Mathew Arnold's views on Culture and Anarchy

Mathew Arnold’s views on Culture and Anarchy

“Culture is properly described

As the love of perfection;

It is a study of

Perfection”

Mathew Arnold:

                Mathew Arnold was a poet of Victorian period. He was born on 24^th of December, 1822 in England. He was a British poet and cultural critic who worked as an inspector of school. He was the son of Thomas Arnold, The headmaster of Rugby School. He had two brothers namely Tom Arnold and William Delafield Arnold. Tom Arnold was a literary professor and William Delafield Arnold was a novelist and colonial administrator. He was famous in genres like poetry; literary social and religious criticism. Mathew Arnold has been characterized as a Saga writer, a type of writer who chastises and instructs the reader on contemporary social issues.

“Culture and Anarchy: An essay in Political and Social criticism Mathew Arnold.”

                 Culture and Anarchy is a series of periodical essays by Mathew Arnold. Which was first published in Cornhill magazine in 1867-68. Anarchy is a controversial philosophical work. The essay argues for a restructuring of England’s social ideology. It reflects Arnold’s passionate conviction that the uneducated English masses could be modeled into conscientious individuals who strive for human perfection through the harmonious cultivation of all of their skills and talents. Arnold’s famous piece of writing on culture established his high Victorian Cultural agenda which remained dominant in debate from the 1860s until the 1950s. A cultural condition of Arnold’s thesis is that a state- administrated system of education must replace the ecclesiastical programmed which emphasized rigid individual moral conduct at the expense of free thinking and devotion to community.

Concept of Culture:

                Mathew Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy spells out one of two major theories of culture to emerge around 1870. This essay sets out to indicate the tree “culture” by refuting the liberal practitioners like Mr. Bright, Mr. Edwards White, and Mr. Fredric Harrison etc. And newspapers like Daily Telegraph & Times. In Culture and Anarchy, Mathew Arnold, articulated a theory of culture that continues to influence thinking about the value of the humanities in higher education. He defined culture in idealist terms, as something to strive for, and in this respect his theory differs from its anthropological counterpart. Anthropology views culture not as something to be acquired but rather as “a whole way of life” something we already have. This second usage was also a Victorian invention, spelled out around the same time in Edward B. Taylor’s primitive Culture. Arnold, a behavior in culture propose to trey and inquire, in the simple unsystematic way. “What culture really is, what good it can do, what our own special is needed of on which a faith in culture both its own faith of others may rest securely.”

Culture: As a Study in Projection:-

                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 members must suffer with it; and he fever there is that follow the true way of solution, the harder that way is to find.” Arnold has described this in his essay. Culture is not just about to see and learn but it is also about to make it prevail the moral, social and beneficent character of culture becomes manifest. Religion says: The kingdom of god is within you; but culture in like manner, place, human perfection in an internal condition in the growth and predominance of our humanity proper as distinguished from our annalist.

                According to Arnold, the only purpose of Culture is in keeping the mark of human perfection simply and broadly in view, and not assigning to this perfection as religion or utilitarianism assign to it, a special and limited character. This point of view of culture is best given by these words of Epictetus- “It is a sign of aphula.” He also said that a nature not firmly tempered- “to give you up to things which relate to the body; to make for instance, a great fuss about exercise, a great fuss about reading. The formation of the real spirit and character must be our real concern.” The Greek words aphuia, euphia gives exactly 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” as a  swift, who of one of the two, at any rate, had himself all too little most happily calls them in his Battle of the Books “the two noblest of things, Sweetness and Light.”

Culture: Sweetness and Light

                Arnold believed that culture is also connected with the ideas of sweetness help of Greek words aphuia & euphuia. The euphyes stands for the man who tends towards sweetness and light; the aphyes stands for Philistire. The immense spiritual significance of the Greeks is due to their having been inspired with this central and happy idea of the essential character of human perfection; and Mr. Brights misconception of culture as a smattering of Greek and Latin, comes itself. After this wonderful significance of the Greeks having affected the very machinery of over education and is in itself a kind of homage to it. Culture is of like spirit with poetry, follows one laws with poetry. In thus making sweetness and light, to be characters of perfection, culture shows its single minded love of perfection.

Doing as One Likes:

                In his this second chapter “Doing as One Likes”, he speaks about light as one of the characters of perfection and of culture as giving us light.

                According to Arnold, freedom of doing as one likes, was one of those things which English thus worshiped itself without enough regarding the ends for which freedom is to be desired. Arnold also agrees with the prevalent notion that “it is a most happy and important thing for a man merely to be able to do as he likes, we do not lay so much stress.” Even though the British Constitution is a system which stops and paralyses any power in interfering with the free action of individuals...... that the central idea of English life and politics is the ascertain of person liberty, yet Arnold fames this very right and happiness of an Englishman to do what he likes may drif the entire society towards Anarchy.

Culture is the best which has been thought and said:

                Mathew Arnold in Culture and Anarchy articulated theory of a culture that countless to influence thinking about the value of the humanities in higher education. Arnold’s culture is idealist; it represents something to be strives for and this makes it prone to claims of elitism. Arnold’s concept about culture is sometimes used to equate culture with the mastery of a body of exemplary materials. Arnoldian Culture is ultimately something available primarily to the educated fortunate few while inaccessible to many.

                Arnoldian culture assumes the elite and the mass have a shared humanity. This was a novel use of the term at the time and was seen then as the most striking aspect of his new idea as his well known critic, Fredric Harrison recognized in his satire on Arnold’s ideals “Culture: A dialogue”. Arnold’s ideas were predicated as a solution to the problem represented by the Hyde Park incident. The best self exemplified his culture ideal because it reflects the same moral and social passion for doing well.” That distinguished his theory of culture from others .Arnold’s concept of intellectual free play replicated the logic of Adam Smith’s political economy. His solution to the social problems created by commercial free trade was the same free trade in other form that of intellectual laissez fairer promoting the free exchange of ideas Self-awareness lies at the heart of Arnold’s theory of culture. He knows that he does not know. This is a more honest intellectual position than the claim of the puritan conformists, who thinks that he knows the answer once and for all, and need think no further about the problem. That broader interest in understanding the social body as a whole links Arnold’s culture and Anarchy and though both works presented different solutions they nonetheless identified an inability to grasp that whole as the essential problem any theory of culture has to address.