and magnanimitas (magnanimity). All of these concepts emphasise an important aspect of the development of the human being oriented toward a certain ideal model of humanity. To be sure, this model went through modifications over time, but it was always based on an examination of human nature and its potential for development. It is the denial of these essential elements that constitutes what we call “low culture,” one which aspires to satisfy only the needs created by the lowest human desires and feelings.
The very term “high culture” was not formulated until the second half of the nineteenth century, when Matthew Arnold’s essays appeared as a collection titled Culture and Anarchy (1869). It was only after the publication of this book that the term entered the English vocabulary and became increasingly popular. This does not mean, however, that the issues defined by the notion of high culture had not appeared before. In the context of those ambiguities, it appears highly important to differentiate between the very expression (term) “high culture” and the concept it designates.
At the very beginning, it needs to be said that the notion of “high culture” appeared much earlier than the expression itself, namely – in the times of Ancient Greece. When analysing the issue of education, the Greeks have discovered its ideal model, which was the shaping of a perfect man. In their opinion, education and culture had a similar goal. As pointed out by Werner Jaeger, that ideal appeared already in the works of Homer, and even though it referred to the world of knights, the court, and aristocracy, it was characteristic not only of aristocratic nature but also of all human beings. Therefore, Greek culture quickly acquired universal character thanks to the fact that it laid its foundations on human nature. It gained popularity along with the proliferation of democracy. The Greeks described this cultural ideal in terms of kalokagathía (moral beauty).
←10 | 11→
Christianity adopted this ideal model of Greek culture but it completed the Greek understanding of culture thanks to the new ideal of the human being seen as a person, i.e. a being created by God in His image and likeness. Christianity set a new goal for the human being, which consisted in transcending nature and culture toward God. Thus, the very understanding of high culture underwent an important modification, while still maintaining its universal nature. However, this original, ancient and Christian meaning of the term “culture” went through further changes at the end of the nineteenth century, when the term became popular in philosophy and humanities. As its popularity grew, its meanings diversified depending on the context of a particular scientific discipline, trend, and philosophical system. This is why, over time, “culture” became one of the most ambiguous terms.
Contemporary definitions of culture are limited to highlighting only some of its aspects. They usually emerge in such fields as sociology of culture, cultural anthropology, cultural psychology, semiotics. Thus, they focus on points of reference such as: value (M. Weber), meaning and symbol (C. Geertz, D. Schneider), interpretation, group identity (R. Williams), lifestyle, beliefs, and attitudes (Encyclopaedia Britannica), mental and physical reactions and activity (F. Boas), complex of behaviours (W. Roseberry). Indeed, a closer analysis of these definitions reveals that they arbitrarily take into consideration only selected causes-reasons constitutive of culture. All such definitions emerge within the framework of philosophical debates concerning the relation between man and society, on the one hand, and the relation between culture and reality, on the other hand. The meanings that they attribute to culture come from a subject or a given community, which makes them a kind of projection rather than examination of existing reality. In fact, terms such as “reality” or “objectivity” never appear in contemporary definitions of culture. This is an evidence of a subjective approach to this phenomenon, which makes it impossible to reach its essence. As a result of failure to understand what culture is, there is a growing tendency to remove the difference between high and low culture.
Due to the variety of approaches, it is justified to determine a point in time when culture became culture. To that end, and despite the complexity and diversity of culture, it is necessary to indicate its main subject, goal, and nature. This task becomes feasible within the framework of a philosophy which prioritizes the role of metaphysics; for it is metaphysics that helps us understand categories such as: subject, substance, person, nature. It includes the general theory of being and presents the ultimate factors causing something to be a being rather than a non-being. Having started from this foundation, the point of reference for the study of culture still needs to stay with the realistic vision of being and ←11 | 12→man – philosophical anthropology, which provide answers to the most fundamental questions concerning the human way of being, which falls under the common name of “culture.” Using the theory of being developed within metaphysics, philosophical anthropology reveals the fundamental structure of man as a personal being. Thus, it gives us an objective tool to explain the fact of culture.
For this reason, I shall discuss culture using the categories of realistic metaphysics, both in the historical and systemic spheres, while taking into consideration the explanations provided within philosophical anthropology. This approach will make it possible to indicate the important factors decisive for the human mode of action. It will also allow us to notice the actual causes, which explain human action and give it purpose. Thus, I shall demonstrate that the essence of culture rests upon the actualization of man’s personal life against the backdrop of experience of the world, and that culture itself is an effect of such a rationalisation of reality; that it is a quality (perfection) of the human being, while cultural artefacts are an image and expression of that perfection, an external sign and a manifestation of culture.
The historical approach will help us reach the roots of theoretical reflection about culture, which can be traced back to Ancient Greece. In what follows, I shall demonstrate that the emergence of the very term “culture” is one thing, while the origins of the theoretical thought about that way of existence, which is characteristic for human beings and differentiates them from the natural world, is quite another thing.
In the first part of the book, I shall explain the meaning of the term “culture” in Ancient Greece and Rome, exposing the Greek origins of what we describe today as “high culture.” Therefore, I shall reach back to the roots of the Greek understanding of culture, which can be found as early as in the works of the great poet, Homer, who understood culture as a consciously nursed ideal model of human perfection. He claimed that culture is expressed through the entirety of man’s character – not only through his external behaviour and actions but also through his internal attitude. And neither the way of conduct nor the internal attitude is accidental; in fact, they are consciously shaped toward a particular goal. It was Homer who noticed that such preparation begins in a small social group, the nobility, aristoi, of a given nation. Therefore, we should look for the beginnings of so-called high culture in Ancient Hellenic noble culture, to which the term areté (virtue) was closely linked. This vision, initiated by Homer, finds continuation in the concept, or rather, cultural process, called paideia, which emerged at the time of Athenian democracy. I shall explain the meaning of this term and discuss important contributions to its understanding, especially the ←12 | 13→thought of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates, who discussed ethical aspects of the emerging ideal model of education.
Next, I shall present the circumstances in which this ideal model was first described in terms of kalokagathía. I shall explain its moral-personal aspect, as well as its social aspect. I shall analyse the way in which the understanding of the term changed in Plato’s thought. Finally, I shall discuss the next, even higher, level of culture, which was described by Aristotle. That level is expressed by a kind of greatness and strength of the soul, which Aristotle calls magnanimity (Greek: megalopsychía, Latin: magnanimitas, literally: “greatness of soul”). This distinctive feature of the human being representing high culture consists in the ability of making correct judgments about great and small goods. As Aristotle observes, the search for greater goods poses numerous difficulties, which are easier to overcome for the “great-souled” being. Thus, magnanimity appears as an indispensable condition of genuinely human high culture.
Finally, I shall point to the moment when that Greek ideal
