4 ms·

Culture in Matthew Arnold's definition is the pursuit of human perfection. Different cultures have different norms of human perfection, and pursue different th

Culture in Matthew Arnold's definition is the pursuit of human perfection. Different cultures have different norms of human perfection, and pursue different things; this fits Spengler's (the real one's) idea that a culture has a core proposition. Within a civilization, high culture is a culture's full expression of itself; it seeks out and engages with the contradictory or self-defeating parts of its values, and tries to advance the culture's understanding of what perfection is and how it can be attained. (What the postmodernists call deconstruction, and Gardiner called "high parody," is a fundamental part of this process.) Low culture is mindless entertainment; it doesn't try to shape its consumers in any positive way, and certainly doesn't advance the society's understanding of its ideals. Middlebrow/bourgeois culture tries to be high culture and fails -- but typically fails intentionally. (To be at the forefront of understanding is prestigious but uncomfortable, and the middle class wants prestige but not discomfort.) Mass culture is typically low, since low culture sells, but can rise to middle or high. Low culture, and occasionally middlebrow or mass culture, can produce things that high culture finds interesting and takes up -- and high culture can similarly cross-fertilize downwards. See Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe for some very interesting discussion of this, which was more common then than it is today. "Culture" historically means "high culture": the thrust towards self-improvement, plus the continued refinement of what exactly you're trying to self-improve towards. This sounds uniquely Western (especially modern Western -- "Faustian" in Spengler's terminology), but you see the same process in other parts of the world, especially in East Asia. The catch is that you can't engage in high culture without access to high culture -- so perhaps it's unreasonable of me to condemn poor rural areas for not participating in it. Or perhaps not? It's not just mass culture that the Internet makes available. Regardless, it's high culture -- or at least middlebrow culture, which is regrettably easy to mistake for it -- that reverend_gonzo was lamenting lack of access to.

humanrebar 10y ago
> It's not just mass culture that the Internet makes available. That whole discourse assumes things about actualized humanity that cannot be taken as granted. Who's to say that earning a simple living, caring for a family well, and being virtuous isn't perfect in itself? Who's to say that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain isn't a form of perfection? Who's to say that the human perfection isn't a distraction from the commands of a perfect deity? > The catch is that you can't engage in high culture without access to high culture That presumes that "high culture" can't be simple, commonly available, or digitally transmitted. It also presumes a one-size-fits-everyone kind of culture and not a more atomized, long-tail description of how cultures are formed, evolved, and maintained. In more concrete terminology, why should large orchestral pieces be high musical culture? Maybe perfection is really about inclusion, peace, and affection. In that case, a receptive crowd, a guy with a guitar, and some lively tunes is all you need. Or even just a good playlist. And that's why I push back against all the "life is clearly better in mega-cities" attitude. It's a zero-sum game to only evaluate culture in relative terms. I don't think we're doomed to live in a world the poorest and least connected wallow in cultural poverty and the wealthiest and best connected are privileged with cultural riches. I think life is simpler and better than that.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  > That whole discourse assumes things about actualized humanity that cannot be taken as granted. Who's to say that earning a simple living, caring for a family well, and being virtuous isn't perfect in itself? Who's to say that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain isn't a form of perfection? Who's to say that the human perfection isn't a distraction from the commands of a perfect deity? I'd say that the high-low-middle-mass divide is universal, but the goals that a given high culture aims for are different from civilization to civilization. This includes West European (including New England) versus Celtic (more or less including the South, descended mostly from the Anglo-Scottish Borderers and the West Country). In the particular areas you're asking about, though, I see contradictions. Being virtuous doesn't have much of a history of being compatible with seeking pleasure and avoiding pain; but being virtuous is a form of human perfection, in fact the one that Aristotle would endorse most readily, and I fail to see how following God becomes easier if you're less able to follow Him. As for earning a simple living, well, look at the website you're on and its long history of destroying the ability to earn them... On the second point, though, I feel misrepresented. I explicitly said that "it's not just mass culture that the Internet makes available" -- although if you don't share the goals of a given high culture, there's no point in participating it. What does a Celtic high culture look like? Such a culture definitely existed in the Middle Ages, especially in Ireland, but it's been on ice for centuries... In music, an orchestra can just plain produce sounds that a guy with a guitar can't. There's also more of a filtering effect, which tends to weed out junk... but bigger and/or more formal music don't always mean better music. Music theory can become a burden, and the pentatonic scale is extremely expressive for something that has half the notes of twelve-tone scales; the Irish session is a different sort of thing from a Western quartet or band, with a different set of objectives. And music is something it's good to participate in, which is something in the guy with guitar's favor. Still, whatever a Celtic (or Quaker? or who knows what else) high culture might look like, there's not much participation in it in the US countryside, certainly not in any organized and visible form (although a lot of cultural activity of all sorts is on the Web these days). I feel like Western high culture leaves a few things out, but I'd rather be around someone else's culture than around cultural passivity -- although Western culture has a horrible case of the middlebrows here in the US. (Has it always? I wouldn't rule it out.) But if you want to specifically say that life isn't better in the mega-cities: I like urban living, especially walking to work. Of course, that gets challenging and expensive even in the mega-cities; the US needs more walkable areas, more narrow streets, and more trains, subways, and commuter rail. Rents low enough to raise families in the cities wouldn't hurt, either...

humanrebar 10y ago

> It's not just mass culture that the Internet makes available. That whole discourse assumes things about actualized humanity that cannot be taken as granted. Who's to say that earning a simple living, caring for a family well, and being virtuous isn't perfect in itself? Who's to say that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain isn't a form of perfection? Who's to say that the human perfection isn't a distraction from the commands of a perfect deity? > The catch is that you can't engage in high culture without access to high culture That presumes that "high culture" can't be simple, commonly available, or digitally transmitted. It also presumes a one-size-fits-everyone kind of culture and not a more atomized, long-tail description of how cultures are formed, evolved, and maintained. In more concrete terminology, why should large orchestral pieces be high musical culture? Maybe perfection is really about inclusion, peace, and affection. In that case, a receptive crowd, a guy with a guitar, and some lively tunes is all you need. Or even just a good playlist. And that's why I push back against all the "life is clearly better in mega-cities" attitude. It's a zero-sum game to only evaluate culture in relative terms. I don't think we're doomed to live in a world the poorest and least connected wallow in cultural poverty and the wealthiest and best connected are privileged with cultural riches. I think life is simpler and better than that.

clock_tower 10y ago
> That whole discourse assumes things about actualized humanity that cannot be taken as granted. Who's to say that earning a simple living, caring for a family well, and being virtuous isn't perfect in itself? Who's to say that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain isn't a form of perfection? Who's to say that the human perfection isn't a distraction from the commands of a perfect deity? I'd say that the high-low-middle-mass divide is universal, but the goals that a given high culture aims for are different from civilization to civilization. This includes West European (including New England) versus Celtic (more or less including the South, descended mostly from the Anglo-Scottish Borderers and the West Country). In the particular areas you're asking about, though, I see contradictions. Being virtuous doesn't have much of a history of being compatible with seeking pleasure and avoiding pain; but being virtuous is a form of human perfection, in fact the one that Aristotle would endorse most readily, and I fail to see how following God becomes easier if you're less able to follow Him. As for earning a simple living, well, look at the website you're on and its long history of destroying the ability to earn them... On the second point, though, I feel misrepresented. I explicitly said that "it's not just mass culture that the Internet makes available" -- although if you don't share the goals of a given high culture, there's no point in participating it. What does a Celtic high culture look like? Such a culture definitely existed in the Middle Ages, especially in Ireland, but it's been on ice for centuries... In music, an orchestra can just plain produce sounds that a guy with a guitar can't. There's also more of a filtering effect, which tends to weed out junk... but bigger and/or more formal music don't always mean better music. Music theory can become a burden, and the pentatonic scale is extremely expressive for something that has half the notes of twelve-tone scales; the Irish session is a different sort of thing from a Western quartet or band, with a different set of objectives. And music is something it's good to participate in, which is something in the guy with guitar's favor. Still, whatever a Celtic (or Quaker? or who knows what else) high culture might look like, there's not much participation in it in the US countryside, certainly not in any organized and visible form (although a lot of cultural activity of all sorts is on the Web these days). I feel like Western high culture leaves a few things out, but I'd rather be around someone else's culture than around cultural passivity -- although Western culture has a horrible case of the middlebrows here in the US. (Has it always? I wouldn't rule it out.) But if you want to specifically say that life isn't better in the mega-cities: I like urban living, especially walking to work. Of course, that gets challenging and expensive even in the mega-cities; the US needs more walkable areas, more narrow streets, and more trains, subways, and commuter rail. Rents low enough to raise families in the cities wouldn't hurt, either...