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

The Role of the Individual in Matthew Arnold’s â€Å"Culture and Anarchy† Culture, as defined by Matthew Arnold in his essay â€Å"Culture and Anarchy,† is the drive to attain perfection through development and growth bolstered by knowledge and appreciation of the beauty of humanity. Granted, this is an oversimplification of Arnold’s complex musings on what culture is, but this broad concept of culture, here, is useful in the discussion of the role of the individual in society.Ideally, for Arnold, those that perpetuate this idea of culture are the same people who ought to comprise a kind of rational control within the State. Arnold works to define the three classes of 19th century England (Barbarians, Philistines, and Populace), and makes it clear, following his conditions for culture, that none of the classes have the appropriate means to govern properly. Arnold says, â€Å"It seeks to do away with classes; to make the best that has been thought and know n in the world current everywhere. Ostensibly, it is up to the individual to transcend their class, and nurture the State in a utilitarian fashion. However, the chasm between the maturation of the individual and the ultimate betterment of the community seems daunting. Arnold’s ideal culture originates with the individual, as it is â€Å"a study of perfection,† which is â€Å"an inward condition of the mind and spirit. † Yet, â€Å"Perfection, as culture conceives it, is not possible while the individual remains 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 danger 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 freedoms—the â€Å"right to do what [one] likes. † This assumption of personal f reedom can, according to Arnold, lead to anarchy. It looks, then, as if there must be a balance between the individual’s duty to himself, and duty to others.Indeed, Arnold contends, â€Å"the men of culture are the true apostles of equality,† at once extolling the potential of the individual, while maintaining the importance of a level society. However, these individuals cannot be ordinary, but must exemplify Arnold’s idea of the â€Å"best self,† or, the individual who is united, rather than at odds, with others. The people that can become their best self are â€Å"persons who are mainly led, not by their class spirit, but by a general humane spirit, by the love of human perfection. Here, the concept of the individual and the community can be reconciled, although the ability 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, â€Å"Each section of the public has its own literary organ, and the mass of the public is without any suspicion that the value of these organs is relative to their being nearer a certain ideal centre of correct information, taste, and intelligence, or farther away from it. As Arnold depicts England’s current situation, it is clear that he believes that literature, like individuals—or as the product of individuals—should embody an ideal cultural universality. In looking at the literature of Victorian England, is it possible that there are any works, which would satisfy Arnold’s criteria for cultural harmony?