Monday, January 28, 2008
Institution in "Sweetness and Light"
Throughout our initial studies of culture, the idea of institution, whether governmental, religious, or individual, has existed as an inseparable and integral part of our early definitions of the term. When we contemplate culture as a way of life, institutions creep into this definition in the form of governments, churches, schools, etc., which have been and are a significant portion of the daily life of the individual. Even when culture focuses exclusively on the artistic and philosophical aspects of a society, we must consider the institution of the individual and how his personal impressions and conceptions produce and judge the art that defines his culture. Arnold, in his “Sweetness and Light,” however, offers a definition that liberates culture from institution, claiming that culture “is a study of perfection” (Arnold 31). Arnold elaborates on his definition of the perfection being pursued, asserting that perfection “is an harmonious expansion of all the powers which make the beauty and worth of human nature, and is not consistent with the over-development of any one power at the expense of the rest” (Arnold 33). For Arnold, the problem with our initial definitions of culture is that they all involve an institution of one kind or another, which naturally leads to the over-development of one power. Governments glorify their leaders, religions mystify and exalt various deities, and individuals place primacy on the self. Though Arnold identifies the church as the institution that most effectively strives for perfection, he finds fault in its narrow view of perfection, lamenting that it focuses so acutely on the glorification of a deity rather than the achievement of the balanced, general, harmonious perfection of which he speaks. In order to achieve Arnold’s definition of perfection, man must place his focus on humanity, for “perfection is not possible…while the individual remains isolated” (Arnold 33). Each person must subvert his own impulses and desires, ecclipsing them with ideas of how to better the human race. As the title of the book indicates, Arnold calls for a type of personal anarchy, where the individual breaks from the compartmentalizing influences of various institutions and begins to contemplate ways of harmonizing his species. For Arnold, institution inhibits rather than defines culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"When we contemplate culture as a way of life, institutions creep into this definition in the form of governments, churches, schools, etc., which have been and are a significant portion of the daily life of the individual" (Clifford Clark, 2008).
I agree with the above statement, at least from my experience in American society. My life is either directly (in the case of an educational institution, i.e. Emory University) or indirectly (in the case of the government and other political institutions) controlled by societal institutions, and although I chose to be a part of such institutions (either through my own decision or a lack thereof), I feel that I had no choice. Choosing to be a part of this society in general and to benefit from its products (whether material or spiritual) was a choice to be a part of its institutions, and to deny all connections with society would be irrational. Furthermore, a society without many institutions is just one big institution in itself, and in one way or another, there will be people who will benefit more than others, many times at the cost of others, as it is in human nature, I believe, to be selfish.
“In order to achieve Arnold’s definition of perfection, man must place his focus on humanity, for ‘perfection is not possible…while the individual remains isolated’ (Arnold 33). Each person must subvert his own impulses and desires, ecclipsing them with ideas of how to better the human race. As the title of the book indicates, Arnold calls for a type of personal anarchy, where the individual breaks from the compartmentalizing influences of various institutions and begins to contemplate ways of harmonizing his species. For Arnold, institution inhibits rather than defines culture” (Clifford Clark, 2008).
Now after asserting my belief that humans are innately selfish, I seem to imply that it is not possible for “man [to] place his focus on humanity” and achieve “a type of personal anarchy” (Clark, 2008). It is possible, but only by overcoming this selfishness, and to overcome it, one has to benefit from moral and spiritual enlightenment that, among many other principles, teaches the opposite--selflessness. Thus, if selflessness and a dedication to the betterment of humanity are the solution to achieving culture (as implied by Arnold), then such things must be taught and exemplified by all institutions of a society in order for the institutions to define culture (this is based on the assumption that a society cannot be without institutions, which I encourage you all to contest if you do not agree, and also on Arnold's definition of culture as "a study of perfection" (Arnold 31) and "an harmonious expansion of all the powers which make the beauty and worth of human nature" (Arnold 33)).
Post a Comment