The masses are to blame. Or are they?

Barbarians, Philistines and the Populace – Matthew Arnold

Arnold defines the aristocracy as Barbarians, the middle class as Philistines and the masses and working class as the Populace. He says that we all, regardless of social class, “imagine happiness to consit in doing what one’s ordinary self likes”, but acknowledges that what each individual likes doing can be closely related to what class they come from.

· Barbarians – enjoy “honours and consideration”, as well as “field-sports and pleasure”.

· Philistines – enjoy “fanaticism, business and money-making”, as well as “comfort and tea-meetings”.

· The Populace – enjoy “bawling, hustling and smashing”, as well as beer.

He suggests that in each class their are a number of people who are more curious than others about how to become “their best self”, and this enables and encourages this minority to explore outside of their class traditions and look further into their humanity. Arnold terms these few people “aliens”, whom he believes are led by their “general humane spirit”, rather than their social class. He also suggests that many of these “aliens” within society will have a personality made up from their “ordinary self “, the class they supposedly belong to, and a mixture of other class insticts – which all work together to create a more rounded individual.

Although Arnold's portrayl of class devisisions and social groups may be somewhat outdated, the ideas behind how and why these groups are seprerated and categorised are still very relavent in today's society. I bet everyone could think of a certian social group which displays some of the tradtions and interests mentioned above?

If so, let me know your thoughts and opinions on Arnold's way of decribing the different groups within society and their relationship with culture, or perhaps their relationship with anarchy - if it is more fitting?

Chaos amongst the authority

“Culture and Anarchy” by Matthew Arnold

Arnold defines culture as being:

“a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know...the best which has been thought and said in the world;”

He claims that culture is often thought to revolve heavily around the written word, but Arnold debates how accurate this opinion is, saying that society and the people within in help to create and fuel culture – meaning that people can find culture without the need for a mass of literature.

“If a man without books or reading, or reading nothing but his letters and the newspapers, gets nevertheless a fresh and free play of the best thoughts upon his stock notions and habits, he has got culture.”

Arnold believes that culture brings people “sweetness and light” in their lives, and this is why society seeks out cultural satisfaction. He says that culture not only seeks to bring sweetness and light into our lives, but that it also seeks to make these elements prevail over our lives:

“It is not satisfied till we all come to a perfect man;”

Arnold claims that we must work for this sweetness and light, and that we must discover it on “broad basis” – without limiting ourselves to selected forms of culture. He believes that this is what makes people happy, and that society is safe when there is a “national glow of life and thought”. But Arnold stresses that it must be “real thought and real beauty; real sweetness and real light” – suggesting that we must have a clear idea of what real culture is in order to appriciate it and have it benefit our lives.
He notes that many of the culturally intellectual will try and give the masses in society “an intellectual food prepared and adapted in the way they think proper for the actual condition if the masses” – for which he gives popular literature as an example of such a method. Arnold also acknowledges that plenty of other people will try to bring the masses round to their way of thinking through cultural works – such as the religous and politcial organisations within society. He says that he doesn’t criticise either approach, but insits that the actual way of culture does not function like this.
Arnold states that culture does not try to dumb down its intellect for the masses or win them over to its own beliefs, as he insits that culture “seeks to do away with classes”, and make what it has to offer avaliable and understanable to everyone:

“This is the socail idea; and the men of culture are the true apostles of equality.”

Arnold then goes on to discuss the way that culture can lead to anarchy within society, even though this is the opposite of cultures orginal intention. He claims that because culture promotes free thought and speech, the masses begin to use this to their own advantage, which inevitably leads to anarchy.
Arnold talks about the similarities between the masses and the other social classes; being that they would all like their own class to rule and that they have no idea of a state ( or the “nation in its collective and corporate character” ) which holds the control.
He dicusses the process by which the laws of our society give opportunities for the masses to decend into anarchy, saying that the working class man will be allowed to do what he likes on many occassions, and when he starts to take these occassions more and more frequently it begins to create a normality and acceptance for other more rebelious souls to do as they please. This then leads to distress within society and increases social anarchy and disintergration to a hightened level.
However, Arnold argues that culture should actually be a force against anarchy, stating that by following culture and its values and beliefs, we are following a type of authority – and therefore culture should teach us to follow authority ratehr than rebell asgainst it with anarchy.

“If culture, which simply means trying to perfect oneself...brings us light, and if light shows us there is nothing so very blessed in merely doing as one likes...that the really blessed thing is to like what right reason ordains, and to follow her authority, then we have got a practical benefit to culture. We have a much wanted principle...of authority, to counteract the tendency to anarchy which seems to be treatening us.”

What makes culture?

Raymond Williams, in his book “The Analysis of Culture”, claims that there are three categories of culture in his mind. These are:

1. The ideal approach

2. The documentary approcah

3. The social approach

The ideal approach to the analysis of culture is a situation in which “culture is a state or process of human perfection”. This approach is said to analyse culture through:

“the discovery and description, in lives and works, of those values which can be seen to ...have permanent reference to the universal human condition.”

The documentary approach deals with a situation in which “culture is the body of intellectual and imaginative work” and where thought and experience are recorded on a number of different levels. The analysis of culture, in this context, comes from the criticism of this thought and experience and through the “details of the language, form and convention in which these are active”.

The social approach to the analysis of culture brings itself from the situation in which culture “is a description of a particular way of life”. The focus in this instance falls on the particular meanings and values “not only in art and learning, but also in institutions and ordinary behaviour” of the time. The analysis of culture, through this approach, studies the “clarification of the meanings and values” in a particualr culture, at a particular time. What is most destincive about this form of analysis, is that this approach will also include elements of the way of life, which other approachs do not consider to be “cultural” at all.

Williams goes on to state that each of these cateoriges are strong cases for a wholesome definition of how best to analyse culture, but says that it is a combination of all three which makes the most rounded and complete analysis of our culture.

“The variations of meaning and reference, in the use of culture as a term, must be seen...not simply as a disadvantage...but as a genuine complexity”.

Williams criticises the “ideal” analysis of culture for attempting to “abstract the process it describes from its detailed embodiment and shaping by particular societies” – in that the ideal does not even attempt to consider the reality of the world surrounding the culture of the time.

He criticises the “documentary” analysis for only seeing value in the written word and artisit format, as this approach marks an area off from the rest the audience’s life in society. Although Williams notes that this form of analysis does provide specific evidence about the situation in which the culture was produced, he goes on to note that a great deal of history has been written with the assumption that all of the society (and its political, economic and social stance) form the “central core of facts”.

Williams also criticises the “social” analysis for treating “the general process or the body of art and learning as a mere by-product” of a society, and accepting it only as a “passive refelction of the interests” of taht particular society.

Williams believes that we, as scholars, need to analyse culture in a more complete and universal context – combining all of the aspects which helps to produce culture and cultural works.

“The art is there, as an activity, with the production, the trading, the politics, the raising of families.”

Williams gives his own definition of the theory of culture as being:

“the study of relationships between elements in a whole way of life.”

He also gives his own definition of the analysis of culture as being:

“the attempt to discover the nature of the organisation which is the complex of these relationships.”