Culture is the most resolute enemy of anarchy because of the great hopes and designs for the State which culture teaches us to nourish. (149-150)
Arnold debates important questions about the nature of culture and society that are as relevant now as they were when these essays were first published in 1869. He seeks to find out 'what culture really is, what good it can do, what is our own special need of it' in an age of rapid social change and increasing mechanization. He contrasts culture, 'the study of perfection',with anarchy, the mood of unrest and uncertainty that pervaded mid-Victorian England. How can individuals be educated, not indoctrinated, and what is the role of the state in disseminating 'sweetness and light'?
Unfortunately Arnold is wrong in so many ways, it is difficult to know where to start. Arnold does not realize that he is witnessing the beginnings of a truly materialistic society, one where people place a monetary value on everything. In such a society, the things of 'sweetness and life' are devalued.
Does the State have any part in this? Should the state have a part? Before answering this question, we must first ascertain what is the proper role of the State? This is an area where Conservatives and Libertarians come into conflict. Conservatives (who by their name must be trying to conserve something) believe the State should conserve culture. Libertarians disagree. The State is only there to protect the borders.
Arnold's thesis of culture as the defense against anarchy is wrong and has been proven never more so than at the present time. Culture does not inculcate the value of order. If Arnold looked closely at the culture of his time, he would see that anarchy had begun to infect it. Arnold even states that culture is about self-fulfillment. Self-fulfillment, taken to its logical conclusion, values the self above everything else. Society functions properly when the people practice self-denial. And what is it that encourages one to practice self-denial? Religion, in this case Christianity.
Culture without the foundation of religion is fluff. It is the house built on sand. Without religion, without the context, a piece of music like Bach's The Passion according to St. Matthew, is a nice piece of music and nothing more.
But now one must consider the role of the Church as the foundation for culture. Is the lack of culture killing the Church or is it the lack of the Church that is killing culture? If the Church does not provide the foundation of order, is culture doomed?
No comments:
Post a Comment