Do Writers Have An Ethical Duty to Society?

What responsibility, if any, do writers have to society? Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy (JFK), bestselling author E.B. White, and journalist I.F. Stone all expressed strong opinions about writers’ roles and responsibilities.

Their words are highly relevant to current debates about free speech, book bans, and what should be taught in public schools. Their comments deserve to be read, shared, and discussed widely.

In his 1963 eulogy for poet Robert Frost, JFK acknowledged the essential role of writers and other artists in society. His speech included these words:

When power corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human truth which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.

The artist … becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state…

If sometimes our great artists have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him [sic] aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.

As a writer who is often critical of U.S. society and deeply concerned about the many ways it fails to provide liberty and justice for all, I appreciate JFK’s words.

His statement that poetry cleanses resonates with me, because I have experienced the cleansing and healing power of art as both a creator and a consumer.

At the same time, I think it’s debatable whether sensitivity and a concern for justice “must motivate any true artist.” Amazing art is also created by people who aren’t the least bit concerned about justice. Their motivation is to make money, draw attention to themselves, and/or negatively portray a group of people. Does that mean they are not “true” artists?

Is it even possible to know what anyone else’s motives are? We aren’t always fully conscious of our own!

JFK also describes artists as the “last champion(s) of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive state.” Perhaps that’s true if art is defined so broadly that everyone is seen as an artist, regardless of their profession or whether they consider themselves artists.

But when “artist” has the more narrow connotation that JFK seems to have in mind, I can think of plenty of other champions of individual minds. One obvious example is teachers who allow students to choose any book to read or subject to research.

(Kudos to the professor who let me write about how the lyrics of Bruce Springsteen’s song “Growing Up” reflected Bruce’s own childhood experiences. Among other sources, I quoted words I heard Bruce say in person at a concert).

I do feel a responsibility to society because of going into print: a writer has the duty to be good, not lousy; true, not false; lively, not dull; accurate, not full of error. He should tend to lift people up, not lower them down. Writers do not merely reflect and interpret life, they inform and shape life. …

A writer must reflect and interpret his society, his world; he must also provide inspiration and guidance and challenge. Much writing today strikes me as deprecating, destructive, and angry. There are good reasons for anger, and I have nothing against anger. But I think some writers have lost their sense of proportion, their sense of humor, and their sense of appreciation.

E.B. White, best known as the author of Charlotte’s Web and other children’s books, also wrote nonfiction articles for magazines like The New Yorker and Harper’s. He said the words quoted above during a 1969 interview; they are included in the 2009 book The Paris Review Interviews, Volume IV. I found them thanks to Maria Popova’s newsletter “The Marginalian,” a treasure trove of wisdom that also led me to the other quotes in this article.

It surprised me that White considered much writing “deprecating, destructive, and angry” in 1969! Of course, social unrest and hate speech existed then, too. But sites that enable anyone with internet access to post angry rants and cruel lies didn’t.

White died in 1985, but I wonder what he would say about much of today’s writing if he were still alive.

When I write about a horrific crime or abuse of power that enrages me, I wrestle with how to express my anger constructively. Should that anger be vented in all its fury onto the page? Is that necessary to convey how outrageous and harmful the actions are that make me so angry?

Will my passion motivate readers to work to change laws or systems that enable and sometimes even reward cruelty and corruption? Or will my unbridled anger offend readers? Will it make it easier for critics to deny or minimize the problem and dismiss my anger as an irrational overreaction?

Long before Substack and other platforms enabled me and countless other writers to publish our newsletters, I.F. Stone started his. It was published from 1953 - 1971, and subscribers included Albert Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Prior to that, Stone worked for newspapers like the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Post. Throughout his life, he also wrote books, including the national bestseller The Trial of Socrates. A story about his death in 1989 and the social significance of his work cites Stone’s thoughts about his role as a journalist:

‘To write the truth as I see it; to defend the weak against the strong; to fight for justice; and to seek, as best I can, to bring healing perspectives to bear on the terrible hates and fears of mankind, in the hope of some day bringing about one world, in which men will enjoy the differences of the human garden instead of killing each other over them.’

As I read that quote, two things jumped out at me. First, he acknowledges that no journalist is a completely unbiased, objective reporter of truth. He says that his role is to write the truth as he sees it.

Current debates about what is true often fail to acknowledge that every perspective is limited and biased. The same statistics or historical facts can be interpreted quite differently. Writers can also omit evidence that contradicts their claims or the statements of sources they quote.

The second thing that stood out was that Stone did not see his role as a journalist as limited to writing the truth. He believed his role also included defending the weak, fighting for justice, and bringing “healing perspectives” to humankind’s hates and fears.

I count myself among the many writers, activists, and others who see our roles as encompassing those things, too. I also recognize how easy it is for me to be as hateful as the people I criticize for their hate speech.

I tend to see MAGA Republicans as evil and dangerous people who must be stopped before they destroy our country. Then I realize that’s exactly how they see me and other “woke” liberals.

While I have never advocated physical violence against anyone, I have verbally attacked people whose words and actions I find unacceptable. I have considered myself superior to them in the same way they consider themselves superior to women, people of other ethnic groups, sexual orientations, or gender identities, and/or women.

It’s an ongoing struggle for me to balance conflicting desires. I want to defend the weak and fight for justice, but I also want to counter hate with love and help all people (and our planet) heal. I want to be honest about the fact that everyone says and does some things that are kind and others that are cruel. I also want to make it clear that all people are not equally cruel, and some cruelties are worse than others.

I’m not sure it’s possible or even desirable to identify specific roles that all writers should play. Writers, like everyone else, are individuals with unique skills and interests.

Some of us may feel compelled to document the harmful consequences of laws or actions elected officials claim are good. Some may choose to tell the stories of marginalized people or share their own experiences. Some may write to teach readers how to do something.

Others may want to entertain readers with humorous stories. Others may write novels to help people leave their worries behind and enter another world with memorable characters, exciting adventures, and a satisfying ending. Still others may be motivated by a desire to comfort or evoke a sense of awe, and use beautiful poetic language to do that.

All of these roles are valuable to readers and society as a whole. I am equally grateful to novelists, poets, journalists, memoirists, biographers, and other writers. They’ve all written words I’ve appreciated and benefited from reading.

I would hate for writers (or anyone else) to be limited to specific roles society considers appropriate. Creative freedom and personal style should not be constrained by cultural norms or preferences. All of us should be free to choose our roles and change them when necessary to satisfy our desires, not society’s.

Note: An earlier version of this article was published in The Writing Cooperative on Medium.

P.S. If you want to choose a new role and could use some extra support, please DM me on Substack (or hit reply if you’re reading this via email). I’d be happy to suggest resources based on your specific needs.