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

Chapter 2Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 2 Summary

Arnold says that, up until this point in the text, he has spoken more about beauty, or “sweetness,” than he has about “light,” or intelligence and reason, which will now become his main focus. Before doing so, he once again returns to answering the critics of culture, in particular the charge that he is too politically indifferent and, therefore, too ineffectual. Arnold answers this charge by claiming that an emphasis on action is often misplaced and that thought and debate about whether an action is a good idea in the first place are highly valuable.

Arnold returns to the idea that the English “bondage to machinery” (210) and the way in which the English often regard “Freedom” (in the sense of individualism) as an undisputed good, is detrimental to English society. The English love of freedom often leads to a mistrust of the idea of “the State” (212, emphasis Arnold’s) and to the idea of establishments more generally. Arnold argues that many English subjects regard the state as representing the interests of whichever class it is most beholden to instead of governing for the good of the whole. Arnold speaks of how the working class have changed in recent years through the move to a more industrial society, claiming they have given up their traditional “subordination and deference” (215), which was so prominent during the time of feudalism, and have embraced the “modern spirit” (215), which is full of “the anarchical tendency of our worship of freedom in and for itself” and “machinery” in general (215).

Arnold explicitly criticizes mass movements and popular unrest for what he sees as its anarchic and unjust tendencies. He portrays these acts of unrest as embodying “an Englishmen’s impulse to do as he likes” (217). While criticizing the English tendency to prize his “liberty” above all else, Arnold also adds that this liberty belongs to Englishmen alone, arguing, “The British Constitution, its checks, and its prime virtues, are for Englishmen” (221) instead of being universal. He writes, “we can have no scruple at all about abridging, if necessary, a non-Englishman’s assertion of personal liberty” (221), adding, “we may extend [liberties] to others out of love and kindness; but we find no real divine law written on our hearts constraining us to extend them” (221). Arnold then writes at length how excessive individualism, Nonconformism, and anarchic impulses—whether exercised by Englishmen or others—are inherently destructive and when left unaddressed are even dangerous to social well-being. He posits authority and the state as a solution, being the most effective safeguard against anarchy.

Arnold claims that the solution to widespread distrust in the state is to cultivate true culture. He says that true culture inspires the individual to submit to the authority of the state, as “we can 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). True culture is therefore always aligned with authority, not anarchy, and as such, it “enjoins us [English subjects] to encourage and uphold the occupants of the executive power” (256) in suppressing and prohibiting mass demonstrations, however worthy the cause behind the demonstration may appear to be.

Chapter 2 Analysis

In Chapter 2, Arnold’s main focus is on the idea of the “state” and how it relates to English society and culture. In drawing once more upon the changes that have occurred in Victorian English society—both politically and economically—and how these changes influence ideas of “freedom,” Arnold returns to the idea of Establishments and how hierarchy and authority are essential ingredients for the well-being of society.

In Chapter 1, Arnold alludes to the rising power of the middle class, which was using its economic successes as leverage to gain more political and social influence in Victorian society at large. Here in Chapter 2, he turns more of his attention to the working class, who are also making their presence felt in new and (for Arnold) deeply unwelcome ways. Arnold criticizes how the working class—who were then coming together in large numbers in urban centers to work in the factories—have lost their old habits of docility. He claims that they now lack “subordination and deference” (215) toward their superiors, depicting the working class’s newfound defiance as embodying the “modern spirit” (215), which is far more individualistic than the hierarchical feudal values of old.

There are two important aspects of Arnold’s views on the working class on display in this chapter. The first is that Arnold’s disapproval of the working class’s defiance reflects his love of Establishments and hierarchies more generally. Arnold mistrusts the democratizing impulses and demands of the working class because they seek to undermine the traditional status quo instead of supporting it, which is an impulse Arnold tends to associate with the dangers of anarchy. Arnold’s total opposition to mass movements and demonstrations of any kind will become even more explicit later in Culture and Anarchy, but here it is important to note that Arnold regards such mass movements as driven primarily by the working class.

The second important aspect is Arnold’s equating of the working class with the individualistic idea of “freedom.” In claiming that the working class have “embraced the modern spirit” (215), he links this spirit of modernity explicitly with “the anarchical tendency of our worship of freedom in and for itself” (215). While Arnold will admit in a later chapter that there are, indeed, injustices faced by the working class in England, he refuses to credit any mass movements or protests as being the natural result of such grievances. Instead, he characterizes the working class’s motivation as primarily selfish and individualistic, as being driven by “freedom in and for itself” instead of being driven by any higher principles. His use of the phrasing “anarchical tendency” places the working class’s attitude and actions firmly on the side of anarchy instead of order, suggesting that any direct political action on their part is a threat to society. While Arnold does believe in the possibility of cultural transformation for individuals of any class, his skepticism toward direct political action leads him to suggest that any working class demands for political transformation are inherently illegitimate.

While Arnold has many reservations about English notions of “freedom,” he is nevertheless clear that freedom, as the English experience it, is a national phenomenon and not something with a universal basis. As he writes, “The British Constitution, its checks, and its prime virtues, are for Englishmen” (221) and clearly states that a “non-Englishman’s assertion of personal liberty” (221) can be thwarted or punished by the English at will. Arnold’s views here reflect one of the common beliefs of Victorian society: that non-English subjects of the empire, just like the domestic working class, need to accept an inferior place in the hierarchy and conform to it for the good of the social order.