Raymond Williams' Concepts about Nature of Culture - Essay Example

Raymond Williams' contribution to the definition and the study of 'culture'. Williams, in a way, was pragmatic as he gave new practical dimensions to how culture is perceived and he has written many volumes where he empresses freely his own innovative socialistic outlooks on culture where he unearths the role and importance of television and other new forms of media in moulding culture and culture perceptions. His perception of culture as ordinary and his outlook on cultural materialism have contributed immensely to further studies and researches on culture. Williams wrote during the 1950s, at a time when there were a lot of debates regarding the cultural politics all throughout the world. His views on culture have benefited other disciplines such as history, literature, cultural studies, mass communications, and education. All through his writings one can find him trying to establish a socialist culture. This paper deals with the major views of Williams on culture and it tries to unearth how his views have contributed to the study of culture as an academic discipline. Williams’ perception of culture Williams’ shift from the high culture to the concept of ordinary culture is an important step in understanding his perception of culture. Williams perceives culture as ordinary and purports that culture has two aspects: the cultural values of the growing society (the known meanings) and how these images of the society are perceived and remade in the individual human mind (new observations). To quote Williams’ own words: A culture has two aspects: the known meanings and directions, which its members are trained to; the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested. These are the ordinary processes of human societies and human minds, and we see through them the nature of a culture: that it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings (Raymond Williams, Moving from High Culture to Ordinary Culture). Thus, according to Williams, culture is just ordinary as it is comprised of the ordinary life processes of an individual: an individual learns both from the ‘common meanings’ or ‘whole way of life’ just as he learns through the processes of ‘discovery and creative effort’. It can thus be concluded that culture is at work in the society as well as in the minds of the individual human being. Williams offers a better clarity of thought to his perception of culture when he categorises culture into three levels in his The Long Revolution: “lived culture of a particular time and place, recorded culture (from art to everyday acts), and culture of the selective tradition” (Juan, 1999, p.6). According to Mike Peterson (2007), “Williams believes that culture should be defined as both (rather than distinguished between) a whole way of life with its common meanings, as well as the processes of discovery and creativity in the arts and learning”. According to him, Williams dislikes both the teashop culture and the drinking-hole culture as they “exclude the ethical content of culture and emphasise the purely technical standard” (Peterson 2007). It is interesting to note that Williams considers culture “as the signifying system through which necessarily (though among other means) a social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced and explored” (Williams, 1982, p. 13). Thus, for Williams any signifier that has a social order to communicate comes under the scope of culture. Williams on Culture and Society Williams rightly unearths the relation between culture and the conservative English tradition of social thought in his renowned book Culture and Society (1958). He explains how English society “deployed culture, conceived as ideas or ideals of perfection removed from material social life, as a critique of specific large-scale changes involving industry, democracy, class and art” (Juan, 1999, p.1). In this respect, Williams refers to a ‘common culture’ brought out by complete democratic participation and equality and is commonly shared by the millions of working class men and women. Williams also brings out the relation between one’s way of seeing and one’s way of living and purports that “the process of communication is in fact the process of community: the sharing of common meanings, and thence common activities and purposes; the offering, reception and comparison of new meanings, leading to tensions and achievements of growth and change” (Williams 1961, 55). Thus, Williams provides importance both to the past experience and the present experience of the individual in determining culture. Culture: Influences on Williams One can find similarities between Leavis and Williams. He supports Leavis’ notion regarding the real relation between art and experience. However, he does not support the distinction that Leavis has placed between pre and post industrial-revolution culture. Williams does not consider the ‘old’ culture as valuable and the ‘new’ culture as cheap. Similarly, Williams does not believe that the new life style brought out by the influence of new media is capable of turning the old culture into something new or negative. Williams’ views on culture and Marxism are very often widely discussed. Williams is immensely influenced by the Marxist ideology in his understanding of the concept of culture. Thus, one finds Williams perceiving culture as “social and material practices, no longer based on raw, unmediated experience but on the given character of processes of production that make up the whole fabric of society” (Juan, 1999, p.4). However, unlike the Marxist paradigm of base/superstructure, Williams conceives base not as something of a ‘uniform state or a fixed technological mechanism’ but as a dynamic and open ended process. One also notices in the later works of Williams he expands his idea of culture by adopting and expanding on Antonio Gramsci's concept of "hegemony. However, for Williams, “hegemony is a process of cultural domination which is never static or total, but continually "renewed, recreated, defended, and modified”. He sees it as being in continuous conflict with oppositional forces: "emergent" and “residual cultural forms which pose a threat to the dominant order, even if confined and marginalized by hegemonic constraints” (Dworkin & Roman, 1993, p. 4). Cultural materialism Even though Williams accepts the Marxist emphasis on class conflict, he rejects the “the idea that cultural practices are reducible to the economic base”. Williams was an original thinker who contributed immensely to the cultural politics of the 1950s. One of the major contributions of Williams was that his works helped to “deconstruct the opposition between high and low culture that had been the structuring principle’ (p. 4); even though many consider him to be Leftist in outlook one can clearly notice remarkable differences in his perception of culture from that of the Marxist thinkers. For Williams, culture has the potential for social reproduction and he “approached the problem of historical changes in dramatic convention through the concept of ‘structure of feeling’ rather than through the idea of economic base and cultural superstructure” (Williams & Higgins, 2001, p. 6). A close analysis of the Marxist perspective on culture, of Leavisites and of Williams convince one that Williams has been influenced both by the cultural radicalism of the Leavisites and the historical materialism of the Marxist tradition; however he “opens up a new intellectual and political space, one in which culture is the mediator between individual experience and class relations” (p. 4). Williams develops his concept of ‘cultural materialism, as an elaboration of the Marxist terminology ‘historical materialism’. Whereas the Marxists perceived historical materialism as “a way of understanding the diverse social and material production”, Williams holds that “cultural production is itself material, as much as any other sector of human activity” and therefore “culture must be understood both in its own terms and as part of its society” (Edwards 1999). Culture, Technology and society Williams has given a lot of space to the role of technology and its influence (or lack of influence) in today’s society. This section is worth mentioning in some detail since technology is seen by many to have the power to influence society in isolation. In other words, there is a perception that it is technology that has the power to control or influence a society and that it is not the people who control it. Technology is not the factor that is manipulative, but is a tool that can be used by those who want to manipulate it. Williams has even authored a book dedicated to the influence of television titled ‘Television: Technology and Cultural Form’ providing his views on this particular medium. Williams wrote this book at a time when television dominated the communication, political, social, and entertainment scenario in the society, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. Williams shows disdain in the traditional concepts of the medium’s influence on the society. A section of his writing can be said to be similar in approach to that of the speech of Mark Anthony in Shakespeare’s Julius Ceaser is given as an example. Shakespeare uses the phrase ‘Brutus is an honorable man’ repeatedly whereas Williams uses the words six times in a single section, “Television was invented as a result of scientific and technical research” (Williams, 2003, p.3). In nine instances, he uses the same sentence to drive home the perceived influence that new technology has over the society. Nearly the whole of page three and part of page four in the book is devoted to this repeated use of the above sentence. These nine instances, where the power of new technology as perceived by many theorists, are given here. The emergence of television as a practical medium of communication has resulted in a situation where it had changed the power and influence of earlier technology. The power of television was so great that it could change even the social relationships that had existed before the advent of this technology. Television (and new technology) had the power to influence reality. It could bring about a virtual world controlled by producers and directors of the programs shown on TV. The fourth point was that TV had the power to break done geographical distances resulting in a change of form in the society. The next point of influence according to the proponents of the new medium was that TV has the power even to change some of the fundamental perceptions of social life. The next point was that TV was a solution to the changing attitudes of the society and that TV was a medium that was a used as a centralized form of entrainment. TV is only an extension of a consumer economy and is used to promote consumerism. Hence the TV set becomes a product and not as a medium of development. The TV is also seen as a product that finds a solution to some social inadequacy among some sections of the population. Whatever theories and concepts about the power of new media (technology) is challenged by Williams from the following sentence. It should be noted that technology during his time is denoted by the term broadcasting. “Thus, if seen only in hindsight, broadcasting can be diagnosed as a new and powerful form of social integration and control. Many of its main uses can been seen as socially, commercially, and at times politically manipulative” (Williams, 2003, p. 7). Throughout his expression of thoughts on technology in the book, Williams sees it only as an extension of a previous medium. He says that the radio is an extension of the printed form of communication like newspapers and magazines, and in the same way, television is an extension on the radio and other forms of visual communication. The word ‘manipulative’ in the above quotes is significant. It indicates that Williams sees technology as an extension of a tool of manipulation, used by those sections of the society that have the power and inclination to manipulate. He contends in the book that new technology can arise in isolation, or thorough planning. But in either case, it is just a manipulative tool that is used to influence and control the society by vested interests in politics and business. Williams considers television and other new media forms as part of a cultural technology and dedicates his Television: Technology and Cultural Form to analyze television as “a particular cultural technology, and to look at its development, its institutions, its forms and its effects, in this critical dimension (p. 2). For him, television plays a pivotal role in the familial, cultural and social life of an individual in the sense that they can be manipulated by intelligent men. According to him technological determinism assumes that the new technologies have the power to ‘create new societies or new human conditions’ as they are considered to be self-generating. Television, for him, is thought to be “either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life” and this notion has become part of the modern man’s social thought that people are reluctant to think beyond them (p.14). In a capitalist society, television is viewed as “a cultural and political form directly shaped by and dependant on the norms of a capitalist society, selling both consumer goods and a ‘way of life’ based on them, in an ethos that is at once locally generated, by dominant capitalist power” (Williams, 1975, p. 34). An interesting offshoot of this scenario with regard to new technologies like the internet and related communication technologies is worth a mention here. Television had begun to develop in content, visual appeal and technology when he wrote this book. But the internet was in its infancy at that time. But, would Williams change his mind in today’s settings with technologies that provide social networking, high level of interaction, and user control of the media? With his strong convictions on the ability of people to manipulate, a personal view is that Williams would still stick to his viewpoint. He would still say that whatever media is developed, it will still be used as a manipulative tool and less as a benefit or convenience to the society. It is surprising that no real comparison between him and another equally radical thinker like Marshall McLuhan has been done. McLuhan had the vision to coin the term ‘global village’ even when the now common PC and the internet was still years away in terms of commercial and practical application. While Williams saw technology as an extension of a previous medium, McLuhan was of the opinion that it was an extension of human faculty. In his bestselling book, McLuhan proclaims that “We again meet the wheel as an ‘extension of the foot’, while the book is ‘an extension of the eye’, clothing is an extension of the skin, and electric circuitry is an extension of the central nervous system. In other places he speaks of money or gunpowder as a medium. In each case, then an artefact is seen as extending a part of the body, a limb or the nervous system” (Williams, 2003, p. 83). Bearing this idea in mind, every invention and innovation is an extension to improve man’s faculties and senses. Hence the internet and the computer screen is an extension of the eye, interactivity is an extension of the mind, the TV is again an extension of the eye and so on. The argument is that the screwdriver betters whatever tasks that had been done with the fingers, the hammer betters whatever tasks that had been done with the hand, and the internet improves whatever tasks that had been done with the eye and the mind. This argument dilutes the power of the media to a certain extent since it essentially says that every media has been developed for human use. But McLuhan adds that certain media has more power than others and that media is more powerful than the content it conveys. “McLuhan is especially insistent that an analysis of media content is meaningless—misses the point—since it is the medium which carries the lion’s share of the communication. Simply put, the medium affects the body and the psyche in relatively unconscious ways; thus it is more powerful than the message, which largely appeals to the conscious mind” (Media: McLuhan). Williams argues that certain sections of the society has the power to control the society and it can use whatever means or media that is available and accepted at a certain point of time. McLuhan says that certain media is more powerful in terms of influence when compared to other forms even if it is an extension of human faculty. So, a powerful media can effectively be used to control the society. Media and technology by itself does not have this power, but is available as a tool for those who can effectively use it for whatever aims and goals they have. Conclusions Michael W. Apple in his introduction to Views beyond the border country: Raymond Williams and cultural politics makes it clear that one needs to take into account the cultural, ideological and political factors rather than explaining everything as “the natural working out of the power relations, conflicts, and contracts at the economic level” ((Dworkin & Roman, 1993, p. x). While the Marxist thought laid over emphasis class struggles and economic determinism in shaping culture Williams believed that “culture (itself a complex historical concept) can never be epiphenomenal. It has its own materiality, its own history, its own specificities that can never be understood in a reductive manner, though the Marxist and neo-Marxist traditions increasingly for him offered the tools to engage in a more subtle analysis of all this when they were reconstructed”(Dworkin & Roman, 1993, p. x). Similarly, Williams’ view that culture is ordinary and that the new media is incompetent to change the culture of the modern man needs further researches. To conclude, it can be stated that Williams was arguing for a socialistic culture where the two factors that mould culture are the society and man/or his experiences. References Dworkin, DL & Roman, LG 1993, Views beyond the border country: Raymond Williams and cultural politics, Illustrated Edition, Routledge. Edwards, Phil 1999, Culture is ordinary: Raymond Williams and cultural materialism, Viewed 30 March 2009, < http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/scritti/williams.htm> Juan, E San Jr Spring 1999, Raymond Williams and the idea of Cultural Revolution, College Literature, Findarticles.com, CBS Interactive Inc, Viewed 30 March 2009, < http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3709/is_199904/ai_n8843050/pg_6?tag=content;col1> Media: McLuhan, McLuhan Hypothesis, Viewed 30 Mar. 09, < http://deoxy.org/media/McLuhan> Peterson, Mike 2007, Cultural Studies: Raymond Williams: “Culture is Ordinary”, Cultural Studies, Viewed 30 March 2009, < http://cltrlstdies.blogspot.com/2007/10/raymond-williams-culture-is-ordinary.html> Raymond Williams, Moving from High Culture to Ordinary Culture, Definitions and Discussions on Culture, GenEd- Learning Commons-What is culture?- Definitions- Williams, Viewed 30 March 2009, < http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_culture/culture-definitions/raymond-williams.html> Williams, Raymond 1975, Television: Technology and Cultural Form, Taylor & Francis. Williams, Raymond 1982, The sociology of culture, Schocken Books, New York. Williams, Raymond 1961, The long revolution, Columbia University Press, New York. Williams, R & Higgins, J 2001, The Raymond Williams reader, Illustrated Edition, Wiley-Blackwell. Williams, Raymond 2003, Television, 2nd edn, Routledge. Read More