> Nevertheless, for all the faults of the state, Arnold thought (Culture and
> Anarchy) that rebellion against the State was both irrational and, as the
> State was the sacred embodiment of the "best", as the embodiment of culture,
> even blasphemous.
How Hegelian of him. It probably was, as you say, the State as
distinct from any actually existing state(s). And possibly "the Best"
as distinct from any actually existing valuations or their objects.
It's possible to cleave to such notions whilst deploring the grubby
exigencies of state-craft and of canon-formation, "as currently
understood and practised".
I do remember trying to read Arnold and not getting terribly far;
similarly with Leavis. I started out with some sympathy for what would
nowadays be considered a contrarian position, and felt that sympathy
evaporate fairly quickly as I found out what they actually had to say
for themselves.
Dominic
|