The Role of the Individual in Matthew Arnold’s “Culture and Anarchy”

The Role of the Individual in Matthew Arnolds Culture and Anarchy Culture, as defined by Matthew Arnold in his essay Culture and Anarchy, is the drive to run into perfection through development and growth bolstered by knowledge and reach of the beauty of humanity. Granted, this is an oversimplification of Arnolds complex musings on what culture is, yet this broad concept of culture, here, is useful in the discussion of the role of the psyche in society.Ideally, for Arnold, those that perpetuate this idea of culture argon the same mint who ought to comprise a kind of rational control within the State. Arnold working to define the three pathes of 19th blow England (Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace), and makes it clear, following his conditions for culture, that none of the classes agree the appropriate means to govern properly. Arnold says, It seeks to do away with classes to make the beaver that has been thought and known in the world current everywhere. Ostensibly, it is up to the exclusive to transcend their class, and nurture the State in a utilitarian fashion. However, the chasm amongst the maturation of the soul and the ultimate betterment of the community seems daunting. Arnolds saint culture originates with the individual, as it is a study of perfection, which is an inward condition of the capitulum and spirit. Yet, Perfection, as culture conceives it, is not possible while the individual mud isolated, because, it is necessary, in order to obtain a collective perfection, that there be a ready exchange of ideas and sense of commonality.How can the potential insecurity of isolation via individualism be curbed? Additionally, Arnold is aware that a weighty facet of individualism is that people are concerned with, and believe in, having their personal freedomsthe make up to do what one equivalents. This assumption of personal freedom can, according to Arnold, lead to anarchy. It looks, then, as if there must be a balance between the individuals duty to himself, and duty to others.Indeed, Arnold contends, the men of culture are the certain apostles of equality, at once extolling the potential of the individual, while maintaining the importance of a take aim society. However, these individuals cannot be ordinary, but must exemplify Arnolds idea of the opera hat(p) self, or, the individual who is united, rather than at odds, with others. The people that can become their best self are persons who are mainly led, not by their class spirit, but by a general humane spirit, by the get along of human perfection. Here, the concept of the individual and the community can be reconciled, although the efficiency of one to completely transcend societal structures is idealistic. This idealism, for Arnold, is transferred to the art of his contemporaries. Regarding 19th century England, Arnold states, Each section of the prevalent has its own literary organ, and the mass of the public is without any suspicion that the val ue of these organs is relative to their being near a certain ideal centre of correct information, taste, and intelligence, or farther away from it. As Arnold depicts Englands current situation, it is clear that he believes that literature, like individualsor as the product of individualsshould embody an ideal cultural universality. In looking at the literature of Victorian England, is it possible that there are any works, which would satisfy Arnolds criteria for cultural harmony?