Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1869

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Preface-Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6-Conclusion

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Themes

Culture and the Perfecting of Mankind

Arnold offers an explicit definition of culture from the outset of Culture and Anarchy, describing it in his Preface as “a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know […] the best which has been thought and said in the world” (82). Arnold’s main thematic preoccupation throughout Culture and Anarchy is the transformative power of culture to elevate individual men and women, as well as mankind as a whole.

For Arnold, the characteristics of true culture are twofold. First, the essence of culture is embodied in his famous maxim, “sweetness and light”: Culture brings together beauty (“sweetness”) and reason or intelligence (“light”) into a harmonious balance, allowing individuals to recognize and reflect “reason and the will of God” (155). Culture is, in essence, a uniting and civilizing force for Arnold. When an individual is ignorant of culture, they are at the mercy of their “ordinary” self—the selfish, idiosyncratic individualism that leads a person into pursuing their own desired ends even at the expense of the greater good. Culture, by contrast, appeals to a person’s “best” self; it brings a person “ever nearer to a sense of what is indeed beautiful, graceful, and becoming” (165), thereby transforming the imperfect individual into something more closely resembling that higher, perfect ideal.

The power of culture is so strong that it even transcends class boundaries. Arnold argues that culture takes those who believe in it “out of their class, and […] make[s] their distinguishing characteristic not their Barbarism or their Philistinism, but their humanity” (278, emphasis Arnold’s). Arnold’s emphasis on how a sense of “humanity” becomes the cultural believer’s chief characteristic is particularly significant because it stresses his communal view of culture and how it transforms individuals in a way that also transforms society. For Arnold, true perfection is only achieved through “general perfection” (437, emphasis Arnold’s)—he argues that, ultimately, perfection must be achieved alongside “the rest of mankind” (437) and not only on an individual level. In believing in the perfectibility of mankind, Arnold’s idea of culture takes on semi-religious overtones, both in its link to “reason and the will of God” (155) and in its inherently redemptive nature.

The second main characteristic of true culture is its inward nature. Arnold warns in Chapter 1 that culture “is not so bent on acting and instituting” (155) as it is in fostering contemplation and inner intellectual and moral transformation. He even explicitly discourages believers in culture from pursuing “public life and direct political action” (466), presenting the main role of believers as that of thinkers and commentators. Arnold’s emphasis on the contemplative over the active in culture reflects his deep-seated mistrust of anarchy and disorder, leading him to instead align true culture with stability, support of establishments, and a peaceful and harmonious life.

The Contrast Between “Hebraism” and “Hellenism”

In Culture and Anarchy, Arnold identifies two main influences in Western culture: “Hebraism” and “Hellenism.” While both strands of influence have played an important role throughout European history, Arnold believes that there are important distinctions between these two tendencies.

Arnold defines “Hebraism” as the strand of Judaic, or Semitic, values in Christian culture. For Arnold, Hebraism is characterized by “strictness of conscience” (323, emphasis Arnold’s), with a seriousness and rigidness of purpose marked by “earnestness and intensity on the study and observance” of “the universal order” (323). Arnold believes that Hebraism has been especially dominant in the English national character, writing that its influence is displayed in the “Puritan force” (354) and “fire and strength” (354) often at play in English sensibilities. “Hellenism,” on the other hand, refers to the influence of classical Greek and Roman civilization. Arnold defines it as “spontaneity of consciousness” (323, emphasis Arnold’s), with intellectual inquiry, creativity, love of beauty, and more moral flexibility as its chief characteristics. Arnold associates the last great era of Hellenism with the Renaissance, writing that the “preponderance given to man’s perceiving and knowing side” (339-40) during that period eventually “provoked a reaction” (340) in the form of the Reformation.

Since Hebraism has been dominant in England for so many centuries, Arnold argues that it is now crucial that Hellenism should once again come back into favor. He believes that true culture and Hellenism are intrinsically linked to one another, claiming, “Sweetness and light evidently have to do with the bent or side in humanity which we call Hellenic” (350-51). In equating “sweetness and light”—the very essence of culture, in Arnold’s formulation—with Hellenism, Arnold advocates for a return to a freer and more open-minded approach to cultural and intellectual inquiry in place of the Hebraic literalism he associates with English Puritanism and American Protestantism.

However, it is important to note that Arnold never equates the Hellenic pursuit of culture with any form of radicalism or unchecked moral laxity. Since true culture is always in step with “reason and the will of God” (155), it does not so much disrupt society as uphold and purify it. Arnold’s advocation of Hellenism is not a rejection of the traditional Christian worldview, as he explicitly invokes a Christian worldview with approval throughout Culture and Anarchy. Rather, Arnold’s Hellenism is a Christianization of the classical inheritance, one that transforms the pagan approach to “perceiving and knowing” into something that can aid in the “study and pursuit of perfection” (157) in Victorian culture.

The Dangers of Anarchy and Individualism

Arnold is firm and unyielding in associating culture with stability and even with traditional institutions, claiming that “the great works” in various fields of the humanities and sciences all hail “not from Nonconformists, but from men who either belong to Establishments or have been trained in them” (95). Culture brings harmony and unity, not disruption and disorder. Due to Arnold’s strict linking of culture with stability, he regards the antithesis of culture as “anarchy”—the undermining of authority and the social order through political unrest and unchecked individualism.

Arnold argues that culture and the state are inextricably tied to one another. He even goes so far as to claim that it is culture that makes the state possible: “[C]ulture suggests the idea of the state. We find no basis for a firm state-power in our ordinary selves; culture suggests one to us in our best self” (253, emphasis Arnold’s). Arnold insists that, therefore, all believers in true culture are simultaneously believers in the legitimacy and the authority of the state, and will side with “the executive power” (256) in “firmly prohibiting” (256) any mass movements or demonstrations that seek to challenge it. Arnold does not make any exceptions to this rule: He admits that, even though injustices exist and some causes are indeed worthy, protests and mass movements can never be tolerated, as they bring with them the potential for disorder and abrupt changes to the status quo. Arnold writes, “the very framework and exterior of the state [. . .] is sacred” (460). Most important of all, in upholding the authority of the state, “culture is the most resolute enemy of anarchy” (460). As the “resolute enemy” of anarchy, culture functions as a safeguard for the harmonious functioning of society, keeping in check more radical impulses. What is more, culture helps to bring about gradual transformation in both individuals and society at large, which Arnold posits is a far more natural and valid process than any rapid revolutions.

Arnold also believes that unchecked individualism, like anarchy, is another threat to true culture and may even be the root cause of anarchic actions. Arnold tends to make a special link between rampant individualism and the “Populace,” the working-class segment of English society. He describes the Populace as “raw and half-developed” (271), motivated mainly by their desire to assert what Arnold sarcastically calls “an Englishman’s heaven-born privilege of doing as he likes” (271-72). In equating individualism with a selfish willfulness, Arnold creates a contrast between the ends of individualism and the ends of the believer in true culture. The believer in true culture rises above the individualism of the “ordinary” self in favor of the ideal “best” self, which is marked by its communal feelings instead of its own desires. The cultural believer becomes defined by his/her “humanity” instead of his/her class and “embrac[es] all of his/her fellow-men” (437), suggesting that a mark of cultural enlightenment is selflessness in place of self-interest. Furthermore, the cultural believer also cares for the “general perfection” (437, emphasis Arnold’s) of all mankind, without which complete individual perfection is impossible.

In rejecting anarchy and setting culture firmly on the side of the state and gradual, careful change, Arnold rejects the emphasis on greater freedom and individuality advanced by the more radical quarters of Victorian society. For Arnold, the transformation culture brings about must always be inward, thereby leading to his rejection of political agitation and more active means of change.