'Culture and Anarchy' pioneer work for Cultural studies

“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.