Do we need literature?

I refer to the recent debate over the necessity of Literature.

I question the justification for encouraging or even making compulsory Literature education in schools.

Other commenters have already rejected the “functional” arguments for Literature, such as enhancing reading and critical thinking skills, including Mr Nazry Bahrawi in his commentary “Let’s make Literature compulsory” (March 7).

Functional arguments, far from proving Literature’s indispensability, merely justify its abandonment if it fails to perform its function or becomes superseded by other subjects which are able to do the same as well, if not better.

Alternative arguments to functional justifications are the complete rejection of all justifications i.e. art for art’s sake; and to suggest some sort of link between literature and human nature, which necessitates a Literature curriculum.

Mr Nazry argued that “humans are meaning-seeking creatures hardwired for narratives. We tell stories to make sense of the world, imagine alternatives and explore our neuroses. We need Literature like we need air”. If even this were true, it does not follow the education system must provide it — one can simply get it from bookshops.

Furthermore, why would Literature be considered the best medium for providing narratives? Television programmes, movies and even the Internet provide alternatives and food for the imagination.

Also, given the plurality of cultures and narratives in Singapore, is there even any basis for a common Literature syllabus? By whose judgment do schools decide which “narrative” is worthy of state enforcement?

One might wonder if the literati have not been taken in by their own myth — the myth that the literary narrative form has been writ into the heart of human nature.