“Culture and Anarchy”
pioneer work for cultural studies.
Matthew Arnold is a famous poet and critic of Victorian age.
Arnold outlined the function of the cultural critic in his essay “Culture and
Anarchy”. Arnold is a popular as a systematic critic, cultural critic. He uses
the building block for cultural studies. “Culture and Anarchy” is a pioneer
work for ‘Cultural Studies’. It becomes content and draws attention towards
‘Cultural Studies’.
Arnold’s views published in his essay ‘Culture and Anarchy’
about culture, anarchy, three classes of society, Hebraism, Hellenism are
become necessary and important in establishing cultural studies. As an
important and pioneer work for cultural studies, we have to first understand
Arnold’s views in his work ‘Culture and Anarchy’ which is given below.
What is Culture? (‘Sweetness and Light’):
In this essay Matthew Arnold tries to say the idea of
culture. He introduces culture as,
“The whole scope of essay is to recommend culture as the great help out of our present difficulties; culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, ‘the best which has been thought and said in the world.’ And through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically...”
To show the importance of culture he gave an example of
American culture. He proposes to try and enquire in the simple unsystematic
way, what culture really is, what good it can do, what is our own special need
of it. And he seeks to find some plain ground on which a faith in culture may
rest securely.
Arnold believes that culture is a study of perfection. He
further adds that,
“To conceive of true human perfection as a harmonious perfection, as a general perfection, developing all sides of our humanity and as a general perfection, developing all sides of society.”
Culture is considered not merely as the endeavour to see and
learn this, but also to make it prevail, the moral, social and beneficent
character of culture becomes manifest. As religion, culture is also places in
an internal condition. Character perfection is recommended in culture.
Perfection of culture is not possible while the individual remains isolated.
Thus, the notion of perfection as culture brings us to
conceive it: a harmonious perfection, a perfection in which the characters of
beauty and intelligence are both present, which unites ‘the two noblest of
things-sweetness and light’.
Arnold connects his ideas of sweetness and light with
culture and explains with the Greek words ‘aphuia and euphoria’. Because of
that central idea, this first chapter is called “sweetness and light” which is
about the introduction of Culture.
What is Anarchy? (Doing as one likes):
As we already saw that Arnold, in the first chapter-
‘sweetness and light’ has tried to show that culture is the study and pursuit
of perfection; and sweetness and light are the main characters. But hitherto he
has been insisting chiefly on beauty or sweetness, as character of perfection.
To complete his design, it evidently remains to speak also of intelligence, or
light, as a character of perfection.
In this second chapter, Arnold throws some light on Anarchy
and also explains dangers of anarchy- doing as one likes. In this chapter to
bring some points of anarchy, he speaks of light as one of the characters of
perfection, and of culture as giving us light.
He further says about danger of personal liberty that, it is
said that a man with the theories of sweetness and light is full of antipathy
against the rougher or coarser movements going on around him, that he will not
lend a hand to the humble operation of uprooting evil by their means, and
therefore the believers in action grow impatient with him. But what if rough
and course action, ill-calculated action, or action with sufficient light is
bane on the society? In this case, to refuse to lend a hand to the rougher and
courser movements going on round, is surely the best and in real truth the most
practical line.
Freedom of doing as one likes was one of those things which
English thus worshipped in it, without enough regarding the ends for which
freedom is to be desired. Arnold agrees with the prevalent notion that it is a
most happy and important thing for man merely to be able to do as he likes. But
the problem is ‘on what he is to do as he likes, we do not lay so much stress.’
Arnold fears very right happiness of an Englishman to do
what he likes may drift the entire society towards anarchy. Arnold gives
another example Hyde Park protesters and dissenters to prove how chaotic the
world becomes as one likes. Arnold blames the strong belief in freedom for such
anarchy in society.
He further says that, if culture brings light, and light shows
us that there is nothing so very blessed in merely ‘doing as one likes’, that
the worship of machinery, that the really blessed thing is to like what right
reason order, and to follow her authority, then one has got a practical benefit
of culture. The urgent need of society is the much-wanted principle, ‘a
principle of authority’, to counteract the tendency to anarchy, which seems to
be threatening society.
Arnold puts question that, ‘who should be entrusted with
authority?’ as giving answer he verbalizes that, “by our everyday selves, we
are separate, personal... anarchy presents itself as a danger to us, and we
know not where to turn.” Arnold gives the answer of question that,
“it is ‘our best selves’ to whom the authority must be given. Because it is truest friend and when anarchy is a danger, to this authority we may turn with sure trust, culture suggests one to us in our best self.”
These are the ideas of Arnold on Anarchy and authority.
Three classes (the Barbarians, the Philistines and the
populace):
In the third chapter of ‘culture and anarchy’ Matthew Arnold
gave his views on the three classes of society. These three classes of England
are the Aristocrats, the Middle class and the Working class. He shows the
virtues and defects of all three classes in the essay.
The Aristocrats (Barbarians):
Arnold calls this class the ‘Barbarians’. They have personal
liberty and anarchical in their tendencies. They have their own individualism.
Outwards qualities like politeness grace in manners come directly inculcated by
the Aristocrats from the Barbarians. Their culture is skin-deep, external and
lacking in inwards virtue.
The Middle class (Philistine):
In a German sense, Philistine means the uncultured people.
They are worldly-wise men, busy in trade and commerce. They have brought all
economic prosperity and progress in the country. Thus, they are the empire
builders in long; they would bring all material prosperity.
The Working class (Populace):
The working class are helper of the empire builders. They
are raw and half developed. They are being exploited by the Philistine and the
Barbarians so long. Because of their awakening, their poverty and squalor
dawned. They become politically conscious and coming out from obscurities.
Thus, Arnold finds a sort of caste system in England
consisting of the Barbarians, the Philistine and the Populace. Yet there is
something common factor in all the three classes is a common basis of human
nature. From above the basis of culture must be founded- sweetness and light.
There is no rigid division in society- these classes come up
or go down the social ladder as individual strive to attain perfection in any
of these three freak division of society. Then it is essential that man must
strive to seek human perfection to establish his best self and culture would in
the end, find its public recognition. These are Arnold’s views about three
classes of society.
Hebraism and Hellenism:
Arnold discusses, in the inception of the topic, doing and
thinking. His general views about human beings are that they prefer to act
rather than to think. He talks about the great idea to know and the great
energy to act. Both are the most potent forces and they should be in harmony by
the light of reason. So, they are Hebraism and Hellenism.
Arnold discusses that, the supreme idea with Hellenism or
the Greek spirit is to see things as they really are. And the supreme idea of
Hebraism or the spirit of bible is conduct and obedience. Hebraism studies the
universal order and observes the magnificence of god apparent in the order,
whereas Hellenism follows with flexible activity.
Thus, the root idea of both is the desire for reason and
will of God, and the desire of love of God. Thus, Hellenism acquires
spontaneity of consciousness with a clearness of mind, and Hebraism achieves a
strictness of conscience with its clarity of thought. In brief, Hebraism shows
stress on doing rather than knowing. It is primarily ideas is absolute
obedience to the will of God.
In conclusion, it must be added that the rule of life should
be based on the theory of Hellenism and Hebraism because the final aim of both
is man’s perfection or salvation. Thus, Arnold represents his ideas on human
nature and also presents their aim of perfection in chapter four of the essay
‘Culture and anarchy’.
Porro Unum Est Necessarium:
The title is in Latin, which means “But one thing is
necessary”. One banal system of action, issuing out of the very concept of
democrat existence is the liberal notion of doing freely as one likes. The idea
issues from the sense of liberty democracy inculcate and when pushed to extreme
liberty is often turned into anarchy.
Hebraism and Hellenism these two propensities and
vacillations of the mind must be resolved and must seek and find a mutual
understanding and balance. Arnold warns of the besetting blindness of
fanaticism either in culture or religion.
The real ‘Unum Necessarium’ for us, as Arnold insists
repeatedly-for repetition is a vice with Arnold- is to come to our best at all
points. So Arnold points to the very malice of his age. He says,
“One thing needful” justifying in us vulgarity, hideousness,
ignorance violence, are really so many touchstones which try our one thing
needful, and which prove that in the state, at any rate, in which we ourselves
hate it, it is not all we want.”
Arnold deplores the confusion of thought and of practice in
his age among all classes of people in England. The age boasts of British
freedom, British industry and British muscularity. In all these activity one
must have a standard and ideal of perfection and happiness. The trouble in
Arnold’s age is a disquieting absence of some authority, and harmonious
development of humanity, spontaneity of consciousness, sweetness and light is necessary
for their culture in Arnold’s words.
Thus, we must be prepared to fight against the diseased
spirit of cultivated time. Arnold exhorts his countrymen against the diseased
spirit of cultivated inaction, to seek real culture and to let their
consciousness play upon the intelligible law of things and to seek ultimately a
way to true human perfection.
In this last chapter, Arnold gives some ideas about English society,
its malice or its disadvantages. And also he discusses some solutions or shows
ways toward perfection.
Conclusion:
Because of Matthew Arnold’s views about culture and his discussion
of necessary element of culture in society, this essay becomes pioneer work for
cultural studies. Importance of culture and contribution of individual are well
presented in this essay ‘Culture and Anarchy’, so, it becomes path shower for ‘cultural
studies’. In this essay, Arnold also puts his ideas about human nature and
their aim of ‘perfection’ as culture; he also wrote what is necessary for the English
culture.
Thus, we can say that, Matthew Arnold is the first cultural
critic or the first systematic critic of cultural studies and his extraordinary
views in the essay “Culture and Anarchy” becomes pioneer work and open ways for cultural studies, a new
branch.
