Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism

Arnold begins Chapter 1 by once more addressing the “disparagers of culture” (150). Arnold muses that the wide divide between the disparagers and the believers in culture (such as Arnold himself) is rooted in a misunderstanding, especially around the word curiosity. While curiosity can sometimes be idle and ineffectual, Arnold points out that it can also be “natural and laudable” (152) when nurtured within “an intelligent being” (152). He adds that curiosity can help to regulate the mind and bring greater harmony to it, which requires sustained effort.

While Arnold sees curiosity as valid, it is not exactly the essence of true culture. Rather, true culture is rooted in “the love of perfection; it is a study of perfection” (153, emphasis Arnold’s). Crucially, culture has a moral as well as intellectual dimension to it: “It moves by the force, not merely or primarily of the scientific passion for pure knowledge, but also of the moral and social passion for doing good” (153, emphasis added). Further, Arnold claims that culture is aligned with “worthy notions of reason and the will of God” (155), thereby attributing to it a spiritual dimension as well.

An important aspect of Arnold’s conception of culture is that it is primarily an inward phenomenon. He writes, “culture [. . .] is an internal condition, in the growth and predominance of our humanity proper” (159, emphasis Arnold’s). True culture is also communal in both its development and in its salutary effects: It develops both the individual and also society and mankind as a whole since perfection “is not possible while the individual remains isolated” (160). Arnold stresses that the pursuit of perfection is not an individualistic quest but one in which there must be a general development of society as a whole for true perfection to be achieved.

Arnold laments that English culture is ill-suited to true culture because of its overestimation of both individualism and industrialism. He depicts English society as obsessed with “the mechanical and material civilisation” (162) at the expense of true culture and also argues that “the idea of perfection as a general expansion of the human family is at variance with our strong individualism, our hatred of all limits to the unrestrained swing of an individuality’s personality” (162) and the competitive, self-centered attitude of “every man for himself” (162). Due to the English obsession with economic success and unchecked individualism, Arnold asserts, true culture faces special difficulties in taking root amongst them.

Arnold then goes on to criticize more explicitly the effects of the Industrial Revolution upon English social values. He portrays English society as taking excessive pride in England’s wealth and economic achievements, as if they were worthwhile ends in and of themselves instead of mere means to an end. He also links this marked fixation on industrialism and profits with English individualism, summing it up as, “the English ideal is that everyone should be free to do and to look just as he likes” (165). Arnold points out that true culture is based on the opposite premise: Instead of doing whatever one likes, true culture leads the individual to aspire to refashion him/herself in accordance with a higher ideal. Culture enables a person “to draw ever nearer to a sense of what is indeed beautiful, graceful, and becoming” (165) and tries to “get the raw person to be like that” (165) instead of merely pursuing his/her own tastes and selfish ends.

Arnold once again invokes “sweetness and light” as the essence of true culture, arguing that the pursuit of knowledge, beauty, and harmony is always beneficial. He contrasts the harmonizing influence of true culture with the rigidity of traditional English Puritanism, crediting the Puritan influence with instilling a strong sense of morality in Englishmen but at the expense of a more well-rounded sense of values. He describes culture as “show[ing] a single-minded love of perfection, its desire simply to make reason and the will of God prevail” (183) while also forswearing fanaticism in all guises. Instead of fanaticism, culture nurtures “the flexibility which sweetness and light give” (184). Arnold once again associates true culture with Establishments instead of Nonconformist tendencies, reflecting upon the Oxford Movement (see: Key Figures) and praising its “desire for beauty and sweetness” (190) even while characterizing it as ultimately a failure in a wider political and religious sense.

Turning to politics, Arnold makes critical remarks about “middle-class liberalism” (192) and its excessive “faith in machinery” (192). He mentions the middle class as being the “Philistines” (193), a concept that will be of great importance in Chapter 3. In contrast to these narrow and materialistic concerns, Arnold once again holds up true culture as the antidote, emphasizing again its communal nature: “[Culture] is not satisfied till we all come to [be] a perfect man; it knows that the sweetness and light of the few must be imperfect until the raw and unkindled masses of humanity are touched with sweetness and light” (201). He even goes so far as to claim that “men of culture are the true apostles of equality” (203-204) because they ultimately work for the good of all in attempting to make sweetness and light prevail throughout society at large.