The brilliant work of Matthew Arnold (1822–1888) resulted in him getting designated a ‘culturist’ practicing ‘culturism.’ These terms took root and appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary for years. They denote someone who consciously guides society with culture and the practice of doing so. Arnold strove to use cultural teaching to fill the vacuum of the waning church. To the critics he replied that — due to science’s rise — Christianity, however regrettably, would not continue to dominate people’s consciousness. Still, even though, he hoped to use the Bible, as historical literature, as a tool of culturism. And he even produced a school reader of Bible excerpts to this end. Arnold fought against liberalism in the name of culturism. As the title of his most famous book, Culture and Anarchy, implied, if we do not guide society, we will end up with sloth; and in a commercially dominated, individualistic society, sloth leads to degeneracy and anarchy.
We can define ‘liberalism’ as a total rejection of culturism. It is social laissez faire. It argues good social outcomes will result from unfettered individualism. More extremely, it brands any and all attempts to restrict behavior as violations of our sacred (ironically) rights. The Church, herein, becomes an enemy, as it has traditionally set up codes of behavior, and even, at times, violently enforced them. Recently, the Church has embraced liberalism. But, the tension remains. Traditionally, the church practiced a form of culturism, but did so unconsciously, as a matter of faith and fact. We call this ‘socialization.’ It is a natural process. With the church’s decline, Arnold saw we needed to become culturists, to consciously guide our society’s mores via purposefully selecting and promulgating shared cultural beliefs and norms.
We must now touch upon the debate between Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841) and Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852). Philosophically, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (17121778) first championed the idea of the naturally innocent, benevolent child, free and noble until society put him in chains. Froebel turned this into pedagogy. He wanted children to freely engage in whatever they found interesting. This line of thought turned into John Dewey’s (1859–1952) child-centered vision that rules American schools to this day. Herbart, wisely, fought this, as one can neither build character nor true individualism with no information or guidance. Children do not naturally recreate mathematics history or understand their race’s history. We must cram this into them, and this requires either force or, at the very least, mild culturist policies in schools. Herein uniforms show their secret meaning, connoting the need to curtail your individual desires to achieve.
Herein, we reach a paradox: An ignorant individual does not have freedom. When you teach someone math, they can become a mathematician. When you teach someone chemistry, a chemist. A child who is ‘free’ from constraints, will remain unformed. Moreover, they will lack the spine required to fight against mental challenges. As such, they will not even have the fortitude to escape their nothingness. Herbart clashed with William James (1842–1910) for his absolutism concerning ‘free will.’ Herbart argued that the idea of a free, unfettered thinker does not exist outside of the luxury of the academy. As Aristotle, (384 BC–322 BC) noted, we are social animals. We see echoes of this debate in adults who dress as children. When you wear a tie, it shows an infringement on liberalism; it signals a willingness to bend your individualism, your whims, towards a collective goal. A society in which all dress as children does not have free will; it lacks direction and fortitude. Individuals without restraint do not become excellent; they will not long stay ‘free.’
Nature abhors a vacuum. If we do not socialize our people, others will. Frances Kellor (1873–1952) started multiculturalism in America. She highjacked the 4th of July celebrations during World War One to hold ‘Americanization’ events nationwide. These asked long-term Americans to accept immigrants in their native costumes. The culturists’ problem is that when you promote one narrative, you necessarily dampen another. This started the slide to wherein multicultural culturist practices replaced White, European culturism. We now actively teach our White students to hate themselves, their history and culture (largely one and the same). Many theorists’ respond to multiculturalist culturism by promoting individualistic liberalism. Herein, we have the Herbart/Froebel problem. Our nature, especially as youth, calls out for socializing. Youth given no guidance, treated as ‘individuals,’ do not thrive; they search elsewhere for guidance, and if they receive none, they tend towards nihilism.
In the church we saw a relatively light culturism. It required people to show up every Sunday, well-dressed and to lead a moral life on the other days. Matthew Arnold called the Anglican Church a “great national society for the promotion of goodness.” Schools used to socialize. But, our schools have embraced liberalism. And liberalism’s rights-based individualist philosophies have blocked all positive culturism. Educators cannot force students to do anything. On the other extreme, Nazi Germany’s Hitler Youth molded children during nearly every waking hour. It banned the Church’s youth-groups as competitors. And they slighted the children in terms of information in favor of physical activity. Herein, we have heavy culturism that purposely dampens individualism to an extreme. Paradoxically, Nazism’s total control likely gives students more future options than liberalism’s abandonment policies. But neither strike an ideal balance.
We must find a proper balance between the Nazi’s authoritarian culturism and our current laissez faire liberalism. We need a positive culturist curriculum that socializes us to love our group and be willing to sacrifice for it. At a minimum, we must teach that license undermines liberty — individually and collectively. Yet, given our real dire situation, we need a stronger culturism than one might imagine. We must inculcate the power of our group; based on Whites’ historic supremacy. We cannot do this and teach that all cultures are equal. Given our emergency, our schools must have the backbone to teach that Islam is a backwards religion that does not belong in the West. We must have quasi-militant organizations that ask people to wear uniforms, inculcating the nobility of sacrifice. Culturism is eternal. All societies have guided their members to prize their collective identity. Liberalism has never been viable. Erring towards liberalism, in the face of organized rival groups, will not win the upcoming battles. We must create, embrace and enforce a strong form of culturism.
