Mass-elite theorists and subcultures

Academic writing is unremarkably best when it takes a dis fretfulnessate stead to its subject when it reviews the several contesting scholarly opinions nearly a heading, before judging the shelter of each of them. But sometimes a generator is given a question that allows him to write destructive criticism, and to champion the merits of adept argument tho. This present question is much(pre n superstarinal) a question. If angiotensin converting enzyme takes a grand attitude towards it then he mogul expel it at once by arguing that uncomplete Matthew Arnold nor F. R. Leavis men who desire the promotion of subtlety through the salute of high lit and the mitigate of teaching method would have descended at all to understand the sub lasts of Goths and trekkers.These groups have produced no serious literary productions and they have pay little to reform fosterage. And so one crowd out well cement such a scratchy attitude into a strong try though one that would sadly be very myopic and unmarkable If instant outpouring is not appropriate, then a writer who has studied Arnolds and Leaviss expositions of finale fuck argue ceaselessly that n either domain would have thought Goths and Trekkers a positive development for civilisation.A short statement slightly definition. There ar of course manifold definitions of purification. Many new-fashioned writers define polish in damage of mass-culture, within which all groups and subcultures belong. If culture is delimitate wish well this then Goths and Trekkers atomic number 18 two p artistic production of culture and can be verbalize to expand culture by pushing it wider and making it more diverse. Arguments like this are possible and they are not possible for our present question. In this essay one has to measure these groups against the definitions of Leavis and Arnold only and leave aside the merits of any in advance(p) definitions. Let us then go steady the definition of Leavis and Arnold.Matthew Arnold famously define culture as to know the best that has been said and thought in the world. soul who is cultured has learnt to perceive beauty, perfection, truth and legal expert through literature and art. In market-gardening and Anarchy and Essays in lit crit Arnold argues that culture is centered upon education thus the elaboration of culture is possible only if it is come with by an equal expansion of education. So somebody who is highly cultured is as well highly educated. F.R.Leavis had a very analogous definition of culture.Leavis argued heretofore more explicitly than Arnold that there is an unbreakable bond among knowledge of the humanities and the acquisition of culture. As G. Steiner says The commanding axiom in Leaviss manners-work is the conviction that there is a belt up relation between a mans capacity to respond to art and his general fitness for humane existence. disdain the esoteric sound of these words they do say something vi tal well-nigh culture. The find word is humane.Someone who has studied wide works of literature tends to have divulge judgment and is kinder to his fellow man than muckle who have not. Leavis says thinking about cultural and social matters ought to be done by minds of some real literary education, and done in an intellectual climate create by a vital literacy culture. In short a legal culture and monastic order depends upon a turgid number of its citizens studying and thinking about the classics. Leavis famously defined these arguments in his contentious Richmond Lecture should we say polemic? against C. P. Snow.The lecture is Leaviss proposal for the incoming of culture in England. Leavis wanted a small, economically weaker England that would be highly literate person and cultured &8212 instead of a huge commercialized and capitalistic society that would be less literate. Thus we delay in Leavis, as in Arnold, a definition of culture as a society that knows intima tely great works of art. accord to this definition, any group that progresses culture moldiness go beyond the culture that has departed before.Do Goths and Trekkers then affix to what we can learn from Homer, Shakespeare and the Bible? (This is a upright question if measured by the definition above). The answer must be no. The Goth and Trekker subcultures have not produced one serious piece of literature or music even if one stretches esthesis datum Trek into some definition of art, the movies and show are not the invention of Trekkers, but the object of their devotion. Goths claim to have a passion for literature but this passion has not created any literature of their own. in like manner even though it is not one of their aims neither of these groups has done anything to reform education or our universities. We cannot study Goth culture from its literature, because there is not any. But we can examine some of the statements of Goth members to see whether there is any sign of culture as defined by Leavis and Arnold. The hobby article called A Short Treatise on Goth subculture is taken from the internet. The author, Chameleon, says that Goths are defined by a morbid sense of humor, appreciation of the darker side of life, tolerance of lifestyles considered weird by the pot and an apolitical attitude towards society.Rus Haslage, the professorship of the International Federation of Trekkers, says that the philosophy of trekkers is that everyone is different, and it is those differences that make us special. And, it is those differences that make meshing our sparks even more beneficial to us all. In both these statements the common feature is vagueness of importation and purpose.Goths and Trekkers feel some solidarity with each opposite in their interest in the slipway of the Goth or Star Trek but there is no clean-cut or precise thought about the identity and purpose of these groups. To be plumb to each group neither claims to add to the wisdom t hat the great works of literature and art that the West has accumulated but, if we hazard this admission of non-achievement strictly according to the definition of Leavis and Arnold, then the existence of such groups has either no effect or a regressive effect upon culture.BibliographyBooksP. Hodkins, Goth Identity, tendency and SubcultureM. Arnold, Culture and AnarchyM.Arnold, Essays in CriticismH. Jenkins III, Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten Fan indite as Textual PoachingF.R. Leavis, softwood Civilization and Minority Culture, (1930)F.R. Leavis, Nor Shall My Sword Discourses on Pluralism, Compassion and Social Hope (1972)G. Steiner, expression and Silence, Faber and Faber, 1967Websiteswww.iftcommand.comwww.religioustolerance.org