Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Culture and Anarchy” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Culture and Anarchy

Matthew Arnold,

Jane Garnett (Editor),

Henry Sidgwick (Appendix)

3.45 · Rating details · 839 ratings · 62 reviews

Matthew Arnold's famous series of essays, which were first published in book form under the title Culture and Anarchy in 1869, debate important questions about the nature of culture and society. Arnold seeks to find out what culture really is, what good it can do, and if it is really necessary. He contrasts culture, which he calls the study of perfection, with anarchy, the ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, Oxford World's Classics, 221 pages

Published June 15th 2009 by Oxford University Press (first published 1869)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Culture and Anarchy, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Culture and Anarchy

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.45 ·

Rating details

· 839 ratings · 62 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Culture and Anarchy

Feb 03, 2017 BrokenTune rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed

But what is greatness?— culture makes us ask. Greatness is a spiritual condition worthy to excite love, interest, and admiration; and the outward proof of possessing greatness is that we excite love, interest, and admiration.

Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy was an odd book to come back to in these times of talk about making things "great" again. I had first read the book way back when I was at university. Back then, I read the book with the purpose of finding arguments for and against differ But what is greatness?— culture makes us ask. Greatness is a spiritual condition worthy to excite love, interest, and admiration; and the outward proof of possessing greatness is that we excite love, interest, and admiration.

Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy was an odd book to come back to in these times of talk about making things "great" again. I had first read the book way back when I was at university. Back then, I read the book with the purpose of finding arguments for and against different aspects of "culture" and whatever that meant, but I never got the time to read what Arnold actually had to say beyond his eternal buzzwords of "sweetness and light", both which are still as vague as ever.

Having revisited with Arnold over the past couple of weeks, the best I can say is that I am glad I have read the book without the pressing agenda of writing a piece of coursework about it. There are a lot of sides to Arnold's writing that are worth exploring - tho, his sometimes tongue-in-cheek style of narration has left me wondering more than a few times which point he was trying to make.

Just like the quote about greatness could be interpreted to mean all things to all people, Arnold's argumentation by use of fictional characters (and few real ones) generalised his ideas so much, that for most of the book I was left wanting to shout at him: "But where is your proof? Where are your sources for making this claim? What evidence have you to support your claim?"

And this was true even more so with the points I wanted to agree with, than it was with the sketchy claims I was looking to refute. It sounds great to hear Arnold use such flowery rhetoric like:

"It is in making endless additions to itself, in the endless expansion of its powers, in endless growth in wisdom and beauty, that the spirit of the human race finds its ideal. To reach this ideal, culture is an indispensable aid, and that is the true value of culture." Not a having and a resting, but a growing and a becoming, is the character of perfection as culture conceives it; and here, too, it coincides with religion. And because men are all members of one great whole, and the sympathy which is in human nature will not allow one member to be indifferent to the rest, or to have a perfect welfare independent of the rest, the expansion of our humanity, to suit the idea of perfection which culture forms, must be a general expansion.

But where are his examples?
It sounds great to hear Arnold refer to "men are all members of one great whole" but in the same line of argument, he becomes divisive, too, when referring to the members of the working class not knowing what they want, to members of the middle class as wanting the wrong thing, to the members of the aristocracy as being too remote and not intervening enough in the frivolous pursuit of industry, to Philistines and Barbarians. But most divisively of all, Arnold seems to restrict the benefit of the application of "culture" as he saw it to the English.

"In the first place, it never was any part of our creed that the great right and blessedness of an Irishman, or, indeed, of anybody on earth except an Englishman, is to do as he likes; and we can have no scruple at all about abridging, if necessary, a non-Englishman's assertion of personal liberty. The British Constitution, its checks, and its prime virtues, are for Englishmen. We may extend them to others out of love and kindness; but we find no real divine law written on our hearts constraining us so to extend them."

Sarcasm? Or true sentiment? It depends on the reader's own outlook and interpretation. There is a fine line in Arnold's argument that can be used or abused for and against nationalism, for and against religion, for and against liberalism, etc. but left me with a general sense of puzzlement about whether any of Arnold's points had actually carried any momentum other than to promote the ever-so-wishy-washy phrase of "Sweetness and Light"?

"Now, the use of culture is that it helps us, by means of its spiritual standard of perfection, to regard wealth as but machinery, and not only to say as a matter of words that we regard wealth as but machinery, but really to perceive and feel that it is so. If it were not for this purging effect wrought upon our minds by culture, the whole world, the future as well as the present, would inevitably belong to the Philistines. The people who believe most that our greatness and welfare are proved by our being very rich, and who most give their lives and thoughts to becoming rich, are just the very people whom we call the Philistines. Culture says: "Consider these people, then, their way of life, their habits, their manners, the very tones of their voice; look at them attentively; observe the literature they read, the things which give them pleasure, the words which come forth out of their mouths, the thoughts which make the furniture of their minds; would any amount of wealth be worth having with the condition that one was to become just like these people by having it?"

By the end of the book, I was left craving for a more modern and more scientific approach to dissecting "culture" for all that it means, because while Arnold was (and to some extent still seems to be) celebrated for his efforts on defining culture, his efforts are limited to his own personal views with little to show any credentials of research or actual knowledge of society, history, or any other fields remotely relating to what we would now class as sociology, cultural studies, anthropology, etc.

Nevertheless, if you're looking to dig into the mindset of a high-Victorian Englishman, Culture and Anarchy does make for an entertaining, tho slightly painful visit. ...more

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Dec 16, 2015 E. G. rated it liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, essays, philosophy-psychology-sociology, uk-ireland, own, 3-star

Abbreviations
Introduction
Note on the Text
Select Bibliography
A Chronology of Matthew Arnold

--Culture and Anarchy

Appendix: Henry Sidgwick, 'The Prophet of Culture'
Explanatory Notes ...more

flag 21 likes · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2013 Lesliemae rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: course-list-favourites

I don't know where to even begin with this book. It is glorious and meaningful, useful, worthy and important - and it is also horrifying in its use of elitist rhetoric (we're here to perfect ourselves, didn't you know? and that's possible through cultural education! Perfection!), its colonial project (where an "epoch of expansion" is related not just to consciousness, but gets tacked on to a middle class progress narrative), not to mention the false parallels it draws between Jewish and Greek cu I don't know where to even begin with this book. It is glorious and meaningful, useful, worthy and important - and it is also horrifying in its use of elitist rhetoric (we're here to perfect ourselves, didn't you know? and that's possible through cultural education! Perfection!), its colonial project (where an "epoch of expansion" is related not just to consciousness, but gets tacked on to a middle class progress narrative), not to mention the false parallels it draws between Jewish and Greek culture simply to explain a kind of erroneous genealogy for his of method for critical thinking. However, overlooking these and many other thoughts, you can tease out of Arnold's ideas of sweetness and lightness something truly akin and of personal affirmation to every student of the Liberal Arts. Arts students need books like Culture and Anarchy, because in spite of its flaws (which fortunately we can have a little free play of imagination with regards to), too many Arts students are at a loss usually to know why they do what they do, and why what they do is important.

I've been asked this question in many permutations and it comes in all the standard formulations, "What will you do with your PhD?" The answer is, I'm doing it. Prevailing, as Arnold calls it. Or: What is the point of large amounts of funding for the arts when the STEM disciplines are engaged in the research that society both wants and needs right now? The answer is one of preservation and resistance. And these are the answers Arnold gives any human being that reads his ideas. There are other worldviews out there then simply being Marx's "appendage to the machine", other ideas then the once handed to us in advertisements and marketing ploys, the good life may not be built on the foundation of wealth, wealth may be a foundation of undeserved privilege, which begs the question, who is deserving? Is wealth the prime mover? Does it provide the good life you imagine? We know the truth to these answers, but live our lives in a lie that labours towards that goal regardless. We knowingly choose the lie, everyday. Why? It is important for someone to ask even these preliminary and basic questions and to think about and believe in the importance of speaking multiple points of view, self-reflexivity, and critical reflection - meaning query anything you find in a static position within yourself, and if/once you do - in that moment - you open in that moment your personal truth out into the field of personal truths. Arnold believes this to be the sweetness and the lightness of being a person of "culture" or critical inquiry (in many of the formulations). When you take up the nuggets within Arnold, you can see that he is a man who stands against objectification, commodification, and forgetfulness as our dominant cultural identity, and rather at times seems to plead for a greater engagement with what it means to be human, connected to humanity, a more "perfect" in his words being.

I wonder why when undergrads enter the first year English LIterature courses they are not immediately exposed to the method (if not Arnold's writings) for how critical thinking works. What is critical thinking and how does it work is probably the first thing any 100 level class should engage. Arnold provides some good models for how "free play of the imagination" enters personal praxis.

...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

May 12, 2009 Mir rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: victorian, ideas, non-fiction

Reason -- "Sweetness and Light" -- Culture -- Perfection -- for Arnold these terms are nearly synonymous, and all underlie the same central claim: the cause of disorder is both identifiable and curable. Arnold's goal here is not to propose a specific program of reform but, as he says in Democracy, to "invite impartial reflections." While Arnold does not precisely live up to his own asserted impartiality, his essay does seem constructed to persuade rather than to argue. This results from a combin ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jan 21, 2015 Hal Johnson rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: penguin, c19, essay, current-events, 1860s

Too much culture, not enough anarchy.

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Feb 23, 2010 Yngvild rated it it was amazing

Shelves: non-fiction

When it comes to pure malicious wit, nobody beats Matthew Arnold, not even Jonathan Swift. The six short essays in Culture and Anarchy would have long passed out of print if they were not such fun. The first three essays take aim at all segments of society: the working, middle and aristocratic classes; leftwing, centrist and rightwing politicians; England, Europe and America; Nonconformists and conformists.

Evidently, even today, some people are sulky about Arnold’s poison-dipped sword, but he g When it comes to pure malicious wit, nobody beats Matthew Arnold, not even Jonathan Swift. The six short essays in Culture and Anarchy would have long passed out of print if they were not such fun. The first three essays take aim at all segments of society: the working, middle and aristocratic classes; leftwing, centrist and rightwing politicians; England, Europe and America; Nonconformists and conformists.

Evidently, even today, some people are sulky about Arnold’s poison-dipped sword, but he gores all oxen. Eton really does combine teaching with running a boarding house; groups that withdraw from mainstream society do tend to both become extremist and to push the mainstream towards extremist positions they did not formally hold.

Where Arnold becomes controversial is in his insistence that the balance among people of his day was too far towards acting over thinking. He explicitly complained that legislators in England threw petty rules at every situation in lieu of thinking through the long-term effects of such legislation. His primary example is food subsidies, which he claims rarely benefit the intended recipients. He insists that his preferred emphasis on thinking over acting, by which he obviously means more a genial composure and an intelligent, informed approach, is not “effeminate”, but suitable for a manly man.

So far, we can follow him without argument, but Arnold offers no guidelines as to where the proper balance between thinking and doing are, and he assumes in one essay that political actors are well meaning but ignorant, while pointing out in another that cynical politicians frequently pull the wool over the eyes of an ill-informed populace. Arnold wanted to educate the population, rather than provide direct subsidies, in the belief that this would enable them to take informed control their own lives and provide a better long-term outcome.

I quote a sentence from Culture and Anarchy with some trepidation. Arnold makes his case on each issue by representing each point of view in the best light, and then comparing and reconciling them. That makes it easy to misrepresent his position by selectively quoting only one of the arguments he presents. The pity is that, having shown a good deal of compassion for the underprivileged, he throws it all away in his conclusion.

But for us,--who believe in right reason, in the duty and possibility of extricating and elevating our best self, in the progress of humanity towards perfection,--for us the framework of society, that theatre on which this august drama has to unroll itself, is sacred; and whoever administers it, and however we may seek to remove them from the tenure of administration, yet, while they administer, we steadily and with undivided heart support them in repressing anarchy and disorder; because without order there can be no society, and without society there can be no human perfection. – Culture and Anarchy, Matthew Arnold (1867-1869)

...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 07, 2019 Lichella rated it did not like it

Shelves: owned, uni

Literally couldn't read more than 5 pages at a time without losing track, and even within those 5 pages kept getting distracted. 1/5 would not recommend, also still only have a very vague sense of what it was about. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Apr 08, 2009 Adrian Colesberry rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Arnold's idea of culture could not be less in vogue these days. As it is always salutary to read the out-of-vogue, I strongly recommend this book to everyone. Today, culture is used to mean what used to be called society or even traditional society. This entire book is Arnold's bid for culture to mean the collection of all that is best and perfect in the world and the agreed-upon commitment to develop that perfection even further, an idea that today we can only weakly express with the word civil Arnold's idea of culture could not be less in vogue these days. As it is always salutary to read the out-of-vogue, I strongly recommend this book to everyone. Today, culture is used to mean what used to be called society or even traditional society. This entire book is Arnold's bid for culture to mean the collection of all that is best and perfect in the world and the agreed-upon commitment to develop that perfection even further, an idea that today we can only weakly express with the word civilization.
The important ethic of showing tolerance towards individual human beings within a society has been democratized to the cover a variety of areas where tolerance starts clashing with what you'd hope would be higher values. One place where Western values have clashed with tolerance has been female circumcision. Tolerance would dictate that medically safe genital mutilation should be allowed in another culture (used in the non-Arnoldian sense). In this case, a Sudenese family in a hospital in New York City should have the option of asking a doctor to remove their newborn's clitoris just like they could have asked the same doctor to remove their newborn's foreskin.
Feminists cry foul though, seeing the practice as barbaric and misogynist. Many years of intervention have been specifically non-tolerant of the societies that practice it.
In a subplot, the worldwide anti-HIV effort has introduced male circumcision in parts of Africa where it had never been practiced before (in an effort to control the virus), producing a three-ring circus where one group of Westerners is going over to Africa telling people not to cut the genitals of women, another group of Westerners is going over to Africa telling people to start cutting the genitals of men and the Westerners who stay home are earnestly congratulating themselves on being so tolerant to their fellow human beings and on equally valuing all the wonderful rainbow of cultures that make up the world.
At such points, a judgment must be made and we should probably pay more attention to Arnold's idea of a higher goal for culture, his notion of culture as a collection of best practices, one of those best practices being tolerance of course, but that's not the only value in there. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

May 29, 2012 Marina added it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, philosophy, religion, read-2012

I don't know how to rate this. There is good writing and very intelligent ideas (regarding culture), but they are overshadowed by the alarming conservatism of it all (the middle class with their tea rooms, disgusting!) and silly concepts (light, sweetness?). Also, too much love for the Establishment and Academies. It just amazes me that someone who is apparently so intelligent can say things like everybody is either Barbarians, Philistines or Populace except for men of culture, who are above cla ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jun 22, 2013 Christopher Rush rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Indeed, yes. Though this is somewhat different from what you think it is going to be, based on your limited knowledge for what Arnold is arguing, and thus one could find it somewhat disappointing, but it should not be disappointing. What was somewhat surprising was Arnold's great phrase "the best of what's been thought and said" appears so soon in the book, in the preface, and then is never mentioned again. Arnold more often mentions the importance of letting one's reason play freely over issues Indeed, yes. Though this is somewhat different from what you think it is going to be, based on your limited knowledge for what Arnold is arguing, and thus one could find it somewhat disappointing, but it should not be disappointing. What was somewhat surprising was Arnold's great phrase "the best of what's been thought and said" appears so soon in the book, in the preface, and then is never mentioned again. Arnold more often mentions the importance of letting one's reason play freely over issues and ideas. This is one of those classics that is much easier to understand when one actually reads it. The introduction by the no-doubt well-meaning editor is a terrible pain, despite its desire to inform and elucidate. It doesn't help much at all; it only fosters tedium. Once one actually gets into Arnold's work, clarity and enthusiasm replace the tedium, even in the sections dominated by the kairotic issues and people so pressing on Arnold no longer (as) pertinent today. Fortunately, the eternal ideas and arguments Arnold propounds shine through the temporal consternations for all but the least attentive reader. The inclusion of Sidgwick's critical article at the end of the book is not as helpful as the Oxford editorial team probably thought it would be. Sidgwick's article is against an earlier, shorter essay by Arnold. Culture and Anarchy is a response to Sidgwick's criticism of Arnold's earlier work. So reading Culture and Anarchy before Sidgwick's article is backwards, since we are reading Arnold's responses before knowing Sidgwick's criticisms. Reading Sidgwick's criticisms after Arnold's responses shifts the argumentative balance more in Sidgwick's favor than is appropriate. If our friends at Oxford really wanted to be helpful, they would have begun with Arnold's culture and religion essay, followed by Sidgwick's response, then finishing with Culture and Anarchy. Maybe that's a job for our friends at Norton to do, someday.

I don't recall if Arnold ever actually uses the word "anarchy." Like Alan Moore after him (and just about every educated person before him), Arnold doesn't imply "chaos" with his discussion of "anarchy" (without ever using the word directly except perhaps twice) - what is anarchy to Arnold is "everyone having the freedom to do what he wants, whenever he wants to do it." That is the anarchy opposed to culture. Culture and religion are closely intertwined. For those who know Arnold only through "Dover Beach," Arnold comes as far more in favor of religion (especially established religion) than he does in "Dover Beach," and religion is a crucial factor in a quality culture. This is still a great book. Despite the dominance of Victorian characters and issues, this is still a necessary and helpful book and will be until reason and the will of God prevail. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 07, 2017 Michael Percy rated it really liked it

Shelves: reviewed

I had heard others speak of this book as if it were a cult classic. Any wonder. There are so many things going on in this work. I am still trying to see where Matthew Arnold fits in with the likes of Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, and Herbert Spencer. He was a professor of poetry by profession, and his niece, Mrs Humphrey Ward, became a metonym for a conservative wowser. So he was hardly a John Stuart Mill, yet he was also rather short of being a Herbert Spencer. I had heard others speak of this book as if it were a cult classic. Any wonder. There are so many things going on in this work. I am still trying to see where Matthew Arnold fits in with the likes of Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, and Herbert Spencer. He was a professor of poetry by profession, and his niece, Mrs Humphrey Ward, became a metonym for a conservative wowser. So he was hardly a John Stuart Mill, yet he was also rather short of being a Herbert Spencer. He seemed to be the reverse of a modern Australian Liberal (not liberal) - he did not support free trade but looked to the cultural elite, while remaining socially conservative. The brief introduction eludes to the lack of definitions in the work, and this is supported by a critique of the work by Henry Sidgwick entitled The Prophet of Culture (provided as an appendix). Indubitably, the two were friends, but with some rather major philosophical differences. There are extensive notes and these are important due to the number of then-contemporary social, political, cultural, and religious debates (as indicated by the list of important thinkers above) that would be lost on most modern readers (or me, at least). These are rather important to understanding the context but I suspect the different disciplinary groups did not necessarily cross paths in their intellectual outputs. For my own memory, it is useful to outline some of Arnold's key ideas. First, culture is the seeking (as opposed to achieving) perfection in the pursuit of reason and the will of God. The phrase "sweetness and light" is used by Arnold to refer to the pursuit of beauty (in the Hellenistic sense) and light as intellect. Sidgwick counters with "fire and strength" as being more important to improving society (referring, in particular, to religion). Arnold navigates two approaches to understanding culture (albeit somewhat difficult to articulate a precise definition of either) as Hebraising (referring to the Hebrew penchant for religious discipline) versus Hellenism (referring to the Ancient Greek aesthetic and penchant for reason). Arnold brings in the idea of class here (something completely overlooked by many modern works that assume the myth of egalitarianism in contemporary society is not a myth at all), and names the classes the Barbarians (the aristocracy), the Philistines (the middle class) and the Populace (the working class). Given the book was published in 1869, the "Populace" was still a few decades away from any formal political power, and class-based rioting was emerging as a problem for the likes of Burke (who had issues with the Lockean and Rousseauian conceptions of the social contract. Indeed, Arnold was a form of anti-Jacobin). Arnold was closer to Hobbesian support for a strong State, but tempered by the idea that representatives of each class should strive to represent their ideal best selves (as a class rather than individuals), and the idea of the State was to enable such striving for social and political perfection. There were a few snippets that drew lines where the State should and should not intervene, relating to Nonconformism and antidisestablishmentarianism (I always wanted to use that word - but I must qualify, it relates to then-contemporary debates over the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland [refer to the Irish Church Act 1869], rather than the Church of England - but I had to use the word!) rather than intervening to protect the poor (some Malthusian debate was definitely going on at this time in history). Nevertheless, Arnold was opposed to government "control for control's sake" (p. 170) over education policy, and preferred the Continental approaches to education that had clear strategic objectives rather than simply government control. Sidgwick puts some of this confusion to rest - he is by no means a fan of this particular piece of Arnold's work but empathises with his cause to strengthen society by increasing its culture. Here, Sidgwick's essay does a great service to Arnold's theme, and the two works together are important. Sidgwick (p. 172) surmises that Arnold "wishes for reconciliation of antagonisms" - be these Hebraism versus Hellenism, class differences, or culture and religion (or sweetness and light versus fire and strength) - in an effort to improve society. Without Sidgwick's contribution, it would be easy to miss Arnold's point. But that does not make the work of any less value. Some of these statements have been made by others (including the introduction), and Arnold's belief in the "law of perfection" reminds me of a scene from The Last Samurai where Tom Cruise narrates: "From the moment they wake they devote themselves to the perfection of whatever they pursue". This was a difficult read. Not like Sir Walter Scott's work where one can readily get bogged down in Gaelic dialogue, but because numerous reference to the notes (there are as many notes as pages) are necessary to understand the context, and there is so much jam-packed in this otherwise short essay, that it takes a while to sink in. While that should not diminish the importance of the work, if the attitude to difficult works today is anything to go by - where we are routinely told by lazy egoists (as opposed to egotists) if we cannot explain something to a three year-old child we don't understand it ourselves - then Arnold is amiss. But he was so close to being a futurist that this work ought to be more widely read, not as a cult classic (which arguably it deserves to be), but because we are reaching the culmination-point Arnold seemed to warn about,-
should we ever relegate "sweetness and light" to "fire and strength". ...more

flag Like · see review

May 15, 2017 Fred Dameron rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

I'm extremely glad that my youngest recommended this series of essays to me. For those of us who believe in thought instead of blind obedience to a ruling elite this is a must read. Arnolds "Culture and Anarchy" has as many lessons for the reader of 2017 as it had for the reader in 1860's. Arnold cuts society into three classes. Barbarians, the ruling elite, Philistines, the middle class trying to ape the elite, and the masses. Arnold further divides these classes into Hebraists and Hellenistic. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 14, 2021 Jerry Wall rated it liked it · review of another edition

Anarchy implies unpleasantness in society while culture is seen as the best way to deal with others in society. He does get lost in religion and the religion of his day.'

Culture is then properly described not as having its origen in curiosity but in a study of perfection. It moves by the force, not merely or primarily of the moral and social passion for doing good.
Wilhelm von Humboldt, one of the most beautiful and perfect souls that have ever existed, used to say that one's business in life wa ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 22, 2019 Piers Haslam rated it liked it

Shelves: philosophy, victorian, essays

Obviously this is more an intriguing historical relic than anything. That said, there are some really interesting points about the tension between the desire to do good and be moral and the more sedate pursuit of knowledge. Although Arnold puts these in terms of 'Hebraism' and 'Hellenism', we can easily broaden these themes out to think about this fascinating relationship. Along with Ruskin, this has really helped me get a tangible sense of Victorian outlooks on the society. ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 21, 2020 Matthew Gurteen rated it it was ok

I usually can forgive eighteenth and nineteenth-century philosophy if I disagree with so long as it is well written. This simply was not though. I think Arnold has a few interesting points about finding your 'best self' and some interesting discussions on religion, but most of the time it's just unsupported, and often contradictory, rambling. I think it can be enjoyed more as a historical artifact rather than for any other reason. ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 18, 2017 Ellana Thornton-Wheybrew rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: masters-degree, library-academic

The phrase "of its time" springs to mind.

He does go into quite a bit of detail about the laws regarding marrying a dead wife's sister. A little too much detail.

I found it interesting that, in the preface, Arnold suggests that America is so smart because it has shaken off the shackles of religion. ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 23, 2017 Tobias rated it really liked it · review of another edition

A bit rambling, but still a classic.

flag Like · see review

Mar 02, 2018 Dorothy Himberc rated it liked it · review of another edition

Almost every idea in this book horrifies me. But, while indulgently, it isn't poorly written. ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 06, 2019 Katie Boe rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Big yikes. Did Arnold cherry-pick his own argument? The Greeks were also pioneers in technology.... He seems to have overlooked that....

flag Like · see review

Jun 28, 2020 Brigette added it · review of another edition

Shelves: ed-den, 19th-century, 04-read-selections

I. Sweetness and Light
IV. Hebraism and Hellenism

flag Like · see review

Jan 26, 2021 Andrew Noselli rated it it was ok

I had mistaken purchased its reputation as an example of early modern literary criticism. Wrong !

flag Like · see review

Mar 05, 2019 Danushka Devinda rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I mark it as read, as I trudged through 100pages for nearly a week. N extremely difficult read. Some good moderately easy to understand passages every now again that makes you happy, but overall a difficult text. I am not a lazy reader. Sadly, I have to stop reading this.

flag Like · see review

Mar 20, 2017 Tim McKay rated it liked it · review of another edition

I believe even for the time in which this book was written the author's prose was dated but what would expect from a man who promotes "being" and loathes "becoming."

Did Mr. Arnold come up with the phrase "do as you are told", if he didn't he was a definite disciple. ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 07, 2017 Josiah rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Interesting, but not complete. His social criticism of the late 1800s remains relevant today. The anarchical, destructive tendencies of socialism; the closed minded, overly "mechanistic", and materialistic tendencies of liberalism; and the corrupt and dying Toryism of his day. His defense of elevated culture is great, how it needs both "Hellenism" (philosophy) and "Hebraism" (morality/religion), to urge people towards better lives. His view of religion, however, is that it exists as an expressio ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 23, 2014 Ali Nazifpour rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

"Culture and Anarchy" is a book written in 1875. Yet, it's a very relevant book today. If you look past the vocabulary, you'd have no idea, based on the content, that it's not written in 2014. The main crust is a defense of "culture", that is philosophy and other intellectual pursuits. It opposes the anti-intellectual attitudes that are rampant even today, and in our poisonous environment of postmodernism and postcolonialism and cultural relativism reading this book is very interesting. I also f ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 17, 2012 Fred R rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Many of the specific categories and oppositions he sets up don't seem to hold water, but I wholeheartedly endorse the general thrust of the argument. Of every human product it can be asked: "does this build up civilization, or tear it down?"

To give you a sense of his thought processes:

"So all our fellow-men, in the East of London and elsewhere, we must take along with us in the progress towards perfection, if we ourselves really, as we profess, want to be perfect; and we must not let the worshi ...more

flag Like · see review

Aug 18, 2013 Marts (Thinker) rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, politics-governance, essays, non-fiction

Matthew Arnold's collected essays, previously published periodically as magazine articles.
The time is Victorian England and Arnold contrasts culture; an avenue to breaking down humanity's barriers and a means of creating human perfection, with anarchy; a mood of unrest resulting from certain elements of the modern life.
Therefore since through the decades perfection has not been achieved through culture, anarchic tendencies have developed...

"without order there can be no society and without socie ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 01, 2015 David rated it liked it · review of another edition

This essay collection sat on my shelf for a good couple years and might never had seen the light of day if I hadn't been surprised by its being mentioned in Ulysses. I think I only ordered it to round out the rest of my remaining balance on an Amazon giftcard. Although the essays push their points from a specific national view, the main thrust is something always of value and that is the endeavoring spirit of curiousity. Arnold seeks a return to the inventive Hellenic disposition for he senses a ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 06, 2008 Ade Bailey rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: on-hold-to-return-to

Reading again, after many years in the wilderness of cultural studies bitterness, that home for frustrated and hateful spoilt brats all over the rich world. Undergraduates are taught to sneer at this book (of course, on the basis of a two or three page extract), in the beginning of their indoctrination into despising of the literary. There is, it is true, much to object to, but the light irony of its writing is delight and powerful of itslf: the issues it deals with frighteningly familiar themes ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 03, 2013 Benjamin rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: cultural-theory

This is 19th Century wit at its absolute best, and a wonderful work of cultural and political criticism (if not one that might find much more favor now than at the time it was written). Arnold's conclusions are frequently not those that I would advocate, and his analysis is not that of a thoroughly principled philosopher (as he freely admits), but there's a great deal of brilliance here, and one would be foolish to discount the entire work simply because it might not always agree with one's own ...more

flag Like · see review

« previous 1 2 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Philosophy

62 users

Nonfiction

43 users

Writing > Essays

36 users

Classics

23 users

Cultural

14 users

Politics

14 users

Literature > 19th Century

14 users

Historical > Victorian

14 users

History

14 users

Criticism

10 users

See top shelves…

About Matthew Arnold

Matthew Arnold

134 followers

Matthew Arnold was an English poet, sage writer and cultural critic who worked as an inspector of schools. He was the son of Thomas Arnold, the famed headmaster of Rugby School, and brother to Tom Arnold, literary professor, and William Delafield Arnold, novelist and colonial administrator.

Books by Matthew Arnold

The Function of Criticism at the Present Time

More…

What Happened to Offred? Margaret Atwood’s Big Sequel Answers Readers’ Questions

Thirty-four years after the publication of her dystopian classic, The Handmaid's Tale, Atwood returns to continue the story of Offred. We talked...

Trivia About Culture and Anarchy

4 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from Culture and Anarchy

“The whole scope of the essay is to recommend culture as the great help out of our present difficulties; culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world, and, through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically, vainly imagining that there is a virtue in following them staunchly which makes up for the mischief of following them mechanically. This, and this alone, is the scope of the following essay.” — 3 likes

“For what can give a finer example of that frankness and manly self- confidence which our great public schools, and none of them so much as Eton, are supposed to inspire, of that buoyant ease in holding up one's head, speaking out what is in one's mind, and flinging off all sheepishness and awkwardness, than to see an Eton assistant-master offering in fact himself as evidence that to combine boarding-house- keeping with teaching is a good thing, and his brother as evidence that to train and race little boys for competitive examinations is a good thing?” — 3 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold

Culture and Anarchy

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Matthew Arnold

Books by Matthew Arnold

Related Articles

Trivia About Culture and Anarchy

Quotes from Culture and Anarchy

See a Problem?

Preview — Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold

Culture and Anarchy

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Matthew Arnold

Books by Matthew Arnold

Related Articles

Trivia About Culture and Anarchy

Quotes from Culture and Anarchy

new topic
Discuss This Book