Culture and Anarchy' by Matthew Arnold (1869)

Résumé du document

Matthew Arnold, in his philosophical essay Culture and Anarchy, published in 1869, expresses his view on culture in which culture could be applied to any society or any group of humans on earth. He wrote it during the time where Bentham's Utilitarianism was the prevailing thought in the industrialized Europe, especially in Great Britain, where the Industrial Revolution had the greatest impact on society.

Extraits

[...] In other words, trying to find perfection through social success or through the observance of the Utilitarianist philosophy is a mistake, because it just follows the scheme of ‘machinery', which contradicts the sweetness and light It is also true for what are to him kinds of stereotypes of perfection: population is also misinterpreted, and, as for the wealth, he criticises people who thing that it makes the greatness of a country, because it remains again ‘machinery'. He insists a lot on religion as a polemical point, because religion and religious organisations claim being able to bring the perfection in humanity. But, if religion's goal is to reach perfection and has a facet of it, and is for Arnold the most widespread effort which the human race has yet made after perfection the organisation in itself is still part of the ‘machinery'. [...]

[...] Commentaire de l'essai Culture and anarchy de Matthew Arnold publié en 1869 Matthew Arnold, in his philosophical essay Culture and Anarchy, published in 1869, exposes his view of culture in a generally way, that is to say, that this view could and should be applied to any society or any group of men on the earth. He wrote it at a time where Bentham's Utilitarianism was the prevailing thought in the recently industrialized Europe, especially in Great Britain, where the Industrial Revolution had had the greatest impact on society. [...]

[...] Writing then about the Philistines he opposes them completely to this ideal of sweetness and light Indeed, the Philistines are for him the ones who sacrified everything, and even those qualities, for ‘machinery' and fortune-making through the observance of Utilitarianism, and, talking about them as the opposites of this sweetness and light as men of a nature not finely tempered it is a direct criticism that he makes of Utilitarianism. Furthermore, as for Arnold, culture is precisely the mean which can lead to the sweetness and light he shows that his concept of culture is poles apart from the one of the Bentham's followers. He clearly affirms that culture, more than every else philosophy or organisation, is the only means to reach perfection. [...]

[...] His work is full of social and educational motives. To him, his philosophy is not the transcription of a brief moral situation brought by the Industrial Revolution, but a true thought line which can be proved and applied in the history, and which will also be useful for the future. People with differing philosophies, such as the Philistines or the Puritans are for Arnold sacrified generations that is to say, that they sacrify culture because they use other means than it to reach what they think perfection is. [...]

[...] This is a reference to the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century and the explosion of capitalism. To him, the ‘machinery' is the way to think that what man creates has a value in and for itself in other words, men believe that material things, whatever they are, have their use, but also a meaning in themselves, that they are are what make the society progress and the greatness of a country. She shows, through his criticism, the state of mind of the Victorian period, which was to be very proud of or to admire England because of its navy, its railroads, its coal He goes further by saying that this ‘machinery' is also to be found in the proper way men conceive the society, that is to say, in their philosophy. [...]