Culture and Anarchy – An Essay in Political and Social

Vishva Gajjar

Roll No. 33

Paper No. 6 – The Victorian Literature

Topic – Culture and Anarchy – An Essay in Political and Social Critisim – Metthew Arnold

S. B. Gardi Deperatment of English

Bhavnagar University.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism    -Matthew Arnold

INTRODUCTION:

Matthew Arnold (1822–88) was one of 19th-century England’s most prominent poets and social commentators. He was for many years an inspector of schools, later becoming professor of poetry at Oxford University. Amongst his books, perhaps the best known is Culture and Anarchy (1869), in which he argues for the role of reading ‘the best that has been thought and said’ as an antidote to the anarchy of materialism, industrialism and individualistic self-interest.

Culture and Anarchy is a controversial philosophical work by Arnold. And it composed during a time of unprecedented social and political change, the essay argues for a restructuring of England's social ideology. It reflects Arnold's passionate conviction that the uneducated English masses could be molded into conscientious individuals who strive for human perfection through the harmonious cultivation of all of their skills and talents. A crucial condition of Arnold's thesis is that a state-administered system of education must replace the ecclesiastical program which emphasized rigid individual moral conduct at the expense of free thinking and devotion to community. Much more than a mere treatise on the state of education in England, Culture and Anarchy is, in the words of J. Dover Wilson, “at once a masterpiece of vivacious prose, a great poet's great defense of poetry, a profoundly religious book, and the finest apology for education in the English language.”

Arnold divides the society of England into three classes - The Aristocratic Class, the Middle Class and the Working Class. He finds Anarchy very common in these classes and analyses them with their virtues and defects. He designates the Aristocratic class of his time as the Barbarians, the Middle class as the Philistines and the Working class as the Populace.

We normally find three classes in Ships which also indicates exact social hierarchy in world. As elite class people enjoy seating idly on deck of the ship, Middle class people enjoying dance and food at the medieval floor, whereas, working class people hardily works for whole day at the rest floor of the ship. Their constant attempt makes ship floating upon ocean.    

His scrutiny of three classes of his time proves him a good experienced critic. For Aristocratic class, he views that this class lacks adequate courage for resistance. He calls this class the Barbarians because they believe in their personal individualism, liberty and doing as one likes; they had great passion for field sports. Their manly exercise, their strength and their good looks are definitely found in the Aristocratic class of his time. Their politeness resembles the Chivalry Barbarians, and their external styles in manners, accomplishments and powers are inherited from the Barbarians.

The other class is the middle class or the Philistines, known by its mundane wisdom, expert of industry and found busy in industrialization and commerce. Their eternal inclination is to the progress and prosperity of the country by building cities, railroads and running the great wheels of industry. They have produced the greatest mercantile navy. So, they are the Empire builders. In this material progress, the working class is with them. All the keys of progress are in their hands.

The other class is the working class or the populace. This class is known raw and half-developed because of poverty and other related diseases. This class is mostly exploited by the Barbarians and Philistines. The author finds democratic arousing in this class because they are getting political consciousness and are coming out from their hiding places to assert an English man's heaven- born privilege of doing as he likes, meeting where he likes, bawling what he likes, and breaking what he likes.

Despite such class system, Arnold finds a common basis of human nature in all. So, the spirit of sweetness and light can be founded. Even Arnold calls himself philistine and rises above his level of birth and social status in his pursuit of perfection, sweetness and light and culture. He further says that all three classes find happiness in what they like. For example, the Barbarians like honor and consideration, field sports and pleasure. The Philistines like fanaticism, business and money making and comfort and tea meeting, but the Populace class, hated by the both classes, likes shouting, hustling and smashing and beer. They all keep different activities by their social status. However, there are a few souls in these classes who hope for culture with a desire to know about their best or to see things as they are. They have desire to pursue reason and to make the will of God to prevail.

The Best Self or the Right Reason & the Ordinary Self:

Here he discusses the best self or the right reason and the ordinary self that can be felt in the pursuit of perfection only. In this regard, he talks about the bathos (excessive pathos, insincere sentimental pathos), surrounded by nature itself in the soul of man, is presented in literary judgment of some critics of literature and in some religious organizations of America. He further says that the idea of high best self is very hard for the pursuit of perfection in literature, religion and even in politics. The political system, prevalent in his time, was of the Barbarians. The leaders and the statesmen sang the praises of the Barbarians for winning the favor of the Aristocrats. Tennyson celebrates in his poems the glory of the great broad-shouldered genial Englishmen with his sense of duty and reverence for the laws. Arnold asserts that Tennyson is singing the praise of the philistines because this middle class is the backbone of the country in progress. The politicians sing the praise of the populace for carrying their favors. Indeed, they play with their feelings, having showed the brightest powers of sympathy and the readiest power of actions. All these praises are mere clap-trap and trick to gain applause. It is the taste of bathos surrounded by nature itself in the soul of man and comes into ordinary self. The ordinary self-enforces the readers to misguide the nation. It is more admirable, but its benefits are entertained by the representatives and ruling men.

Arnold wants to bring reform in education by shifting the management of public schools from their old board of trustees to the state. Like politics, in education the danger lies in unchecked and unguided individual action. All the actions must be checked by the real reason or the best self of the individual. It is the opinion of some people that the state may not interfere into affairs of education. The liberal party men believe in liberty, the individual liberty of doing as one likes and assert that interference of the state in education is a violation of personal liberty. Arnold says that such ideal personal liberty has still indefinite distance.

Moreover, he has the experience of twenty- four years as the inspector of schools. It provided him so much time to meet the different classes and examine their behaviors and habits. This experience pursued him to write 'Culture & Anarchy'. In his book, he has also discussed various topics about true culture. In this book, he has discussed Hebraism and Hellenism.

In the inception of the topic, he discusses doing and thinking. His general view about human beings is that they prefer to act rather than to think. He rejects it because mankind is to err and he cannot always think right, but it comes seldom in the process of reasoning and meditation, or he is not rightly guided by the light of true reason. The nation follows the voice of its conscience and its best light, but it is not the light of true reason except darkness.

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. He insists on the balance of the both thought and action (Hellenism and Hebraism). The final aim of Hellenism and Hebraism is the same as man's perfection and salvation. He further 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. He points out that the Greek philosophy considers that the body and its desires are an impediment to right thinking, whereas Hebraism considers that the body and its desires are an obstacle to right action.

Hebraism studies the universal order and observes the magnificence of God apparent in the order, whereas Hellenism follows with flexible activity. 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, and follows the will of God. Its primary idea is absolute obedience to the will of God.

Hellenism and Hebraism both are directly connected to the life of human beings. Hellenism keeps emphasis on knowing or knowledge, whereas Hebraism fastens its faith in doing. He describes that the Bible reveals the truth which awards the peace of God and liberty. The simple idea of Hellenism is to get rid of ignorance, to see things as they are, and to search beauty from them. Socrates, as Hellenic, states that the best man is he who tries to make himself perfect, and the happiest man is he who feels that he is perfecting himself.

In this treatise, Arnold asserts that there is enough of Hellenism in the English nation, and he emphasizes on Hebraism, because it is based on conduct and self- control. He admits that the age is incapable of governing itself in the pursuit of perfection, and the bright promise of Greek ideal is faded. Now the obedience or submission must be to the rules of conduct, as expressed by the Holy Scripture (Bible). Hellenism lays its main stress on clear intelligence, whereas Hebraism keeps main stress on firm obedience, moral power and character.

 Conclusion:

Thus, the mission of Arnold's culture is that each individual must act for himself and must be perfect himself. The chosen people or classes must dedicate themselves to the pursuit of perfection, and he seems to be agreed with Humboldt, the German Philosopher, in case of the pursuit of perfection. So, it is essential that man must try to seek human perfection by instituting his best self or real reason; culture, in the end, would find its public reason.