Mass Elite Theorists And Subcultures

MASS-ELITE THEORISTS and SUBCULTURESQuestion : How do you think mass-elite critics such as Morris Bermilitary personnel Allan Bloom , MatthewArnold and F .R . Leavis would respond to media-based sub finishs such as Gothsand Trekkers ? Would they see such groups as a positive developments for conclusion oras further evidence of its blood ? Explain Academic writing is usually best when it takes a dispassionate perspective to its subject when it reviews the several contesting scholarly opinions round a question , before judging the value of distributively of them . But sometimes a writer is given a question that allows him to write destructive criticism , and to champion the merits of integrity argument alone . This founder question is such a question . If one takes a supercilious attitude towards it thence he might expel it at once by arguing that neither Matthew Arnold nor F . R . Leavis - men who desire the promotion of socialization through the essay of high literary productions and the reform of education - would assimilate descended at all to study the sub acculturations of Goths and Trekkers . These groups have produced no serious literature and they have through little to reform education . And so one go off easily cement such a fierce attitude into a strong essay - though one that would sadly be very short and unmarkable ! If instant dismissal is not appropriate , then a writer who has studied Arnold s and Leavis s definitions of culture can argue ceaselessly that neither man would have thought Goths and Trekkers a positive development for cultureA short record about definition . There are of course multiplex definitions of culture . Many recent define culture in terms of mass-culture , within which all groups and subcultures belong . If culture is delimitate like this then Goths and Trekkers are both part of culture and can be said to expand culture by pushing it wider and making it more diverse . Arguments like this are possible but they are not possible for our present question .

In this essay one has to measure these groups against the definitions of Leavis and Arnold sole(prenominal) and leave aside the merits of any modern definitions . Let us then examine the definition of Leavis and ArnoldMatthew Arnold famously defined culture as to ` . know the best that has been said and thought in the world . Someone who is cultured has learnt to perceive beauty , ne plus ultra , truth and justice through literature and art . In Culture and Anarchy and Essays in Criticism Arnold argues that culture is have-to doe with upon education : thus the expansion of culture is possible only if it is accompanied by an equal expansion of education . So : somebody who is highly cultured is also highly amend . F .R . Leavis had a very similar definition of culture Leavis argued even more explicitly than Arnold that thither is an unbreakable alliance between knowledge of the humanities and the acquisition of culture . As G . Steiner says `The commanding axiom in Leavis s life-work is the conviction that there is a close relation between a man s capacity to respond to...If you want to get a copious essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper