Arnold's Concepts About 'Culture' and 'Anarchy'

Arnold’s Concepts of ‘Culture’ and ‘Anarchy’ in the Essay “Culture and Anarchy”

Name: Riddhi Jani

Roll no: 25

Paper: 6, The Victorian Literature

Submitted to: Department of English

M. K. Bhavnagar University

About The Essay:

This essay was first published in ‘Cornhill Magazine’ during 1867-’68. Its full name is “Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism” and it is written by Matthew Arnold. Since its publication in 1869, literary scholars have generally recorded “Culture and Anarchy” as masterpiece of social criticism. While it is true that Arnold wrote his essay in response to specific Victorian issues, commentators have since examined the work for its relevance to universal, ethical questions & social issues, in subsequent generations. Several 20^th century critics have analyzed how Arnold employed the device of social criticism to advocate his particular brand of humanism. William Buckler has discussed Arnold’s role as a classical moralist, who believes that a truly conscious approach to life is its own reward while also facilitating personal growth. There are some controversies also regarding this essay. But for them Linda Ray Pratt says:

“The tension between Arnold’s vocabulary, which has often taken on different connotations for today’s readers, and the basic humanness of his social vision is one reason for the confusion about his ideas.” 

        In this essay Arnold gives his views about culture, three classes of society, anarchy etc. In preface he says:

“The whole scope of the 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, vainly imagining that there is a virtue in following them staunchly which makes up for the mischief of following them mechanically.”

   Culture- According to Arnold:-

According to Arnold culture is the process, means it is always going on & on. And also it is not static but it is changeable. It is study of social and moral perfection. And Arnold says that culture is internal thing. As power of God remains within, similarly culture also remains within. It is not external & concrete thing but it is internal and abstract feeling. Arnold insists that one must see and learn culture deeply.

He gives example of American culture. One news paper of that time admired America as “America, without religious establishments, seems to get ahead of us all, even in light and the things of the mind”. But Arnold says that there must be the base of the culture. Because without the foundation of culture, America made ‘intellectual mediocrity’, their distorted manners, their depthless, superficial spirit and their ‘lack of general intelligence’. In this way Arnold counter argues with that news paper. Arnold firmly believes that culture playss biggest and vital role or gives contribution in advancement of any nation or society. Culture cannot be easily destroyed. Arnold says about ‘what culture really is’, ‘what good it can do’ and ‘what is our own special need for it’. He looks for a place, a plain ground on which “A faith in culture, both his own faith in it and the faith of others, may rest securely”.

Arnold sees culture as a study of perfection. He says:

“To conceive of true human perfection as a harmonious perfection, developing all sides of our humanity; and as a general perfection, developing all parts of our society. For if one member suffers, the other member must suffer with it; and the fewer there is that follow the true way of salvation. The harder that way is to find.”

        Arnold believes that everyone should remain concerned with everyone in society. And one should not only see and learn culture but should prevail it. One should see the moral, social and beneficent characters in culture. Culture remains within us in the form of manner. The culture is the only thing that differentiates human from animal. It makes perfect our humanity. And also culture itself is changed by time. Arnold says it “an endless addition to itself”. Means when it changes, the earlier culture doesn’t remove or lost. Both new and old can simultaneously exist. In this way the expansion of culture is done. Arnold considers it as an ‘ideal sprit of the human race’. To reach to the ideal, culture is an inevitable help or support.

        Culture is not the thing ‘to have’ and ‘to rest’. But the true character of culture is ‘growing’ and ‘becoming’. Culture has nothing to do with religion or God. But at some they are a part of the culture. One cannot possess culture but surely one can have personal mental growth by culture. Culture conceives perfection. But for this perfection one or an individual has to become a part of it. One has to involve in it.

        If an individual denies the culture or if he/she tries to go towards perfection without culture, then may be that person remains undeveloped or dwarfed. Culture is not the frivolous or useless thing, but it has a very important function to fulfill for mankind. Here Arnold says about the purpose of the culture. That is to keep the mark of human perfection, in view simply and broadly, not assigning it in a special and limited way/character. He here annexes the words of Epictetus:

“It is a sign of aphuia, that is, of a nature not finally tempered,… to give yourself up to thing which relate to the body; to make for instance, a great fuss about exercise, a great fuss about eating, a great fuss about drinking, a great fuss about walking, a great fuss about riding…the formation of the spirit and character must be our real concern.”

        Arnold considers this thing admirable. And the Greek word ‘aphuia’ means well grown or graceful. He connects the idea of culture with sweetness and light. He explains the idea with the help of Greek words ‘aphuia’ and ‘euphuia’. Here the man ‘euphyes’ is going towards ‘sweetness and light’ and ‘aphyes’ tends towards ‘philistine’. Greeks were inspired by this central and happy idea if the essential character of human perfection. And only because of it they could get this vast, immense spiritual significance. This significance of the Greek has affection of the machinery of our education. It is a kind of homage to Greeks. Culture becomes like spirit with poetry, follows one law with poetry…if in such a way sweetness and light becomes characters of perfection. Arnold says that work for machinery is a work for confusion. And the quest for perfection is ultimately becomes the quest for sweetness and light.

   Anarchy- According to Arnold:-

Arnold thinks culture as quest for perfection. And with it he attaches his ideas about anarchy also. There is a chapter in “Culture and Anarchy” named ‘Doing as One Likes’. In this chapter he talks of one’s freedom. And this freedom is sung very much by Englishmen. But yet, they never thought about end of such freedom for which it is to be desired. Arnold accepts the idea of personal freedom, but he warns about complete freedom. Arnold thinks in this way:

“…it is the 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 when he is thus free to do as he likes, we do not lay so much stress.”

        According to Arnold ‘doing as one likes’ is an outcome of middle and working class. But at some extent it brings chaos and anarchy in society. He says that business and trade is highly represented by our middle and working class. They do too much hard work. So, for them “…it is ideal right and felicity to do as he like.”

Arnold believes that their people (as he uses the word ‘mass’) are rough and uncultivated. And so, there must be system of law and discipline. In short Arnold says that freedom or personal freedom is desirable, but not on the shoulder of chaos or anarchy. Arnold’s point is that, one must think in proper, right way. One must have clear sight to see things in their real forms.

Arnold seems quite against to people of action. Here comes two types of people: (i) Lover of action & (ii) Lover of calculation or thinking. The intension of both may to do good for society. But Arnold believes that the lovers of action mostly miscalculate the things. And because of it, instead of being good chaos or anarchy takes place. Their miscalculation may become danger for society. Arnold was the critic of the Victorian Age. It was the age of industrialization. There were growth of machinery and mechanical things. Personal freedom was worshiped at that time. In Arnold’s age personal liberty was for happiness. But it is also true that misinterpretation of liberty is a dangerous idea and can lead to anarchy.

The idea of personal freedom is brought up by Britishers. And with it they have the concept of anarchy inherently. In politics the slogan of middleclass was this:

“Everyman for himself in business, and everyman for himself in religion.”

There were two sides in politics also. They two were giving different ideas or concepts of personal liberty. On one side this personal freedom privileged aristocracy. And the middle class people were lured by the political idea of personal freedom. The mass put blind faith in it and the modern spirit of anarchical tendency took shape. So, the mass , the working class of Arnold’s time started asserting their right to do what they like, meet where they like and enter where they like, threaten as they like and smash as they like. It is clearly the misuse of personal liberty. Too much freedom or reinless freedom leads towards anarchy.

Then Arnold says about the rioters. He points to the Hyde Park Riots. Then the point or controversy of English-Irish is raised. Only because they are Englishmen, they are given more freedom & more right that Irishmen. There was an idea that personal liberty was only for Englishmen. But naturally such partiality or favoritism is dangerous for any country. And English working class was tends to break the law without any fear of punishment. And because of it anarchy or social division becomes inevitable. Only the idea of culture can counteract or face such tendency to anarchy.

To prevent this tendency there should an authority. And this authority will be considered as an implementation of right reason against this dangerous tendency. And it is derived from culture.

Here I would like to relate the contemporary issue of our Indian politics- the issue of Arvind Kejrival. After Arnold’s time many anarchists came. But they were good anarchists because they protested against wrong things in society and politics. So their anarchy became fruitful to society, not harmful. Here I would like to put some lines from one supplementary of our news paper named “Saurastra Samachar”:

"કેજરીવાલ સંસદિય પ્રણાલીની ઉપેક્ષા કરે છે. અરાજકતા (anarchy) ફેલાવે છે. લોકોને ગુનેગાર કહે છે. તેવા આક્ષેપ કેજરીવાલ પર મૂકાયા છે અને પોતે અરાજક છે, તેવા આક્ષેપનો તેમણે સ્વીકાર પણ કર્યો છે. મહાત્મા ગાંધી, ટૉલ્સટોય, પ્રીન્સ કોપોટકીન અને સત્યાગ્રહની બાબતમાં ગાંધીજીના અગ્રેસર અને ગુરુ થોરો પણ અરાજકતાવાદીઓ તરીકે વગોવાયા છે."

          And, in this also some controversies are there because as ‘liberty’, the word ‘anarchy’ also has different meanings and interpretations. And they all are right also. ‘Anarchy’ is the Greek word and it tends to ‘no rule & no crime’. There is a class of people who believe that sometimes anarchy is good. When it is no need for government it is real perfection.

        A Canadian anarcho-communist writer L. Susan Brown writes in an article “The Politics of Individualism” that the riots against government are not anarchism. In anarchism, there is no need of rule over common people. However, anarchy and even culture both have positive and negative both connotations.

        Arnold believes that culture is ‘OUR BEST SELF’. And it is the only remedy for anarchy. At the end of the chapter Arnlod quotes some lines of Bishop Wison:

“Firstly never go against the best lights you have;

 Secondly, take care that your light be not darkness”.

        So, these are Arnold’s concepts about ‘culture’ and ‘anarchy’. He is very clear in his views. At the end I would like to annex some lines from the essay “Culture and Anarchy”:

“We are supposed when we criticize by the help of culture, some imperfect doing or other, to have in our eye some well known rival plan doing, which we want to serve and recommend.”