Faith in machinery is, I said, our besetting danger; often in machinery most absurdly disproportioned to the end which this machinery, if it is to do any good at all, is to serve; but always in machinery, as if it had a value in and for itself. What is freedom but machinery? what is population but machinery? what is coal but machinery? what are railroads but machinery? what is wealth but machinery? what are, even, religious organisations but machinery?
Machinery is metaphorical here. Arnold is not discussing actual machines; this is not a diatribe against the Industrial Revolution. Machinery is the opposite of culture; it is the propaganda of an assumption of truth not as they actually are but as one wishes to believe them to be. The machinery of belief and trust and wisdom is man-made and does not derive from the designed of perfection which mandates a controlling mind capable of understanding perfection first and foremost.
Culture looks beyond machinery, culture hates hatred; culture has one great passion, the passion for sweetness.
Even those who may find fault with Arnold’s developmental system for delineating what culture is and how anarchy presents an existential threat have still enjoyed reading the essays over time for the sheer literary enjoyment of the experience. Arnold’s skill with language and his wit is often pointed out as well as an ironic touch that is notable out of sync with the lack of subtlety in conveying modern writing through that particular tone. The little phrase here “culture hates hatred” could seem impossibly untended to some readers, but it is a rather safe bet that Arnold was more than aware of the effect here. He was almost beyond all reason not just aware, but the architect of that effect. It is an example of how the very same words strung together in the same way can be a demonstration of bad writing by a bad writer and effective writing by a talented writer.
…because of our want of light to enable us to look beyond machinery to the end for which machinery is valuable, this and that man, and this and that body of men, all over the country, are beginning to assert and put in practice an Englishman's right to do what he likes; his right to march where he likes, meet where he likes, enter where he likes, hoot as he likes, threaten as he likes, smash as he likes. All this, I say, tends to anarchy.
To be sure, there is much in the content to critique. One can certainly enjoy Arnold’s ability to write his opinions without necessarily agreeing with them. That said, it is always best to read carefully, however, because Arnold is sometimes quite the master of saying something with the greatest sincerity that is actually intended to be understood ironically. This excerpt, in fact, is an excellent. Try reading it through twice. The first time change nothing. On the second reading, however, upon reaching the final word, try substituting “democracy” in place of anarchy. Then ask the necessary question: is Arnold being impossibly subtle in his vicious exercise of irony with this assertion or is he, in fact, is an privileged aristocratic Barbarian unwilling to share the good life with the lower classes?
“…see(ing) things as they (really) are…”
The single most quoted phrase to be found in the text are the various permutations of the same essential though encapsulated here. This is because it is foundational for the author’s definition of culture. Culture is all about the conceptualization of perfection: a blending of apprehended knowledge with the willingness to reject the urge to tailor that recognition to personal expectations. Culture is not just truth; it is truth accepted as fact.
