Sweetness and Light Matthew Arnold 1869 The British

«Sweetness and Light» Matthew Arnold 1869

The British critic, writer, and poet Matthew Arnold’s essay «Sweetness and Light» is taken from his seminal work Culture and Anarchy. Arnold uses the phrase «sweetness and light» to define culture which he sees as a combination of beauty and intelligence. To him, culture is a true sense of perfection.

Arnold engages with the notion of culture in a comparative framework. He explores the connotations of the word, associating it with curiosity initially, but in a positive context arguing against those who saw curiosity as a negative trait. • Disparagers of culture (those who belittle culture) view curiosity as a highly personal and vain pursuit. (for Arnold, this is wrong) • They disapprove of curiosity due to its negative associations (i. e. curiosity killed the cat). • The culture which takes pride in the superficial knowledge of Greek and Latin is also motivated by curiosity. But to Arnold, this view of culture – one that equates culture with classical learning – does not give the true meaning of culture since it is used as «an engine of social and class distinction, separating its holder like a badge or title. »

Arnold defines culture as a study of perfection. To him, there are two components of culture: Sweetness = moral and social passion for doing good, beauty Light = scientific passion for pure knowledge, intelligence

In his discussion, he compares culture with religion, Puritan ideals, and fanaticism. He begins with pointing out some similarities between religion and the motivations of culture. He states that religion is the «voice of the deepest human experience» and in that respect it overlaps with the great aim of culture – that is, «the aim of setting ourselves to ascertain what perfection is and to make it prevail. » He indicates that both religion and culture aim for «endless growth in wisdom and beauty. »

Arnold highlights the way culture encourages an unbiased study of human nature and human experience, viewing culture as a trope that includes «a harmonious expansion of all the powers» without favouring «one power at the expense of the rest. » In this respect, culture, as Arnold argues, «goes beyond religion, as religion is generally conceived by us» , whereas culture aims for a «general expansion. »

To Arnold, the idea of general expansion should not be limited to a personal experience, it should be inclusive of every one. Therefore, he states that the idea of perfection that is intrinsic to culture opposes «strong individualism» encapsulated in the saying «every man for himself. »

Arnold is also critical of «faith in machinery. » He calls people who are preoccupied with materialism Philistines – people who do not appreciate high culture. He is worried about the consequences of a potential urban Philistine culture.

In his work, he revisits the Greek philosopher Epictetus’ ideas regarding human nature: • Not finely tempered nature represents Philistines who prioritise materialism over moral and intellectual passions. • Finely tempered nature represents people who tend towards sweetness and light.

Arnold also compares culture with the Puritan ideal, and argues that the Puritan’s ideal of perfection remains «narrow and inadequate» compared to the depiction of human nature «complete on all its sides» by «men of culture and poetry» such as Virgil and Shakespeare.

Drawing on culture’s «single-minded love of perfection» , Arnold compares culture with fanaticism. But he argues that fanaticism is rigid and in its rigidity it does not make room for «the flexibility which sweetness and light give. »

Arnold points out the essence of culture as follows: • «culture looks beyond machinery» • «culture hates hatred» • «culture has one great passion, the passion for sweetness and light» • and make all these ideals prevail.

Most importantly, in his work Arnold stresses that culture, different from religious and political organisations, embodies a «social idea» in that it seeks to eradicate social classes. For this reason, Arnold refers to «men of culture» as «the true apostles of equality» and views them with respect due to their mission to spread knowledge and moral values.

Arnold’s ideas obviously bear utilitarian overtones, but what seems conflicting is that on the one hand he promotes social equality, on the other he stresses «the will of God» , advocating the idea of a «universal order» which people should accept for happiness, or otherwise risk «misery» . This idea of Arnold represents the Victorian status quo as it tends to reproduce the very class dynamics that Arnold negates throughout his work.