Readings - M. Arnold and F.R. Leavis (Week 1)

This week's readings included sections from Matthew Arnold's 'Culture and Anarchy' and F.R. Leavis' 'Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture.' 

Before I began reading Arnold's work, I decided to ascertain the definition for anarchy, as I know the word but I do not know its direct meaning. I found the definition to be, "a state of disorder due to absence of authority." This helped me to determine more of what the reading may be about overall. Arnold wrote the text in 1869, as opposed to Levis' text which was written a lot later in 1933. Arnold talks about culture being a pursuit of our total perfection and how people use culture to try and alter themselves. He mentions the social idea of culture and how it seeks to do away with the class structure. In the 1800s, people tried to indoctrinate the masses with their own ideas and beliefs such as religion and politics, and the upper class heavily pushed their essence on to the lower and middle class. Arnold further discusses humanity and how although culture teaches us the frameworks for society  a lot of people try to break the mould and prevail. He concludes with saying that without order, there can be no society and therefore no human perfection; "We will look forward to... hopefully a revolution."

F.R. Leavis published his work in 1933, about 60 years after Arnold, therefore I knew their opinions would differ due to difference in society and culture. Leavis begins by commenting that it was easier in Arnold's time and that the meaning of the word "culture" is a lot more broad now. Leavis goes on to discuss how things change quickly over time, for example how different generations find it difficult to adapt to each nowadays with the advancement of technology etc. He refers to Americanisation, which is the assimilation of the American culture, and how our culture is going through this process. Another point he makes is about how films have a huge influence on us. Motion pictures tell stories that are more widely understood due to their simplicity and "vivid illusion of real life." Leavis comments on how these films are a measure to understand and believe, nevertheless they encourage people to know a little about a lot instead of certain things in detail, causing the mind to not be actively used as it should be. 

I found both of these readings interesting in different ways. Leavis' text was easier to understand and relate to as it was more up to date, however it was beneficial to compare Arnold's along side this.