Culture and Anarchy Revisited: Your Say

We asked you what you thought of Simon Heffer's Sunday Supplement series bringing up to date the writings of the Victorian poet and critic Matthew Arnold. Here are some of the comments we received.

---

My observation was that he lumps all so-called PC groups together for criticism. His take on homosexuality as a minority, instead of a difference, and his need to conveniently target specific groups of what are human beings (ethnic minorities, drug users, gays) sums up his cognitive process. They all have exclusive issues and rights to discuss, but are put under the PC banner whenever any progress is made on their behalf. To criticise equality gained through long oppression from the Victorian values/intelligence he admires shows the mixed up thinking. If anybody reads his columns, then you would listen to this again with the word manipulation in mind.
Joe Phillips, UK

Thank you for pointing out that the emperor is stark naked.
Shaun Mclaughlin, UK

I really think his ideas about striving for excellence and knowledge for its own sake our important. All the great ideas of the Greek civilisation etc must never be forgotten, because the world has achived liberty at a very great price. Hence it is vital that we understand our heritage of political and cultural ideas to know how bad things were and how far we have come.
Roma Shah, India

I find it very unethical and sharp practice to allow someone like Simon Heffer to launch one of his soused harangues under the pretence of discussing Matthew Arnold. I sought transcripts and then returned to "Culture and Anarchy" to see if what Heffer was talking about had anything to do with Arnold. Not in the least except that a man without Sweetness and Light took the opportunity of the BBCs tendency to exhalt media people of their own dubious ilk in order to impose on the ignorance and stupidity of the populace. In no other respect did this sequence of precious piffle relate to Arnold. I object to the principle that such as Heffer should be allowed to abuse the courtesies of public forum by this sort of bias but no-one in the audience is ever allowed the appropriate amount of time to combat the latent agenda and the dubious arguments aimed at us.
Benedict Cowell, Wales

I agree with the previous comment about Simon Heffer's position; his overall attack on political correctness and the 'do as you like within the law' culture is a greatly needed balance to the current stagnant, censorious intellectual climate. But his particular points on actual policies and details, such as on the welfare state and homosexuality, are in their broad-brush condemnation rather contrary to his fundamental idea that our views should be the product of reason, knowledge, and open debate. Neither right nor left has all the answers, and the onus is on each one of us to help bring into being a culture where the wisdom of previous generations is mixed with an openness to modern realities.
D White, UK

Simon Heffer starts off with some good ideas - education for its own sake, freedom of speech - and then goes on to pretend they lead necessarily to his own narrow-minded preferences. For example, I could equally give an example where the masses of car users "doing as they like" are having an adverse effect on others' lives, or the out-of-control tactics of big business, instead of his welfare or homosexual examples. Equally, he quotes Arnold as condemning a dissenting minister for stirring up anti-Catholic feeling and agrees with this view, but believes this type of condemnation does not apply to those who deny the holocaust etc. and stir up hatred in this way. His political conclusions have very little to do with his original claims.
G Duce, UK

I am amazed that Simon Heffer was given air time! He is prepared to cut a swathe through the liberal/PC nostra, a brave man to do so in the heart of the liberal establishment, the BBC, where only the brainwashed are normally given air time and where those holding non-PC views are routinely hectored, bullied and sneered at by the likes of John Humphrys. I don't suppose that Simon Heffer will be asked back but I hope against hope that he will be, that he'll be given longer and be allowed to speak to Radio 4 listeners at peak times.
Karen Malin, England

A brilliant series of talks expressing the views of so many thinking people. What a shame that Mr Heffer had so much recourse to Arnold's original work without bringing it intellectually up to date by discussing the substitution of some more rational concept (such as Truth) for the references to god. On the issue of political correctness - the imposition of illiberal liberalism - and the coercion of our thoughts by fashion as well as legislation, has no commentator seen the direct parallel between the modern phenomenon and the impossibility of dissent in USA during, and for a long time after, the McCarthy era? These are sins of the Right as well as the Left and the dangers become more acute as culture is globalised leaving no room for pockets of sanity.
Roy Merrell, UK

The best fight-back against political correctness and the beginning of its end.
Ebusua-Yedom Quarshie, London, England.

I very much enjoyed listening to Simon Heffer's essays and felt they warranted careful thought. Beautifully constructed and enlightening.
Benedict Stoddart, U.K.

How interesting that so many of those who have written to you to say that they disapprove of Simon Heffer's views say that you should not have aired them. In truth they make Mr Heffer's point for him: the illiberal liberals can't tolerate the idea that anyone they don't agree with should be allowed a voice.
Thomas, UK

I say this with much reservation: that Simon Heffer's superlatively articulate three-part series was a rare beacon of clarity in today's monoglot media culture. With reservation, because, I suspect, he has never had to endure the debasing experience of signing on at the dole office or being made redundant. That aside, his cognition and realisation of the dangerous so-called "consensus" politics that is crystallising around us, and its foundation of warped liberal logic, is to be applauded; the personal liberties administered by drip-fed legislation to the mass populace are the equivalent of democratic "doggy treats": to be handed out for good behaviour rather than as inarguable tenets of freedom. The barely audible, but persistent, mantra of "no rights without responsibilities" which seems to watermark so much of the current government's (and opposition's) policies on every subject, from speed cameras to birth rights, is a stark warning to free thinkers everywhere that the plutocracy has read "Animal Farm" cover to cover safe in the knowledge that most people have not.
M.J.Edwards, UK

What struck me most about Simon Heffer's talk was the power of his argument that drew from real intellectual thought rather than merely expressed opinion. I thus found myself agreeing with much of what he said, to the point where I have change my views about some aspects of the Liberal approach. Such is the power of persuasion. I have also read the comments from other listeners and I am not persuaded by Mr Heffer's detractors. They should demand a response to the argument made in the same intelligent way. I would very much like to hear it. This type of broadcasting is what I yearn for, and if it were available would stimulate my interest in all matters political.
Matthew Prosser, UK

I was prepared to put up with the first two of these lectures, but I really had to respond in particular to the third. I can't stand the all-too-common uncritical use of the term 'political correctness', a loaded term which seems now to be regarded as almost neutral as a descriptive. I did try to focus on the positive, and reflected that Mr Heffer had nabbed some of his stronger points, not from Arnold, but from Mill's On Liberty, and specifically the section on free speech, a rather more tightly-argued discussion of similar issues. He was, for instance, driving at something which that essay had articulated more clearly, that social censorship through ostracism etc can be as powerful and as reprehensible as legal censorship. But Mr Heffer is no Millite. The 'freedom' and 'liberalism' he demands does not, evidently, extend very far beyond Simon Heffer and a few of his likeminded friends.
Florence Delaney, UK

I was absolutely riveted to Simon Heffer's talks. His content and delivery showed a depth and insight rarely experienced in contemporary broadcasting. More please!!
Jason Mahoney, UK

Excellent stuff from Simon. What a precise and concise way of describing the disaster of political correctness in this country which eats away like a cancer in modern Britain. Most people I know would agree with what he said, but I believe action is required, and that will only take place when politicisation of the normally docile British electorate wakes up to what has been done by liberal PC brigade.
David Smith, Scotland

I hope that Mr Blair and Mr Clarke found time on Sunday evenings to listen to feet-on-the-ground commentary from Simon Heffer on the Alice in Wonderland society which they are creating.
C. Cooper, England

I pity the editor who accidentally allowed Heffer's heretical essay onto the airwaves: this really was a failure of Orwell's 'crime-stop.' I fear that room 101 will be where the Greg Dyke/Gavyn Davies Big Brother machine will send the erring operative. And Rawnsley - how come he is straying from the Guardian/BBC dogmatic programme by permitting such a dangerous virus of the mind to be broadcast, even at so late an hour?
Tim Bradshaw, UK

Simon Heffer talks sense. I would go so far as to say that one can better understand the origins of totalitarianism when one observes the advance of political correctness. The blind zeal of a William MacPherson with his utterly irrational nonsense is an illustration of the dangers! Heffer concludes that it's not too late yet. I'd be interested to hear how he thinks we're going to get the (rather intimidated?) silent majority to speak up.
Wolfgang Marx

So good to hear Simon Heffer articulate much of what I have been feeling for years. As soon as one starts to disagree with some new 'right' one is immediately slapped into the straightjacket of an anti-liberal label. The insidious thing is that because we have become so indoctrinated by this liberalism we even label ourselves and distrust our own thoughts.
J McGeoch, Scotland

More Simon Heffer please. What a refreshing change to listen to Radio 4 and hear someone actually using reason to justify their opinion. Heffer's exposure of the illiberalism of liberalism was exhilarating. He systematically dismantled the hypocrisy and humbug of the twenty-first century British elite, both in the media and in politics. Far too often, when citizens speak out on matters, they experience the ostracism Heffer has observed, when they should have been responded to with rationality. This is leading to an enormous disillusionment in the political process and in our civil society. No wonder people don't vote! The liberal dream, as presently pursued, is a failure - but against all reason our leaders say that the answer to the problems is even more of the same. That will lead to disaster. Simon Heffer has made a good contribution to the debate on how we reform our political ethos in Britain.
Andrew Ryland, Surrey

I listened to Simon Heffer with absolute amazement - how could someone with such bigoted and narrow-minded views be given not just one night to air them, but three?!
Katie Squires, England

The best 45 minutes or so I've listened to in a long, long time - sheer distilled essence of common sense. Please send copies to all UK MPs !! Excellent - thank you
Peter Brady, UK

Excellent - the sword of truth through the fog of the sugar coated liberal poison and distortion !!!
John A. Moore, Ireland

There is much I agree with in SH's talk, particularly in relation to the current attitudes to political correctness and so-called 'liberal/enlightened' thinking, which in practice is often the opposite. But there is also a danger in selectively quoting from historical figures, and I would take issue with some of SH's interpretation of Arnold's thinking. One of the great paradoxes of Arnold is the apparent contradictions and diffuse nature of much of his political, social and cultural theory. Close reading reveals that his notion of 'right reason' is based on a rigid version of universal truth - his version - which must be made to prevail in society. His attacks on Nonconformists and other groups are often unfair and mean-spirited failing to acknowledge the enormous contributions made by that movement to the betterment of Victorian lower and middle class people. His view of freedom is very constrained - his version must be imposed as representing what is 'good' for people. So whilst a great fan of Arnold, and of Culture and Anarchy, close study reveals a very different picture from that indicated in SH's talk. If Heffer is to be taken seriously, he must respect texts - warts and all - and not selectively interpret from them, as this (ironically) leads him to use the same techniques of persuasion as the politically correct brigade themselves use.
John Farrington, UK

I thought Simon Heffer spoke sense. I'm a black male who cringes every time the word 'racism' is abused. I am very aware that one needs to be careful, as there are real, tangible and scary forms of illogical hatred (an obvious example is Nazi Germany). However I suspect that there is some reasonable middle ground between the extreme of political correctness and the extreme of bigotry and hatred. I think we've moved too far in one direction and Simon's piece was a welcome attempt to shift the debate back to the centre.
PJ, UK

Simon Heffer's three pieces were a wonderful breath of fresh air. Thank heavens someone has the courage to reveal Political Correctness for what it is - an attempt to stifle any discussion of issues that are important in Britain today. It ties in with Rod Liddle's recent article in the Spectator about PC bias within the BBC itself. I only hope the editors who determine the BBC's own news agenda were listening carefully.
Daniel Wiles, UK

Right wing rubbish. Why does he feel abusing victims of the holocaust is a freedom people should be allowed. Holocaust denial is an evil that should be have banned, it does cause great offence to victims, but i suppose the right wing don't care about victim they only support the freedom to abuse.
Mr R Smith, North Wales

I must say that (to my surprise) I agreed with just about everything Simon Heffer had to say in this evening's broadcast. As I have said before, I'd never have anticipated this having previously only read his columns.
Ted Chance, Britain

Bravo! At last an articulation of my own inarticulate frustrations and anxieties about the deeply illiberal tendencies of political correctness masquerading as liberal ideals. This is a movement based around a suppression of expression and a mind set that is caged and frightened of its own shadow and of its peers. It leads intelligent people to make partial and judgemental and deeply flawed analyses of complex situations because they dare not think the unthinkable or say the unsayable.
Brian Hamilton, UK

Part three was excellent, as Simon Heffer indicates - whether it is racism, terrorism or even bullying - any anti-social or illegal acts should be punished exactly as that. To try and label or even excuse behaviour based on some supposed unproven cause, thought or latest band-wagon, is to prevent justice and equality from prevailing. Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised at a time when "Big Brother" is so popular that we are in danger of "Thought Crime" becoming a reality.
Jim Judges, UK

Straightforward common-sense from Simon Heffer. If only more people were willing to challenge so directly the lunacy of political-correctness and the absurdities of ill thought through liberal mantras!
Gary Shaw, UK

Absolute common sense stuff - brilliant, words which so many of us think but are unable to express for fear of being railed as 'intolerant'. More please, to nullify today's ill-conceived liberal buffoonery!
Dave Low, UK

If that bigot knew the misery of growing up gay in a working-class family and having hour-by-hour misery he might think again. I am angry that you let this moron onto the air. He might be clever- so am I - but he is very dense in the human sense. Pity you used him. Life is too complex for such trashy lack of thought and ignorance of the finer shades of human existence.
Christopher Charnock, England

Yeah for Mr Heffer! I look forward to going back to the good old days when we could call people with 'learning difficulties', Mongols or 'Mongs'. I lose track of what we called 'disabled' people, I think it was 'Spazzers'. As for black people well..I wait for Mr Heffer to say it first..
Gordon Rudston, UK

I feel so strongly about the drivel that Simon Heffer was talking about the Permissive Society (hurrah for the 1960s!) that I am sending an email. The point is that Roy Jenkins was not inventing a new way of life in that decade; he was merely making available to everyone what had been available to the upper classes since the Edwardian era. Read any account of country house life before 1914 and you'll find it filled with permissiveness, not Calvinistic church-going. It is ludicrous and anti-democratic for Heffer to bluster and deny the pleasures of the flesh to the many, which the few had enjoyed for many decades.
Christopher Walker, UK

I really like the Westminster Hour, for its seriousness, maturity and modernity. So for heaven's sake what were the unpleasant reactionary views of Simon Heffer doing on it? He was putting forward repulsive opinions devoid of any sense of logic or reality. Please keep him, and Melanie Phillips and Charles Moore off your sensible, intelligent and humane programme. Those three persons have been well described by Hugh Trevor-Roper in an essay on 17th-century Calvinists: 'What a gallery of intolerant bigots, narrow-minded martinets, timid conservative defenders of repellent ideas, instant assailants of every new or liberal idea, inquisitors and witch-burners.' That's them. Maybe not actually witch-burners, but the rest.
Christopher Walker, UK

Simon Heffer's critique of Arnold's "Culture & Anarchy" was an oasis of reason in today's intellectual desert that passes for politics. How wonderful to escape numbing, political correctness! I find politics intensely interesting but am restricting my voting to referenda as I feel no party now represents my views.
Mr G. Graham, U.K.

I listened in dismay to Simon Heffer's talk on Matthew Arnold. It was principally Heffer's attack on the welfare state and by implication the undeserving poor, that I found so reactionary and ill informed. It was interesting that he contrasted those productive citizens who create the wealth with those who leach off the state. However he completely overlooked the welfare state operating at the highest levels of our society: the public school system. Of course Heffer did touch on the subject but considered this to be one of the virtues of British governance and a bastion against the anarchy that he most fears. Yet, it is my view, that the public school system, which in turn leads to the corruption of nepotism, and by further extension the poor understanding by government of the people which results in management by target.
Jeremy Young, England