way for preserving it. Eliot's theory of culture was no ultimate theory of history though he did not possessed a scheme regarding what had happened and what should happen but rather he gave a diagnosis of the modern malaise and an action plan in case of dealing with it.
What specifically set apart Eliot from Enlightenment, progressive, humanistic thinkers was his primary belief that perfection was reserved for God. The improvement of humanity could take place, but there would always be a flawlessness that is unattainable that the race could seek to as incentive for improving further. The imagination of Platonic absolute can be done but cannot be won. In the twentieth century the civilization of the West was far from the cultural ideal of Eliot. After his conversion, Eliot had the belief that the culture was falling apart not just because its tradition was abandoned, but also for its ignorance of Christianity. In accordance to his theory, the culture of Europe in the past two thousand years rested on the Christian foundation. To Eliot, the alternatives for endurance were either the establishment of a new Christian society, or in the enacting of a positive pagan society. The Christian society that is new would not force its belief on all those living in it, but would instead run under the system of rigorous Christian value under the elite custodianship which is called as the Community of Christians.
Eliot observes that modern society was being hostile to Christianity by promoting the aims un-Christian beliefs; so, society would have to be organized again to conform according to the Christianity. Moreover, in the interests to promote tradition and religion, a system of education which is of uniform nature would be executed. A National Church same to the Church of England would exist in tandem with it, but not under the authority of the state. The Christian society of Eliot may appear to be a projection of his own thoughts and beliefs on the whole culture. Still, others gave the proposal of utopias, and they, too, drew from their personal dreams and beliefs. According to Eliot, nothing else would suffice in what appeared in an increasing manner to him to be bankrupt in a moral way. Eliot stated that social order of the Catholic is the most feasible form of social institution. In advocating for the order of the Catholic, he was not speaking either in an explicit or implicit way as an apologist of Public Christian but as an analyst of social forces. Critics like T. S. Eliot attempted to set everything right by restoring to man his true spiritual and moral dignity. In the words of Eliot romanticism became a heresy and in the nineteenth century, a new type of materialism had started that threatened to rob man of his personal freedom.
At this century’s dawn, man remained “dehumanized” that is they remained a plaything for the politicians and object of curious investigation for research of science. Eliot’s attempted through his writings to reinstate the glory, dignity and liberty of man, thus in turn he defended “the individual’s category in thought. He pleaded for a correct and realistic appraisal of the nature of human in all respects. The so called romanticists and idealists, while they spoke in favor of man, did not analyze nature of human in a correct way. But Eliot brought a doctrine of realistic nature in case of human nature as he brought attention to bear upon the dualism that is inherent at the heart of man as a good and evil in the battlefield and perceived life as a conflict among good and evil. Only by prayer, religious discipline and by the grace of the divine, man can keep the evil forces under his control. In his view of maturity, society is for the individual and the sacrificing of the individual must be done for the society. So, human dignity does originate from the fact that man is a compact of the good and evil, finite and the infinite, of necessity and freedom, the natural and the supernatural, the eternal and the contingent and of spirit and matter.
The achievement of Eliot lies in the dissemination and recognition of this concept of man. Spokesman of His Age T. S. Eliot can be considered as the spokesperson of his age though one of his great contributions consists in having to give expression to the feelings and dominant anxieties of his age. Through the way of his poetry the objectification of the inner struggle of man is done by him. Without providing criticism or comment, the poems communicate the soul’s anguish and his great claim to originality consists in his recognition of the belief of artistic possibilities that sinfulness and anguish are intrinsic to the nature of human. He is said to have discovered methods of appropriate nature for expressing the modern predicament’s tragedy through the utilization of everyday imagery and conversational rhythm in poetry, the objective correlatives, the utilization of symbols and through the method of juxtaposing passages from some of the great works of the past and the present along with side by side of his own, that has given a new direction to literature and presents the life’s philosophy that is coherent.
Similar to Shakespeare, Eliot’s ouvre is also an accurate way of feeling and thinking. His ideas of philosophy, his capability for subtle analysis, his severity and lucidity of his style of prose that is widely admired, his power of communication of poetry and his power in synthesizing the opposites made a distinguished personality among the contemporary critics, Indebtedness to Other Writers Eliot gave credit to Mr. John Middleton for pointing out to him the contentious and complex character of a problem. Thus the involvement of Eliot was seen in the discussions of the primary problems of life and thought in his essays of critical nature. The element of philosophy that is seen in the criticism of Eliot is his attempt for creating values in terms of which the relation of the work of art to art can be assessed. In accordance to A. G. George, The most crucial contribution of his criticism to the modern thought consist in the introduction the philosophy of life implicit that is in it. His vigor of the literary mind was same as the vigour of his philosophical mind.
