Culture and Anarchy

Arnold's 'culture is the study of perfection' where the development of humanity's cultural consciousness is key to the perfection of society. Therefore, culture for Arnold is:

'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.'

He acknowledges that only through the pursuance of culture can humanity's salvation be truly possible and that it is unconcerned with: class, rules or formalities, it is accessible for all who choose to persue it. Through this participation, can there truly be any kind of 'development' that benefits 'all sides of humanity'. He gives two examples of cultural conciousness, with the
comparison between, America and France's cultural significance within the art movement. In particular, he examines the citizens of these two countries, Mr Bright and Monsieur Renan, in terms of, what both countries and individuals can offer for the progression of cultural consciousness.

France, and Paris, in particular, is descried as being the focal point of cultural activity were postmodernism: art, literature and architecture has proliferated to the rest of Europe. In contrst, America, is described as embracing contemporay practices, in terms of, replacing postmodernism with modernity, where puritanism and the austerity for a political and social control of what constitues culture is defined. This results in Arnold, taking the side of Monsieur Renan:

'Therefore, we conclude that Monsieur Renan, more than Mr Bright, means by reason and intelligence the same things as we do.' He goes further to dismiss America's brand of culture as being puritanical and thereby, defending Monsieur Renan's position on it:

'Because to enable and stir up people to read their Bible and the newspapers, and to get a practical knowledge of their business, does not serve to the higher spiritual life of a nation so much as culture, truly conceived, serves; and a true conception of culture is, as Monsieur Renan's words show, just what America fails in.'

Therefore, for Arnold, puritanism represents, 'mediocrity and the pursuense of tyranny where authorative control over culture and humanity exists. However, he does not completely dismiss puritanism altogether, he states that there is a place for it within society, 'where they make a large part of what is strongest and serious in this nation and therefore attract our respect and interest'.
These 'nonconformists' whose ideas of a collective cultural identity are, according to Arnold, only concerned with developing,'one side of their humanity at the expense of all others'.

It seems as though, Arnold, has implied that while puritanical behaviour has useful benefits for humanity and society, the development of puritanical thought only serves a small minority, therefore, any sort of perfection cannot be truly attained when there is control and restrictions of what is constitued as being cultural.

He is quite direct with his criticism of puritans, describing them as 'incomplete, mutilated failers' striving for perfection, but failing miserably to find 'salvation'. Arnold, makes a distinction between authoratarian rule and religious values that underpin humanity, which form the foundations of society
that control how perfection is distributed and that, such confusion, results in a failure by humanity to find any kind of perfection:


'Perfection is put further off out of our reach, and the confusion and perplexity in which our society now labours is increased by the Nonconformists rather than diminished by them.'

Arnold does not deny that they have good intentions for humanity, but with 'sweetness and light; he hopes to address the balance and seek a perfection that is embraced by 'all of humanity'. He identifies three distinct groups that are representative of society, they include: Barbarians, Philistines and the Populace.

The Barbarians represent the arisocrats. Philistines can be regarded as representing the middle-classes and the Populace are representative of the rest of the masses, the working-class.

Therefore, to conclude, culture can only be attained through the freedom of individuals where politics and religion, the two main forms of authoraterian control that are identified within the essay, are free from the conversion of culture into a political and religious doctrine for the control of the powerful.

However, as he points out, with a possible reference to Mr Bright, that 'A liberal believes in liberty, and liberty signifies the non-intervention of the State'. Nonetheless, the intervention of the State, particularly within the 'education' environment and 'public afairs' establishments; have been firmly naturalised. Therefore, it could be interpreted, from Arnold's analysis that if puritanism were adopted by the populace then any form of freedom of expression could easily be restricted by the puritanical conventions, processes and rules that are in the best interests of those who are in positions of power. This form of puritanism is described by Arnold, within the educational sphere as:

'a mass of minute mechanical details about the number of members on a school-committee, and how many shall be a quorum, and how they shall be summoned, and how often they shall meet.'

It seems quite evident that, Arnold, draws on institutions that are already controlled to some degree by authority. This seems to be the central point of his whole argument that puritanical control of culture will inevitably lead to the restriction of freedom of expression and dilute what culture truly represents, so; conventions and control by puritans only leads to the rest of the populace being confused about what culure really has to offer humanity.

However, the 'promotion of these philosophical theories', through; 'newspapers' and 'parlimentary representatives, may be said to act the part of guides and governors to us'. Therefore, only through the education and 'promotion' of culture, can the rest of the populace be informed. But, there is a clear distinction here between; puritanical culture and culture that 'guides' the populace.