Considering the social function of art means attempting to contemplate a question that has tormented the great literary critics starting from the Greek philosophers Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. Two minds who pondered and offered explanations to this question in 1700-1800 were the German Friedrich Schiller and the Englishman Matthew Arnold. Both Schiller and Arnold offer explanations that focus heavily on presenting literature as the pinnacle and model of personal and social harmony. Schiller's suppositions from Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man argue that art is the means through which human beings can challenge the fractious nature of specialized society by presenting literature as a mode of balance that interweaves the factions of society . Arnold's arguments in “On Poetry” and “The Study of Poetry” suggest that poetry, in itself, is of the utmost importance in how it harmonizes human ideals above all other aspects of study and consideration. Although Schiller and Arnold's theorizations about the social nature of literature are intertwined in explaining the fundamental value of literature in society, Arnold's arguments suffer from the very fragmented systems that Schiller warns against. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The second chapter of Citizen: An American Lyric by Claudia Rankine describes Schiller's assessment of art as capable of transcending fixed professional categories as supreme to Arnold's commentary where literature functions as both expansion and divisiveness . In summary, Citizen's second chapter is a provocative assessment of race and gender through the juxtaposition of Serena Williams versus tennis, or black versus Zora Neal Hurston's “strong white background” (25). In this chapter, regardless of the overt and systemic racism, both explicitly highlighted by Rankine, the general criticisms expose the blatant racial and cultural superiority of whites through microaggressions, which run rampant on a social scale much larger than the international tennis context. Rankine's critique goes on to question the predetermined behavioral patterns that institutions inflict on minorities and the way in which tennis commentators expect Serena, a black woman who is the best tennis player in the world, to behave like a "blonde goodness smiling” (36). Throughout this chapter, the most poignant moments are those that consider language rhetorically, once pointing out that when Serena was an aggressive tennis player she was called "insane, crass, crazy" and having "bad sportsmanship" (30). Ultimately, Citizen reflects on the question of social harmony by reflecting on social and social injustices, guiding readers to consider the harmfulness of language and the systems in which it operates. Citizen therefore deliberately deals with a component of social division, and is also a work both Schiller and Arnold argue that bring the self and society closer to harmony through the poetic address of the fractious society. The multidimensionality of the work, however, would have been more appreciated by Schiller than by Arnold. The dimensions that add artistic layers to Citizen are found in the presentation and images Rankine includes. The presentation of the work functions as an extended metaphor of the very tennis sphere Serena finds herself in, as the chapter itself consists of black letters on a stark white background. Through the presentation and images of this chapter, which artistically delve beyond words, letters and prose, the paradox betweeninvisibility and hypervisibility for Black “citizens” can be addressed in multiple formats and in the multitude of social formats in which it exists. This paradox lies in how black citizens are marginalized in general representation ranging from education to government, and yet, ostracized or dedifferentiated when on the front lines against whitewashed backdrops. Arnold's arguments in “On Poetry” suggest that “poetry is more intellectual than art” and more interpretive (183). Although Arnold accepts literature in an expansive variety, he still argues that it is “in closest correspondence with the intelligent nature of man” and that “poetry thinks and the arts do not” (183). Arnold's broad literary canon, therefore, might accept the second chapter of Citizen in its evolved dimensions, but it would detract from the integrity of the images as an autonomous and equal component of the piece. While Schiller's work denotes the importance of not fragmenting forms of human knowledge, arguing that once divided “even the inner unity of human nature” would be “severed and a disastrous conflict would call into question its harmonious nature” (486 ). Schiller's open mind, which lacks Arnold's literature-centered hierarchy of the arts, is a more practical approach to how the arts might elevate the self and human harmony. Another aspect that Schiller and Arnold can be compared critically is the discussion of the difference or commensurable qualities between literature and the rest of the major forms of human knowledge. From a historical point of view, Schiller does not directly talk about it as a means, but uses ancient Greece as a historical example of a harmonious society and calls for the absence of division in the forms of human knowledge. Using the Greeks as both an example of a harmonious and a “fallen” society, Schiller observes that “the Greeks were married to the pleasures of dignity and wisdom, without falling prey to their seduction,” but warns that the eventual separation is singular the specialization of forms of human knowledge creates division within "the inner unity of human nature" (485, 486). However, in “On Poetry,” Arnold specifically outlines the forms of human knowledge of literature, art, science, philosophy, and religion. Rather than a harmonious society that invites commensuration between these ways of knowing, as Schiller does, Arnold creates a hierarchy with literature at the top, in part because “it is the most adequate and happy of the modes of manifestation through which the human being pours." its strength (183). Rankine's work is a work of poetry, but being poetry is not only what makes this work so powerful. Fully considering this chapter of Citizen also means considering the modern and historical context of the work as it is intertwined with history, popular culture, science, and art. To argue, as Arnold does, however, that literature includes all the best of these categories, while the individual categories are limited and mutually exclusive, is an unfounded conclusion. For example, Rankine's use of the phrase "I feel more colorful when I'm projected onto a crisp white background" is originally taken from "What It Feels Like to Be Colored Me" by Zora Neale Hurston. Hurston's essay was published in 1928 during Jim Crow segregation and oppression. Discovering this means not only considering Hurston's work, which partially discusses racial tensions from a childhood perspective, but drawing parallels between hidden historical forms and overt ongoing forms of racial inequality. In terms of forms of knowledge, once again, Arnold's lack of clear reasoning and evidence to support literature as an elitist culmination of forms of knowledge makes Schiller's open-minded approach more feasible as an explanation ofrole of literature in achieving social harmony. More difficult to explain are Schiller and Arnold's arguments about how literature would actually play a role in social harmony. Perhaps Schiller's theory is easier to achieve because it is rooted in the thesis that specialized society is fragmented. Therefore, it is easier to accept that “fine arts” are Schiller's key to addressing the disconnected society because the true artist and true art “look upward” with high moral and free standards that turn away from the market and “luck” (491). Both the artist and the observer are shown the freedom of artistic experience that goes beyond the limited faculties of fortune, and this free artistic model of art is therefore the standard of harmony for the faculties that it has freed from the grip of market-driven specialization. In contrast, Arnold argues that “the reasons why the human spirit feels itself to achieve a more adequate and satisfying expression in poetry than in any other mode of activity” cannot be fully defined (183). However, in “The Study of Poetry” Arnold specifies that poetry provokes “a higher truth and a higher seriousness” than all other human studies (185). Thus, the enduring seriousness and truth that poetry offers are the keys to the fulfilled self and a harmonious society. Other than mentioning that truth and seriousness are "inseparable from the diction and movement that characterize his style and manner", Arnold's theory lacks a clear role and path for the poet outside of simply being innately good because great poetry inspires the greatest harmony. Therefore, Schiller's argument pairs even more seamlessly with Citizen due to the more clarified provisions for the artist and the description of what this harmonious society would look like. In Citizen Rankine confronts the injustice of racism and artistically meditates on the mentality and institutions that foster its continuation. Regarding art, Rankine criticizes an artist who hypothesizes the need for the black artist to behave as white and the separation of black, of "slavery", of art from the expansive arts, stating that "any relationship between the white spectator and the The black artist immediately becomes a relationship between white people. and black ownership, which was the legal state of affairs at one time” (34). In doing so, the prose addresses racial division in society while maintaining a higher moral standard for art, with the ultimate goal of a society not separated by division. One reason why this might strengthen Schiller's point in favor of the artist's role as mediator is also addressed in the chapter, stating that those who denounce racism in society are “called crazy, crass [and] mad” (30). While this point may also work to prove Arnold's point that poetry is truly superior for achieving harmony, the weight of the argument Rankine is making about racism intensifies the moral standard to which Rankine is holding society above of skilled writing. The artist's freedom to express this point, even if it cannot be said in normal conversation, is above all on Schiller's side. Thus, although Arnold's argument connects to the second chapter of Citizen, Schiller's arguments connect more seamlessly with Citizen, addressing the high moral standard necessary to advance discussion of how society becomes less fragmented. In conclusion, Schiller's arguments on the role of literature in promoting a harmonious society through an open-minded approach with a clear specification of the poet's purpose and clarification of what justifies a society. 483-490.