A DEFINITION OF CULTURE

New Zealand Listener, Volume 21, Issue 522, 24 June 1949, Page 5

A DEFINITION OF CULTURE

pit,it is regrettaDie that &, A. Olssen takes so many words to say that he does not like Dr. Beaglehole’s review of Eliot’s Notes Towards a Definition of Culture without succeeding in saying on what grounds he disagrees. It appears that your correspondent is one of the unfortunate admirers of Mr. Eliot’s pontifical mannerisms and is irked by Dr. Beaglehole’s forthright opposition to Eliot’s sentimental attachment to "culture." Your correspondent offers only one point of actual criticism: he pours scorn on Dr. Beaglehole for saying that Eliot wishes to revive the 18th Century; when Eliot does not even mention. the 18th Century. If your reviewer were more widely acquainted with both Eliot’s work and the history of Europe he would realise that that is in fact exactly what Eliot meantthough he may have refrained from saying so because he presumed he could rely on a minimum of knowledge in his readers. The issue, however, goes deeper; and I wish Dr. Beaglehole had not been so lenient towards Eliot. Eliot is a newcomer to European culture, always desperately self-conscious of his colonial background; and lest he be found out, he had made himself the intransigent defender of all those cultural values which have actually already been discarded, The real vitality of Western culture ,is about to create a society which is similar to modern democratic colonial society. Eliot fears that he | might give himself away as a colonial

if he approved of those vaiues of Western society which correspond to the ideals of the New World. It is not surprising therefore to find that Eliot’s style of writing is tortuous and that his

thought processes are involved and incoherent, The form of his prose betrays the lack of integrity of the man. If his integrity were above suspicion he would face the issue of change and employ his gifts in finding out what new values we could aim at in our rapidly changing social pattern. But his pompous lack of imagination forces him to abide by the old. What a deplorable contrast ‘to A. N, Whitehead, who said just before his death in the U.S.A. two years ago that he welcomed even the atomic age because it would reveal a new horizon to the human mind.

PETER

MUNZ

(Wellington).

‘Sir -To "disentangle" a number of statements ‘from their context and throw them together so that they are made to seem arbitrary and incompatible, as J. C. Beaglehole does in his review of T. S. Eliot’s Notes Towards a Definition of Culture, is indeed (as he half suspects) to guy the book. Dr. Beaglehole does not really discuss a single one of Mr. Eliot’s assumptions or statements; he merely records his complete disagreement with them, apparently making different assumptions himself (with which he seems to assume the reader’s agreement), and thereupon dismisses the book. For example, he quotes a passage, "The writer himself . . . paying lip-service to culture," and asks "Is that arrogance or mere pettishness?" Whatever else it may be, it is difficult to see that it is either of these, unless to someone who reacts to the ideas contained in it too violently to consider them coolly. The trouble seems to be that Dr. Beaglehole dislikes Mr. Eliot’s whole

position, and especially the political implications of some of his arguments. Well and good; but he does not examine the position and the arguments; he simply concludes that Mr. Eliot must be wrong, and rules him out of court. He complains that the book is a political tract, but fails to see that in reviewing it he has written one himself, pitting one set of political prejudices against what he takes to be another set. He has, to put it plainly, made use of popular political prejudices to discredit the book. Not that he was wrong to bring in politics, for politics is the aspect of culture of which we are most keenly aware to-day; it was only a pity to blame Mr. Eliot for recognising that they cannot be kept apart. The questions which the book faises are too complex.and too important to be dealt with in Dr. Beaglehole’s summary fashion, which I fear does the subject a disservice. It is reassuring to note that ‘not all your readers have been misled by him.

CHARLES

BRASH

(Dunedin).

Sir-Mr. Olssen’ has pointed out with effective pungency how Dr. Beaglehole, in his review, committed most of the errors of which he accused Mr. Eliot. To his comments I should like to add one point. Dr. Beaglehole, after asking: "What is the general theme?" sets out a number of statements that are, without exception, perfectly comprehensible in the light of Mr, Eliot’s earlier writings. After this he imagines that the book is so completely debunked that he apologises for his lack of respect. Such wilful failure to understand suggests an unconscious realisation on Dr. Beaglehole’s part that the very foundations of his equalitarian,

progressive philosophy are being attacked. Indeed, his conduct recalls that of the Victorian clergy when confronted with Darwin.

D. M.

ANDERSON

(Dunedin).