Many different people have interpreted culture, which has an impact directly on every living human in the world today, and no one has been able to obtain a final, absolute answer. Two of the premier theorists in the field of psychology, Karl Marx and Matthew Arnold, have attempted in this endeavor and have had diverse opinions on this topic. Although both men defined "culture" in different ways, a blend or a "middle route" of the two enables us as readers to grasp a greater knowledge of the meaning of culture.
             The essay "Sweetness and Light", written by Matthew Arnold, blindly overemphasized the significance of the pursuit of perfection and downright disregarded the reality of our material being. Having seemingly lived in a closet his entire life, Arnold talked about an ideal world that I believe would work except for the fact that we are human beings, and we tend to make mistakes (Arnold 98-113). The human race is greedy, coveting to acquire more and more material objects to our already huge collection. Although I wish this method would work in today's contemporary times, the notion of culture as "sweetness and light" will never be able to properly function in this material-oriented world.
             Fortunately, not everyone is exactly equal otherwise our world would not be able to be as advanced as we are today. Everyone has his or her own role in society; this world does not solely depend on the upper class. Mr. Arnold on the other hand seemed to favor the elite class of society and he ignored the masses. Did he truly believe that the "intelligent, rightly-guided" aristocracy could guide the masses? The wealthy would probably be driven by their power and money, consequently ignoring the topics important to the oppressed poor.
             Another argument that Arnold pointed out was the belief that life is determined by consciousness, when in actuality it is the other way around (Arnold 102)....