Cultural Analysis: From High Culture Guardians to Working-Class Perspectives

Early Models of Cultural Analysis: The Culture and Civilization Tradition

This section explores influential early models of cultural analysis, often referred to as the “pre-history” of cultural studies, which remain relevant to criticism today. We will examine the approaches of writers known as the “Culture and Civilization Tradition,” who championed authentic high culture, considered it the domain of a minority, and opposed what they perceived as the “barbaric forces” of popular mass culture.

Key Figures

• Matthew Arnold (19th century): A literary critic, poet, and school inspector, known for his work “Culture and Anarchy.”
• F.R. and Q.D. Leavis (early 20th century): A husband-wife duo instrumental in establishing English studies in Britain after World War I, with their historical context rooted in the 19th century.
• T.S. Eliot (20th century): A renowned poet and essayist.

Matthew Arnold: Culture and Anarchy

Arnold’s study of popular culture primarily focused on the concepts of culture and anarchy. He believed that culture stemmed from curiosity, involving a disinterested observation of things as they truly are, coupled with a pursuit of perfection. He argued that British society, dominated by materialism and industrialism, needed his version of culture to foster a more balanced development that prioritized the inner life. Arnold envisioned culture as a force bringing “sweetness and light” to all, acting as a counterbalance to the excesses of the industrial age. He advocated for a national education system to broaden people’s minds and divided society into classes: barbarians (individualistic and focused on appearances), philistines (materialistic and hostile to high culture), and the working class (further divided into those sharing philistine traits and the “populace”). Arnold saw his model of culture as a defense against the threat of anarchy.

F.R. and Q.D. Leavis: Scrutiny and the Critique of Mass Culture

The Leavises, influential critics at Cambridge, extended the debate on mass culture through their journal “Scrutiny.” They followed Arnold’s path, distinguishing between literary “high” culture and the pursuits of ordinary people. They viewed mass culture as a form of passive distraction characterized by standardization and a “leveling down” that appealed to the lowest common denominator. They were particularly concerned about the Americanization of culture and the debasement of language, which they saw as a devaluation of the quality of life and emotions.

T.S. Eliot: Culture and Civilization

Eliot believed that a cultured elite played a crucial role in upholding Christian civilization. He was concerned about the elite’s division and cultural disintegration. He defined culture anthropologically as a “whole way of life,” an all-encompassing view that resonates with contemporary cultural studies. Additionally, he developed the idea of transnational culture, recognizing the mutual influence of different cultures. His work, including “Notes Towards the Definition of Culture,” served as a bridge between the tradition of Arnold, the Leavises, and later authors like Richard Hoggart.

Richard Hoggart and the Working-Class Perspective

Richard Hoggart, a follower of culturalism (using culture to analyze history and society), offered a distinct perspective. Unlike the privileged backgrounds of Arnold and the Leavises, Hoggart came from a working-class family in Leeds. He founded the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies and authored “The Uses of Literacy,” which explored the interconnection between public values and private practices in working-class life.

Comparing and Contrasting Perspectives

Hoggart’s approach differed from the “high culture gladiators” in several ways:

• Focus on the Working Class: Hoggart provided a detailed and authentic insider’s view of working-class culture, emphasizing their identity, everyday lives, and habits.
• Nuanced View of Popular Culture: He did not condemn popular culture as a whole, recognizing the agency of working-class individuals in selecting what they consumed.
• Challenge to Elitist Views: He challenged the simplistic and often biased portrayals of working-class culture presented by the “gladiators,” drawing on his personal knowledge to offer a more nuanced understanding.

However, there were also similarities:

• Linking Culture to Historical Change: Both Hoggart and the “gladiators” recognized the impact of historical change and mass industrial culture on cultural forms.
• Concern for Cultural Decline: They shared a concern for cultural decline, although their views on the nature and causes of this decline differed.
• Importance of Discrimination: Both emphasized the importance of education and discrimination as means of resisting the manipulative aspects of mass culture.

Conclusion

Despite their different historical contexts and perspectives, these early cultural analysts shared common concerns about the relationship between high culture, mass culture, and the working class. Their work laid the foundation for the development of cultural studies as a field and continues to inform contemporary debates about culture and society.