Poetry’s Social Function

“I think it is important that every people should have its own poetry, not simply for those who enjoy poetry . . . but because it actually makes a difference to the society as a whole, and that means to people who do not enjoy poetry… Unless people go on producing great authors, and especially great poets, their language will deteriorate, their culture will deteriorate and perhaps become absorbed in a stronger one.”- T.S. Eliot. I find myself ambivalent toward this statement. I strongly object the first part of the statement, which basically states that EVERYONE has to do poetry even if you don't like it. Anyone can write poems. Not everyone can be poets, but poets can be anyone from anywhere. For those that can't, they simply can't enjoy it. As a rationalist, I just don't find any interest in literature and poem. Trying to force such piece of art on people who can't appreciate is only a waste and trying to force such piece of art out of people who can't create depreciate the overall value of poem. After all, its unique quality, elegant composition, and most importantly, rarity, glorifies poem. However, I wholeheartedly agree with Eliot's second statement. Without poem, such elegance sprinkled on the dull literature we know today, our language will only start to crumble and fall apart. People tend to get lazy. Long words are shorten, expression are abbreviated, simple words become symbols. Without poetry (for composers to write it and for others to share it), the very backbone of literature will crumble. Like Eliot predicted, the next thing you know, such language no longer exist.