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 reach out perfection through development and growth bolstered by knowledge and sense of taste of the beauty of humanity. Granted, this is an oversimplification of Arnolds complex musings on what culture is, entirely this broad concept of culture, here, is useful in the discussion of the role of the item-by-item in society.Ideally, for Arnold, those that perpetuate this idea of culture argon the same throng who ought to comprise a kind of rational control within the State. Arnold full treatment to define the three gradationes of 19th coulomb England (Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace), and makes it clear, following his conditions for culture, that none of the classes flip the appropriate means to govern properly. Arnold says, It seeks to do away with classes to make the outmatch that has been thought and known in the wo rld current everywhere. Ostensibly, it is up to the soulfulness to transcend their class, and nurture the State in a utilitarian fashion. However, the chasm mingled with the maturation of the item-by-item and the ultimate betterment of the community seems daunting. Arnolds idol culture originates with the individual, as it is a study of perfection, which is an inward condition of the school principal and spirit. Yet, Perfection, as culture conceives it, is not possible while the individual dust 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 endangerment of isolation via individualism be curbed? Additionally, Arnold is aware that a weighty vista of individualism is that people are concerned with, and believe in, having their personal freedomsthe even off to do what one equals. 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 accepted apostles of equality, at once extolling the potential of the individual, while maintaining the importance of a train society. However, these individuals cannot be ordinary, but must exemplify Arnolds idea of the better(p) self, or, the individual who is united, rather than at odds, with others. The people that can become their surmount self are persons who are mainly led, not by their class spirit, but by a general humane spirit, by the venerate of human perfection. Here, the concept of the individual and the community can be reconciled, although the top executive 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 existence has its own literary organ, and t he mass of the public is without any suspicion that the value of these organs is relative to their being warm a certain ideal centre of correct information, taste, and intelligence, or further 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?