Mathew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy (1869)
Share
I. Professional Biography of Matthew Arnold (1822–1888)
Matthew Arnold was an English poet, cultural critic, and one of the most influential public intellectuals of the Victorian era. Born in Laleham, Middlesex, he was the son of Dr. Thomas Arnold, the famed headmaster of Rugby School. Arnold was educated at Winchester, Rugby, and then at Balliol College, Oxford, where he achieved distinction as a poet and scholar.
In 1851 he was appointed an Inspector of Schools, a position he held for more than three decades. This role deeply shaped his understanding of education, society, and the responsibilities of the modern state. While he gained early fame for his poetry—including “Dover Beach”, “The Scholar-Gipsy”, and “Thyrsis”—his reputation today rests equally on his essays in cultural criticism. Arnold became Professor of Poetry at Oxford (1857–1867), the first to deliver lectures in English rather than Latin. His prose works, such as Essays in Criticism (1865) and Culture and Anarchy (1869), sought to define principles of taste, culture, and moral life in a rapidly changing industrial society. He remains a key figure in Victorian intellectual history and in the lineage of modern cultural criticism.
II. Matthew Arnold’s Social, Political, and Cultural Thought
1. Arnold’s Social Thought
Matthew Arnold’s social thought emerges from his deep concern with the fragmentation and moral disorder he perceived in Victorian England. For Arnold, modern industrial society had unleashed extraordinary energy but lacked the harmonizing influence of culture. He believed that the English people, divided into rigid social strata, lived with partial and unbalanced conceptions of life. His famous categories—Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace—serve as satirical portraits of these divisions: the aristocracy’s complacent refinement, the middle class’s utilitarian materialism, and the working class’s susceptibility to agitation. Although humorous, these depictions illuminate Arnold’s conviction that no class possesses the fullness of moral and intellectual virtues necessary for a healthy society. Each class, driven by its own prejudices and interests, contributes to a national condition of misunderstanding and moral weakness. Social improvement, Arnold insists, cannot come from class pride or partisan advocacy but from the cultivation of inward balance. Culture, in his view, is the force that counteracts social fragmentation by opening individuals to “the best self”—a self guided by reason, empathy, and a desire for perfection. The central aim of his social thought is unity: a society in which individuals transcend their class limitations and live according to ideals rather than impulses.
2. Arnold’s Political Thought
Arnold’s political reflections arise from his dissatisfaction with the dominant Victorian faith in laissez-faire liberalism. He opposed the belief that society flourishes most when government intervenes least, arguing that such a view produces a chaotic environment where individuals pursue self-interest without regard for the common good. For Arnold, the rhetoric of “doing as one likes” becomes a recipe for moral disorder unless balanced by an internal discipline rooted in culture. His critique of unregulated individualism leads him to defend the guiding role of the state. Arnold does not picture the state as a punitive power but as a rational and educative institution capable of shaping national life. Through education, public responsibility, and moral leadership, the state serves as an instrument of “right reason.” This perspective places him at odds with radical democrats who champion immediate popular sovereignty. Although he does not oppose democracy itself, his approach reveals a cautious attitude toward extending political power to groups he believed might act impulsively if not culturally prepared. His political thought therefore attempts to reconcile liberty with order, democracy with refinement, and individual rights with social responsibility. In Arnold’s ideal polity, the state helps elevate public conduct by encouraging intellectual and moral improvement, not by suppressing freedom but by guiding it toward humane ends.
3. Arnold’s Cultural Thought
At the heart of Arnold’s intellectual project lies his distinctive theory of culture—a theory which unites his social and political concerns. Arnold’s idea of culture is both moral and aesthetic. He defines it as the striving for human perfection through the pursuit of “sweetness and light,” expressed in the desire to know and embody “the best that has been thought and said.” Culture cultivates balance, clarity, and self-knowledge; it softens the harshness of class prejudice and tempers the excesses of political ideology. For Arnold, culture is not an adornment but an ethical force capable of stabilizing a society shaken by industrialization, political agitation, and religious doubt. As traditional religious authority weakens, culture appears as a secular substitute—offering the moral insight and harmonious vision once supplied by faith. His distinction between Hellenism and Hebraism further illuminates this point: Hellenism represents a spirit of intellectual openness and aesthetic appreciation, while Hebraism stands for moral earnestness and self-discipline. Arnold insists that Victorian society has overemphasized Hebraic strictness and must recover the Hellenic freedom of the intellect to achieve true cultural maturity. Culture, in his understanding, is the force that unites these tendencies, guiding individuals toward a rational, morally enriched, and aesthetically refined life.
III. Historical Context of Culture and Anarchy (1869)
Published in 1869 (after appearing serially in Cornhill Magazine in 1867–68), Culture and Anarchy emerged at a moment of profound social, political, and intellectual transformation in Victorian Britain.
1. Industrialization and Social Upheaval
By the mid-19th century, Britain had undergone rapid industrial expansion. Urbanization, the growth of the factory system, and the emergence of a powerful industrial middle class had reordered British society. These changes brought unprecedented wealth but also stark inequalities, cultural fragmentation, and social unrest. Arnold observed the rise of what he called “Philistinism”—a utilitarian, materially driven worldview he associated with the industrial bourgeoisie.
The social turbulence of this period—strikes, dislocation, and political agitation—formed the immediate background to Arnold’s call for culture as a harmonizing, civilizing force.
2. Democratic Reform and Political Anxiety
The Second Reform Act of 1867 expanded voting rights to portions of the urban working class, raising concerns among many elites about political stability and the “rule of the masses.” Arnold was not anti-democratic, but he worried about what he saw as the fragmentary impulses of “Barbarian” aristocrats, “Philistine” middle classes, and “Populace” working classes.
Culture and Anarchy arises from this moment of extension of democracy, offering culture—“the best that has been thought and said”—as a way to guide a more educated and morally elevated public sphere.
3. Victorian Debates on Religion and Morality
The 1860s witnessed intense debate over religious authority, partly sparked by higher criticism (German biblical scholarship) and works like Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859). Traditional belief systems were being questioned, and Arnold saw an erosion of shared moral and spiritual structures.
In response, he sought a secular yet moral framework grounded in “sweetness and light,” a phrase he borrowed from Swift. Arnold conceived culture as a substitute for the declining authority of established religion—a way to cultivate “right reason” and moral sensibility in an age of doubt.
4. The Rise of Liberal Individualism
The period was dominated by the liberal economic ideology of laissez-faire, championed by thinkers like Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill. Arnold found such individualism excessive and destabilizing. His text critiques unchecked laissez-faire as producing social fragmentation and moral anarchy.
Hence the “anarchy” in the book’s title refers to not literal chaos but the lack of a unifying moral center in an overly individualistic, industrial society.
5. The Emergence of Cultural Criticism
Arnold’s work also belongs to a broader Victorian project of defining “culture” (alongside figures like Ruskin, Carlyle, and later T.H. Huxley). Arnold’s distinctive contribution was to argue that culture was not merely leisure or aesthetic appreciation but an ethical and social force capable of fostering national coherence.
IV. Debating the Main Ideas in Matthew Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy (1869)
1. Culture as Moral and Intellectual Perfection
At the center of Culture and Anarchy stands Arnold’s conviction that culture is the disciplined pursuit of human perfection—a striving toward what he famously calls “the best that has been thought and said.” Culture is not, for Arnold, a matter of personal taste or mere erudition. It is a moral and intellectual orientation: a desire to transcend narrow prejudices, private interests, and class-bound habits of mind in order to cultivate “the best self.” He believes that industrial modernity, with its restless energy and utilitarian ethos, produces a society skilled in material advancement yet impoverished in spiritual depth. Thus, culture appears not as ornament but as ethical necessity, a force capable of restoring harmony to a world fragmented by competition, self-assertion, and ideological stubbornness.
2. The Fear of Social Fragmentation and the Threat of Anarchy
Arnold’s discussion of “anarchy” expresses a profound anxiety about the disintegration of shared values in Victorian England. By “anarchy,” he does not mean violent disorder but a subtler and more dangerous moral confusion—a condition in which individuals, guided solely by self-interest and the rhetoric of “doing as one likes,” undermine the cohesion of society. The democratic reforms of the 1860s, the growth of mass politics, and the rise of working-class agitation all contribute to Arnold’s sense that the nation is losing its center. He does not reject political freedom outright, but he insists that liberty without the inner discipline supplied by culture becomes reckless rather than liberating. In this way, culture functions as a stabilizing force, tempering the impulses that threaten to push society toward a condition of unrestrained individualism.
3. The Satirical Typology of Social Classes
A memorable feature of Arnold’s argument is his tripartite characterization of English society as Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace—labels that capture the moral and intellectual distortions he sees within each class. The Barbarians, or aristocrats, pride themselves on honor and refinement yet cling to privilege and resist broader cultural progress. The Philistines, representing the industrious middle class, embody energy and productivity but lack spiritual elevation, substituting material success for cultural depth. The Populace, often the most politically volatile, suffers the ravages of economic hardship and is vulnerable to agitation and impulsive action. Although humorous, these categories reveal Arnold’s belief that no class possesses the balanced virtues necessary for national improvement. Only culture, he argues, can supplement their deficiencies and create an integrated society governed by reason rather than class prejudice.
4. The Role of the State as an Educative Force
Arnold’s critique of laissez-faire individualism leads him to argue for an active, guiding state capable of shaping the moral and intellectual life of the nation. He views the prevailing belief in minimal government as a dangerous illusion that leaves society exposed to the whims of powerful interests and the passions of the uneducated. For Arnold, the state is not merely a legal mechanism but a moral agent—an institution that embodies the collective striving toward the common good. By promoting education, regulating excesses, and fostering a shared cultural foundation, the state becomes the guardian of rationality and public virtue. His advocacy of state intervention, however, raises debates about paternalism, cultural authority, and the risk of imposing elite values on diverse social groups.
5. The Tension Between Hellenism and Hebraism
A major conceptual axis of Arnold’s argument is the contrast between Hellenism and Hebraism, two great forces shaping Western civilization. Hellenism represents the spirit of inquiry, intellectual clarity, and aesthetic sensibility; Hebraism embodies moral discipline, obedience, and the will to righteousness. Arnold argues that Victorian society has allowed Hebraism to dominate—resulting in excessive rigidity, narrow moralism, and suppression of intellectual curiosity. To restore balance, England must embrace a renewed Hellenic openness, blending moral seriousness with the free play of the mind. This dual framework enables Arnold to analyze cultural tendencies through an appealing philosophical lens, though it also reveals his assumption that European traditions alone define the scope of human development.
6. Culture as a Secular Substitute for Declining Religious Authority
Amid growing scientific skepticism, biblical criticism, and the erosion of traditional belief, Arnold positions culture as a modern replacement for religion’s moral guidance. He does not reject religion itself; rather, he argues that culture can preserve the ethical impulses at the heart of religious tradition while freeing them from dogmatic rigidity. Culture becomes a form of “right reason,” offering moral coherence in a society where faith is no longer universally authoritative. Yet this proposal raises questions about whether culture can bear the emotional and communal weight historically carried by religion, or whether Arnold’s vision merely rebrands Protestant morality under a more secular vocabulary.
7. Disinterestedness as the Ideal Mode of Criticism
At the foundation of Arnold’s argumentative method is the principle of disinterestedness—the commitment to rise above factional loyalties and partisan passions in order to judge with fairness and intellectual clarity. He regards criticism as the disciplined search for truth unhindered by class resentment, sectarian bias, or political agitation. This ideal, which has shaped modern notions of academic objectivity, insists that reason must govern public discourse. Yet its limitations are equally apparent: what Arnold presents as impartiality may in fact mask the assumptions of a particular social position. The debate over disinterested criticism therefore becomes a debate over whether any perspective can truly transcend the ideological pressures of its time.
V. The Stylistic Approach of Matthew Arnold in Culture and Anarchy (1869)
1. Rhetorical Prose and the Voice of the Moral Critic
Matthew Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy is distinguished as much by its style as by its arguments. Arnold writes not as a detached academic but as a moral critic addressing a nation in crisis. His prose carries a rhetorical urgency that blends persuasion with intellectual authority. Often adopting a conversational tone, Arnold manages to sound both urgent and controlled, as if guiding the public toward a clearer self-understanding. His voice continually oscillates between reasoned argument and subtle irony, allowing him to critique English society while maintaining a dignified, almost pedagogical composure.
2. The Use of Satire and Social Typology
One of Arnold’s most striking stylistic strategies is his use of satire—especially his creation of the social categories “Barbarians,” “Philistines,” and “Populace.” These labels are not intended as hostile insults but as humorous caricatures that sharpen the reader’s perception of entrenched social attitudes. Through gentle exaggeration, Arnold illuminates the self-satisfaction of the aristocracy, the materialism of the middle class, and the volatility of the working masses. This satirical typology allows him to critique social shortcomings without resorting to harsh invective. Instead, he employs humor as a rhetorical bridge: the reader laughs, but the laughter leads to recognition, and recognition to moral reflection.
3. Balanced Sentence Structure and the Rhythm of Argument
Arnold’s argumentation is marked by a distinctive rhythmic prose. His sentences often unfold in measured clauses, creating a cadence that mirrors the harmony he associates with culture itself. Arnold frequently juxtaposes ideas in pairs or triads, allowing contrast to carry the argument forward. This balanced syntax gives his prose an air of classical deliberation, as if each statement must be weighed with equal care. Moreover, his frequent use of parallelism and antithesis reinforces his view of culture as the reconciliation of competing forces—Hellenism and Hebraism, reason and obedience, sweetness and light. The style therefore embodies the very harmony he advocates.
4. Allusion, Classical Echoes, and the Scholar’s Voice
Arnold’s style is deeply intertextual, saturated with references to the classical world, the Bible, and English literary tradition. His frequent invocation of Greek culture—its ideals, history, and philosophical temperament—introduces a classical register into Victorian polemic. At the same time, his references to Scripture, especially the moral discipline of Hebraism, anchor his argument in familiar ethical terrain. Through this dual deployment of allusion, Arnold dramatizes the cultural synthesis he believes England requires. Such stylistic layering gives his prose intellectual dignity while subtly instructing the reader in the very tradition he defends.
5. Irony as a Vehicle of Cultural Critique
Irony is perhaps Arnold’s most effective stylistic weapon. Whether discussing “our middle class friends” or the national tendency to boast of “our freedom to do as we like,” Arnold often allows the absurdity of English self-congratulation to reveal itself. His irony is rarely sharp or bitter; instead, it is a gentle, knowing smile that exposes contradictions without alienating the audience. This method enhances the persuasive power of his argument: rather than confronting the reader with direct condemnation, he shows how the nation deceives itself and invites the reader to recognize the discrepancy between professions and realities.
6. The Didactic Tone and the Ethos of Moral Authority
Though often humorous and ironic, Arnold’s style remains didactic. He writes with the ethos of someone who believes moral clarity is urgently needed. His prose radiates a sense of vocation: the critic as instructor of the nation. This didacticism is reinforced by his lexical choices—words like “perfection,” “best self,” “right reason,” and “sweetness and light” recur like moral refrains. The repetition is deliberate, creating a mantra-like effect that elevates culture from an intellectual concept to an ethical ideal. Even when addressing political reform or class agitation, Arnold maintains the tone of a teacher guiding his students toward a higher principle.
7. The Interplay of Abstraction and Concreteness
One of Arnold’s most subtle stylistic achievements is the balance between abstract ideals and vivid, concrete examples. His discussions often move seamlessly from philosophical reflection to tangible illustrations drawn from everyday English life—parliamentary debates, middle-class religious zeal, aristocratic sportsmanship, street protests. This oscillation prevents his prose from floating into lofty generalization. The interplay between abstraction and concreteness ensures that the reader understands culture not merely as a metaphysical concept but as a lived practice with implications for ordinary social behavior.
8. Persuasive Repetition and the Building of Moral Momentum
Repetition is a central feature of Arnold’s prose. He frequently returns to key terms and phrases, using them as anchor-points to stabilize the argument. Words like “anarchy,” “reason,” “perfection,” and “culture” recur with rhythmic consistency, creating a cumulative force. This repetition is not redundant; it builds momentum, reminding the reader of the thread that unites the text. Through repetition, Arnold ensures that his ideals seep into the mental fabric of the reader—an intentional technique to engrave culture as the antidote to national disorder.
9. Conclusion: Style as the Embodiment of Cultural Aspiration
Arnold’s stylistic approach in Culture and Anarchy is inseparable from his central argument. His prose is not merely a medium for ideas; it enacts the very qualities he associates with culture—harmony, clarity, refinement, moral seriousness, intellectual curiosity, balanced judgment, and humane irony. The elegance of his syntax, the measured pace of his argument, and the dignity of his allusions work together to create a style that aspires to be exemplary. In this sense, the style itself becomes a moral force, embodying the cultural ideal Arnold hopes to instill in the nation. The persuasive power of Culture and Anarchy therefore lies not only in the content of its arguments but in the stylistic artistry through which the arguments are realized.
Works Cited
Arnold, Matthew. Culture and Anarchy: An Essay in Political and Social Criticism. London, Smith, Elder, 1869.
———. Culture and Anarchy. Edited by Jane Garnett, Oxford UP, 2009. UP, 1993.
———. Culture and Anarchy. Edited by Samuel Lipman, Yale UP, 1994.
———. Culture and Anarchy with Friendship’s Garland and Some Literary Essays. Edited by Robert H. Super, vol. 5 of The Complete Prose Works of Matthew Arnold, U of Michigan P, 1965.
Caufield, James Walter. Overcoming Matthew Arnold: Ethics in Culture and Criticism. Ashgate, 2012.
Collini, Stefan. Arnold. Oxford UP, 1988.
———. Matthew Arnold: A Critical Portrait. Oxford UP, 1994.
Coulling, Sidney M. B. “The Evolution of ‘Culture and Anarchy.’” Studies in Philology, vol. 60, no. 4, 1963, pp. 637–68.
Goehr, Lydia. Review of Culture and Anarchy, by Matthew Arnold, edited by Samuel Lipman. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 54, no. 4, 1996, pp. 403–04.
Honan, Park. Matthew Arnold: A Life. McGraw-Hill, 1981.
Krause, David. “Culture and Anarchy in Ireland: Renaissance and Revolution.” Études irlandaises, vol. 25, no. 1, 2000, pp. 17–34.
Lecourt, Sebastian. “Matthew Arnold and the Institutional Imagination of Liberalism.” Victorian Literature and Culture, vol. 49, no. 2, 2021, pp. 361–75.
Machann, Clinton. “Matthew Arnold (1822–1888).” The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Vol. 6, The Nineteenth Century, edited by M. A. R. Habib, Cambridge UP, 2013, pp. 419–39.
Madhavan, Athira. “The Purging Effects of Culture: A Speculative Analysis of Matthew Arnold’s ‘Sweetness and Light.’” International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology, vol. 7, no. 11, 2021, pp. 95–100.
Neiman, Fraser, editor. Matthew Arnold: The Critical Heritage. Routledge, 1995.
Novak, Bruce. “‘National Standards’ vs. the Free Standards of Culture: Matthew Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy and Contemporary Educational Philistinism.” Philosophy of Education, vol. 59, 2003, pp. 376–83.
O’Gorman, Francis. Matthew Arnold and the Art of the Negative. Ashgate, 2005.
Trilling, Lionel. Matthew Arnold. Norton, 1939. Young, Robert J. C. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Culture, Theory and Race. Routledge, 1995.