MR RHODES AND FREEDOMS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22444, 4 July 1938, Page 7

MR RHODES AND FREEDOMS

•o tat cdito* or rn Sir.—The report of my address on intellectual freedom which appeared in “The Press” of June 30 contained such obvious flaws in the argument that it is surprising that anyone bothered to examine them. Your correspondent “Jape" strangely enough overlooked the possibility that 1 might have said one o t two things which were not included in the summary you published. I am glad of the opportunity to draw his attention to them.

i. j dealt with a celebrated controversy between Rothaln Holland and Lunacharsky on the one side and Selvingky and Gladkov on the other in order to demonstrate that it was possible for a man to remain intellectually free if he were willing to sacrifice happiness, ambition, and material well being. The life of Holland is proof of this, but as your corres-

pondent suggests there may be a great price to pay. 2. I made no attempt to over-sim-plify the issue of freedom within the British Empire. For example, I pointed out, what was probably unknown to my critic, or he would have used it in his attack on the reported summary of my address, that the writers who have been forced to leave India b e * cause of the suppression of freedom in tha't country are living in exile in England. This is interesting, because it shows that in a discussion on problems of intellectual freedom there are all sqrts of anomalies which must be explained. It also adds point to my observation, which was correctly reported, that English freedom has been built up on British oppression. 3. The differences which clearly exist between censorship in England, Germany, hnd the Soviet Union were mentioned. I was careful to point out that I could say the things I said only because I was living in a country which has made an endeavour to preserve some, though not all. of the best elements of English freedom. I also gave specific examples of ways in which English freedom has been curtailed in recent years. I mentioned that I hod taken part in the campaign to remove book censorship in Australia, and that such a campaign would have been impossible in Germany.' I gave examples of degrees of censorship with illustrations from England, Geimany. and the Soviet Union. 4. After a rather lengthy historical sketch which dealt with problems of intellectual freedom among English writers down to the present day. I deduced that the phrase "intellectual freedom” was misleading when divorced from the economic realities and social organisation of the contemporary scene. Neither starvation, imprisonment. nor martyrdom proves more than a desire for or a love of intellectual freedom. The point I tried to stress was a point which particularly affects the writers. No man is intellectually free unless he is free to “know, to utter, and to argue freely.” Freedom to utter is not enough. Writers must move among men who are doing the work of the world in order to know, and not only among members of a small literary group. They must have an audience in order to argue freely. The history of literary development shows that the separation between the artist and his audience, and between the artist and society, has been the result of economic changes and changes in social organisation. I concluded with the statement that the struggle for complete intellectual freedom is the struggle to bring into being a form of society in which this separation shall no longer exist, and this presupposes a society free from class prejudice or the need for an art which provides an escape from life, a society in which the masses of the people are encouraged to know, to utter, and to argue freely. —Yours, etc.. H. WINSTON RHODES. July 2, 1938.