Excerpt from Matthew Arnold's 'Culture and Anarchy'

[Joe McCarthy]

This illustrates how the Anglo-Saxon concepts of liberty, democracy, and liberalism were not intended to be viewed universally. Taken from the Victorian era classic:


"There are many things to be said on behalf of this exclusive attention of ours to liberty, and of the relaxed habits of government which it has engendered. It is very easy to mistake or to exaggerate the sort of anarchy from which we are in danger through them. We are not in danger from Fenianism, fierce and turbulent as it may show itself; for against this our conscience is free enough to let us act resolutely and put forth our overwhelming strength the moment there is any real need for it. In the first place, it never was any part of our creed that the great right and blessedness of an Irishman, or, indeed, of anybody on earth except an Englishman, is to do as he likes; and we can have no scruple at all about abridging, if necessary, a non-Englishman's assertion of personal liberty. The British Constitution, its checks, and its prime virtues, are for Englishmen. We may extend them to others out of love and kindness; but we find no real divine law written on our hearts constraining us so to extend them. And then the difference between an Irish Fenian and an English rough is so immense, and the case, in dealing with the Fenian, so much more clear! He is so evidently desperate and dangerous, a man of a conquered race, a Papist, with centuries of ill-usage to inflame him against us, with an alien religion established in his country by us at his expense, with no admiration of our institutions, no love of our virtues, no talents for our business, no turn for our comfort! Show him our symbolical Truss Manufactory on the finest site in Europe, and tell him that British industrialism and individualism can bring a man to that, and he remains cold! Evidently, if we deal tenderly with a sentimentalist like this, it is out of pure philanthropy." -- Mathew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy.

[Logan]

Arnold's opinion.

[Egbert]

Thank you again for recommending this to me Joe. I purchased it, read it and have thought about it some. I will admit it was a difficult read, though very short, largely by way of Arnold's language and terminology. For a 150-page book, I've never before seen a 20-page glossary.

Firstly, my positive impressions. I appreciated Arnold's interesting social breakdown and explanation of the various classes; Barbarians (Aristocrats), Philistines (Middle Class), Populace (Working Class) and a fourth kind of transcendent class, Men of Culture. I'm very familiar with caste and his categorization lined up similarly, but this was probably the first time where the traditional Western view of class, actually made some sense to me, beyond simple economics. I also found his concept about the opposing but simultaneous aspects of Hellenism (motivation by the pursuit of beauty and knowledge) versus Hebraism (motivation by conduct and obedience), very thought-provoking. In addition, there was throughout the entire work, a kind of hard push towards the mainstream, towards the common opinion, a determined inclusiveness, that I can very much relate to politically, after having spent so long myself on the alienated fringe.

Now for my negative impressions. Most importantly, for being entirely motivated by it, Arnold gave us very little to actually define his notion of "culture", other than it being a kind of process dedicated to seeking overall human perfection. Certainly noble, but leaving a chasm subject to interpretation. The primary vehicle for this process, at the time of his writing was much more Hellenism, as Hebraism had made society too rigid to engage in it properly. I appreciate these dueling principles and he does speak of their fluid nature, ebbing and flowing, but I'm not entirely certain whether applicable solutions for his time, really relate to the current situation. It seems a stretch to suggest the pursuit of beauty and knowledge today, when both have been so profoundly subverted...rather, one might convincingly argue in favour of fire and strength. The modern West is in freefall and England along with it and though he addresses those who would oppose political inaction, I tend towards viewing it negatively at this late hour, whether Arnoldian inaction or Evolian inaction, the result would seem the same. I would also add that while I understood his criticism of nonconformist sects in favour of inclusiveness and public ritual, I do not share his views towards Puritanism...nor his mild hostility towards capitalism, industrialism and breeding.

All of this being said, I do believe he's right, in that it's not the "machinery" that needs replacing, which is an afterthought, but that the real problem lies within purpose and motivation itself. Unfortunately, Arnold's solution seems entirely reliant upon the ability to influence society from an ivory tower and I simply do not know how realistic that is, amidst the current chaos.

[Joe McCarthy]

http://cla.calpoly.edu/legacies/rsimon/rsimonsite/CRITICAL%20BACKGROUNDS%201860_files/image005.gif