Name- Vyas Nupur Hiteshbhai.
Roll number- 39
Subject- The Victorian literature
Batch- 2015-2017
Submitted to Department of English, MKBU, India, Gujarat( Bhvnagar).
Email id- nupurvyas1995@gmail.com
Assingnment topic- Doing as one likes : Matthew Arnold
Introduction-
Matthew Arnold, in the first chapter of "culture and Anarchy "-'Sweetness and Light'- has tried to show that culture is the study and pursuit of perfection ; and sweetness and light, are the main characters. But hitherto he has been insisting chiefly on beauty , or sweetness , as a character of perfection . To complete rightly his design , it evidently remains to speak also of intelligence, or light, as a character of perfection. In this chapter to bring home his point of Anarchy, he speaks of light as one of the characters of perfection , and of culture as giving us light.
Dangers of 'Doing As One Likes' in Society : Personal Liberty : Freedom :
It is said that a man with the theories of sweetness and light is full of antipathy against the roughter or coarser movements going on around him , that he will not lend a hand to the humble opration of uprooting evil by their means , and that therefore the believers in action grow impatient with him . But what if rough and coarse , ill-calculated action, action with insufficient light, is bane (curse) on society? What if society's urgent want now is, not to act at any price,but rather to lay in a stock of light for its difficulties? In that case, to refuse to lend a hand to the rougher and coarser movements going on round, is surely the best and in real truth the most practical line.
Freedom of doing as one likes, according to Arnold, was one of those things which english thus worshipped in itself, without enough regarding the ends for which freedom is to be desired. He agrees with the prevalent notion that it is a most happy and important thing for man merely to be able to do as he likes. But the problem is "on what he is to do when he is thus free to do as he likes , we do not lay so much strees ". Even though the British Constitution and liberal practitioners like Mr.bright forcibly say that - "British Constitition is a system which stops and paralyses any power in interfering with the free action of individuals that the central idea of English life and politics is the assertion of personal liberty", yet Arnold fears this very right and happiness of an Englishman to do what he likes may drif the entire society towards ANARCHY.
Its outcome on Middle & Working Class:
Again, Arnold gives an example of Middle class and working class, to prove how 'doing as one likes' may bring chaos and anarchy in society : He writes in this essay.
Our middle class , the great representative of trade and Dissent , with its maxims of everyman for himself in business , every man for himself in religion, dreads a powerful administration which might some how interfere with it; and besides, it has its own decorative inutilities of vertrymanship and guardianship and a stringent administration might either take these functions out of its hands, or prevent its exercising them in its own comfortable , independent manner ,as at present.
Then as to our working class. This class, pressed constantly by the hard daily compulsion of material wants, is naturally the very centre and stronghold of our national idea , that it is man's ideal right and felicity to do, as he likes".
In short, Arnold strongy believed that Our masses are quite as raw and uncultivated as the French; and so far from their having the idea of public duty and of discipline". And that if this concept of freedom is rampant in the nation ,it will soon be the need of the hour to civilized the nation of barbarians by the conscription (compulsory enrollment).
Its Consequences on Hyde Park Protesters / Dissenters:
Arnold gives yet another example of Hyde Park protesters and dissenters to prove how chaotic the world becomes as a consequences of doing as one likes :let us put it in Arnold 's own ironic style
"But with the Hyde Park rioter how different! They are our own flesh and blood ; they are a Protesters ; they are framed by nature to do as we do, hate what we hate , love what we love ; the question of questions , for them , is a wages question".
How, indeed, should their overwhelming strength act, when the man who gives an inflammatory lecture , or breaks down the park railings, or invades a Secretary of State's office, is only ffollowing an Englishman's impulse to do as he likes ; and our own conscience tells us that we ourselves have always regarded this impulse as something primary and sacred ? Mr. Murphy lectures at Birmingham , and showers on the Catholic population of that town 'words', says the Home Secretary , 'only fit to be addressed to thieves or murderers'.
Arnold, in his crystal clear style , blames the strong belief in Freedom for such anarchy in society. He says that English are so obsessed with the notion of freedom in doing as one likes that they became careless of right reason- intelligence.
A principle of authority to counteract the tendency to ANARCHY:
Now, if culture , which simply means trying to perfect oneself, and one's mind , brings us light, and if light shows us that there is nothing so very blessed in merely doing as one likes, that the worship of the mere freedom to do as one likes is worship of machinery, that the really blessed thing is to like what right reason order, and to follow her authority , then one has got a practical benefit out of culture. The urgent need of society is much- wanted principle , a principle of authority , to counteract the tendency to anarchy , which seems to be threatening society.
But again the big problem , according to Arnold is "who should be entrusted with this authority?" According to Carlyle it is the Aristocratic class, for Mr.Lowe ,it is the middle class and for the Reform League, it is the working class to whom the authority to judge the right by light - reason should be given. But, at the end of a very long disquisition ( A formal discourse on a subject , often in writing), Arnold says ...." that we can as little find in the working class as in the aristocratic or in the middle class our much-wanted sourse of authority , as culture suggests it to us ". He is of the view that all these three classes are honest, they have got the 'sweetness' essential for 'Culture' ; but what they lack in different proportions is 'LIGHT'. People of the aristocratic class want to affirm their ordinary selves , their likings and disliking ; people of the middle class the same , people of the working class the same.
As a result , Arnold verbalize that: By our every-day selves, however , we are separate , personal, at war, we are only safe from one another's tyranny when no one has any power; and this safety , in its turn , cannot save us from anarchy. And when, therefore, anarchy presents itself as a danger to us , we know not where to turn.
OUR BEST SELF: the ultimate guardian of principle of authority:
As all the classes fails to pass Arnold's standard to hold the guardianship of the principle of authority to counteract Anarchy, Arnold suggests our best selves- to whom the authority must be given "because it is the truest friend we all of us can have ;and when anarchy is a danger to us, to this authority we may turn with sure trust" Arnold says firmly that " we want an authority , and we find nothing but jealous classes, cheks, and a deadlock; culture suggests the idea of the state. We find no basis for a firm State-power in our ordinary selves; culture suggests one to us in "OUR BEST SELF".
Conclusion
Thus to conclude we may say that for Arnold , OUR BEST SELF which culture, or the study of perfection , seeks to develop in us is the eventual remedy for anarchy is society. In his concluding paragraph Arnold quotes Bishop Wilson to prove himself in asserting , how important is intelligence and reason to judge right, in doing as one likes :
Firstly never go against the best light you have ;
Secondly take care that your light be not darkness,
"English have followed," writes Arnold to conclude second chapter, with praiseworthy zeal the first rule but we have not given so much heed to the second. We have done according to the best light we have; but we have not taken enough care that this should be really the best light possible for us . That is should not be darkness. And our honesty being very great, conscience has whispered to us that the light we were following, our ordinary self, was, perhaps, only darkness.
Roll number- 39
Subject- The Victorian literature
Batch- 2015-2017
Submitted to Department of English, MKBU, India, Gujarat( Bhvnagar).
Email id- nupurvyas1995@gmail.com
Assingnment topic- Doing as one likes : Matthew Arnold
Introduction-
Matthew Arnold, in the first chapter of "culture and Anarchy "-'Sweetness and Light'- has tried to show that culture is the study and pursuit of perfection ; and sweetness and light, are the main characters. But hitherto he has been insisting chiefly on beauty , or sweetness , as a character of perfection . To complete rightly his design , it evidently remains to speak also of intelligence, or light, as a character of perfection. In this chapter to bring home his point of Anarchy, he speaks of light as one of the characters of perfection , and of culture as giving us light.
Dangers of 'Doing As One Likes' in Society : Personal Liberty : Freedom :
It is said that a man with the theories of sweetness and light is full of antipathy against the roughter or coarser movements going on around him , that he will not lend a hand to the humble opration of uprooting evil by their means , and that therefore the believers in action grow impatient with him . But what if rough and coarse , ill-calculated action, action with insufficient light, is bane (curse) on society? What if society's urgent want now is, not to act at any price,but rather to lay in a stock of light for its difficulties? In that case, to refuse to lend a hand to the rougher and coarser movements going on round, is surely the best and in real truth the most practical line.
Freedom of doing as one likes, according to Arnold, was one of those things which english thus worshipped in itself, without enough regarding the ends for which freedom is to be desired. He agrees with the prevalent notion that it is a most happy and important thing for man merely to be able to do as he likes. But the problem is "on what he is to do when he is thus free to do as he likes , we do not lay so much strees ". Even though the British Constitution and liberal practitioners like Mr.bright forcibly say that - "British Constitition is a system which stops and paralyses any power in interfering with the free action of individuals that the central idea of English life and politics is the assertion of personal liberty", yet Arnold fears this very right and happiness of an Englishman to do what he likes may drif the entire society towards ANARCHY.
Its outcome on Middle & Working Class:
Again, Arnold gives an example of Middle class and working class, to prove how 'doing as one likes' may bring chaos and anarchy in society : He writes in this essay.
Our middle class , the great representative of trade and Dissent , with its maxims of everyman for himself in business , every man for himself in religion, dreads a powerful administration which might some how interfere with it; and besides, it has its own decorative inutilities of vertrymanship and guardianship and a stringent administration might either take these functions out of its hands, or prevent its exercising them in its own comfortable , independent manner ,as at present.
Then as to our working class. This class, pressed constantly by the hard daily compulsion of material wants, is naturally the very centre and stronghold of our national idea , that it is man's ideal right and felicity to do, as he likes".
In short, Arnold strongy believed that Our masses are quite as raw and uncultivated as the French; and so far from their having the idea of public duty and of discipline". And that if this concept of freedom is rampant in the nation ,it will soon be the need of the hour to civilized the nation of barbarians by the conscription (compulsory enrollment).
Its Consequences on Hyde Park Protesters / Dissenters:
Arnold gives yet another example of Hyde Park protesters and dissenters to prove how chaotic the world becomes as a consequences of doing as one likes :let us put it in Arnold 's own ironic style
"But with the Hyde Park rioter how different! They are our own flesh and blood ; they are a Protesters ; they are framed by nature to do as we do, hate what we hate , love what we love ; the question of questions , for them , is a wages question".
How, indeed, should their overwhelming strength act, when the man who gives an inflammatory lecture , or breaks down the park railings, or invades a Secretary of State's office, is only ffollowing an Englishman's impulse to do as he likes ; and our own conscience tells us that we ourselves have always regarded this impulse as something primary and sacred ? Mr. Murphy lectures at Birmingham , and showers on the Catholic population of that town 'words', says the Home Secretary , 'only fit to be addressed to thieves or murderers'.
Arnold, in his crystal clear style , blames the strong belief in Freedom for such anarchy in society. He says that English are so obsessed with the notion of freedom in doing as one likes that they became careless of right reason- intelligence.
A principle of authority to counteract the tendency to ANARCHY:
Now, if culture , which simply means trying to perfect oneself, and one's mind , brings us light, and if light shows us that there is nothing so very blessed in merely doing as one likes, that the worship of the mere freedom to do as one likes is worship of machinery, that the really blessed thing is to like what right reason order, and to follow her authority , then one has got a practical benefit out of culture. The urgent need of society is much- wanted principle , a principle of authority , to counteract the tendency to anarchy , which seems to be threatening society.
But again the big problem , according to Arnold is "who should be entrusted with this authority?" According to Carlyle it is the Aristocratic class, for Mr.Lowe ,it is the middle class and for the Reform League, it is the working class to whom the authority to judge the right by light - reason should be given. But, at the end of a very long disquisition ( A formal discourse on a subject , often in writing), Arnold says ...." that we can as little find in the working class as in the aristocratic or in the middle class our much-wanted sourse of authority , as culture suggests it to us ". He is of the view that all these three classes are honest, they have got the 'sweetness' essential for 'Culture' ; but what they lack in different proportions is 'LIGHT'. People of the aristocratic class want to affirm their ordinary selves , their likings and disliking ; people of the middle class the same , people of the working class the same.
As a result , Arnold verbalize that: By our every-day selves, however , we are separate , personal, at war, we are only safe from one another's tyranny when no one has any power; and this safety , in its turn , cannot save us from anarchy. And when, therefore, anarchy presents itself as a danger to us , we know not where to turn.
OUR BEST SELF: the ultimate guardian of principle of authority:
As all the classes fails to pass Arnold's standard to hold the guardianship of the principle of authority to counteract Anarchy, Arnold suggests our best selves- to whom the authority must be given "because it is the truest friend we all of us can have ;and when anarchy is a danger to us, to this authority we may turn with sure trust" Arnold says firmly that " we want an authority , and we find nothing but jealous classes, cheks, and a deadlock; culture suggests the idea of the state. We find no basis for a firm State-power in our ordinary selves; culture suggests one to us in "OUR BEST SELF".
Conclusion
Thus to conclude we may say that for Arnold , OUR BEST SELF which culture, or the study of perfection , seeks to develop in us is the eventual remedy for anarchy is society. In his concluding paragraph Arnold quotes Bishop Wilson to prove himself in asserting , how important is intelligence and reason to judge right, in doing as one likes :
Firstly never go against the best light you have ;
Secondly take care that your light be not darkness,
"English have followed," writes Arnold to conclude second chapter, with praiseworthy zeal the first rule but we have not given so much heed to the second. We have done according to the best light we have; but we have not taken enough care that this should be really the best light possible for us . That is should not be darkness. And our honesty being very great, conscience has whispered to us that the light we were following, our ordinary self, was, perhaps, only darkness.
