J103-Reading Analysis-4/10: Mass Civilisation and Minority Culture; 10th October 2006.

In this reading F.R. Leavis criticises that which has been said in the previous passage by Matthew Arnold. The main reason for this is the gulf of time between the two men. I believe that the two men (had they been put together) would have seen eye to eye about the importance of high culture and who has reign over it, but would spend their time together fighting over a means to get back to ‘the good old days’ and the factors required to do so!
It is clear to see why John Storey has placed these two thinkers together and at the beginning of his collection of essays. Leavis, being the later of the two has the benefit of seeing whether what Arnold foretold had come true.
It is clear that both Arnold and Leavis both believed that there are a select few within society that can fully appreciate and pass “unprompted, first-hand judgement” on different aspects of culture. The differences between the two men start here; in Arnold’s essay he becomes festooned within the complexities of this ability to obtain “Sweetness and Light”, Leavis is far more concerned with how society changed in the sixty years between the two essays and how complicated this issue had become.
Leavis’ analogy of the “currency based upon a very small proportion of gold” has several uses. He alludes to the ideas of cultural capital and the methods with which status is acquired and exchanged among the populace. What this small phrase also denotes is the delicacy of the balance between Culture and Anarchy that Arnold discusses in his essay. There is a chronology to his arguments that should be understood before you assess how effective this “pamphlet” is. Leavis uses two quotes from his contemporary and father of the new criticism movement: Ivor Armstrong Richards. A man born five years after Matthew Arnold’s death, he seems to be held in high regard by Leavis and is used by him to explain Arnold’s ideas of an elite class more fully.
The author uses the elite with care. He defends their existence and shows that they are the ones that “keep alive the subtlest and most perishable parts of tradition.” Like Arnold he holds the elite in high regard, but goes further to explain what they are defending against and how this is threatening our advancement. Far from being domineering in his vision of what the future must hold, he seems far more paternal. He is concerned about technology and machinery in particular and concludes that at present it is our true master and that maybe, with more of his kind of leadership, it will become the tool that it has always promised it would be.
He touches upon Americanisation. He clarifies this term and suggests that a wider view is required when touching upon this subject. He argues that people “who are most defiant of America do not propose to reverse the processes consequent on the machine.” What he is basically saying here is that ‘Americanisation’ has given us a great deal, but we should be wary of what it is doing to our behaviour through it’s ‘standardisation’ through broadcasting and mass media/production.
Leavis’ style and language, although somewhat convoluted, is simple enough to understand and I think achieves its aim of drumming up support to stem the tide of rapid technological development and all the pitfalls that it creates for our traditions and existing cultures.