Culture and Society, 1780-1950 [ペーパーバック]

Raymond Williams discusses how the idea of "culture" and "society" evolved in England when two forces (democracy, industrialism) were undermining traditional notions of both. Williams is a Marxist and it is clear that his analysis of Burke, Coleridge, Mill, Carlyle, Newman, Arnold etc... is directed by Marx's theory of class relationships. The book, therefore, is both an analysis and an argument.

The analysis/argument is that democracy and industrialism broke down old relationships and initiated new ones. While this shift was occuring a new kind of writer was born: the cultural critic. The major theme of this book is the evolution of the word "culture" . Before the period in question (1780-1950) the word "culture" was used to describe art and literature but beginning with Burke and Coleridge the word begins to be used to refer to a "whole way of life". Coleridge makes the key distinction between "civilization" and "culture". Coleridge uses the word "civilization" to describe the "general progress of society" and he uses the word "culture" to express a standard of perfection independent of the progress of society that could be used "not merely to influence society but to judge it." Coleridge envisioned a class of men or "clerisy" whose sole task would be to tend to the cultivation of society. The great fear in the minds of nineteenth-century educated Englishman was that democracy would lead to a dumming down of public life and that what society really needed was some class of educated individuals(Coleridge) or some heroic individual (Carlyle) to insure the continued cultivation of society.
Raymond Williams is writing from a working-class perspective but he is a working-class kid who also happened to attend Cambridge. Writing from this unique perspective allows him to identify with both the great cultural thinkers of the past and with the "masses" that they feared. Coleridge and Carlyle felt that the masses were incapable of governing themselves and contributing to the continued cultivation of society(a notion that continues to inform much of modern conservastism). Williams suggests that it is a mistake to think of men as "masses" and that for society to grow it must remain open, and that society must encourage individual effort from all segments of society while continuing to value and cultivate a collective way of life. Exactly how society is to do this is explained only in vague platitudes.

The best and strongest part of the book is the early portion that examines the definition of "culture" as opposed to "society". The argument gets fuzzy around the time of Matthew Arnold who could not quite decide just what constitutes "culture". In the nineteenth-century "culture" is tied to religious tradition in the minds of Burke, Coleridge, Carlyle and Newman. Beginning with Arnold, however, cultural critics attempt to define "culture" without reference to religion. This proves to be difficult as "culture" describes not only all the best that has been thought but also refers to a body of values that have been passed down and religious institutions are just as powerful, if not moreso, than economic institutions. It is at this point when one begins to question the materialist approach to history.

In his conclusion Williams discusses democracy as if it were the natural substitute for religion or even a new kind of religion. He is not altogether successful and for me the concluding chapters were much less satisfying as cultural history than were the early chapters. This does not take away from the exceptional clarity of those early chapters.

The book is an excellent study of what it means to live in a world in transition and how difficult it is to properly define a "common culture" in a world that regularly undergoes cultural shifts. Society struggles on between two cultural ideologies; between the religious conservatives and the liberal-democrat reformers. In the best portion of Culture and Society Williams describes how J.S. Mill tried to find some way of melding the two ideologies into one.

Williams examines the development of the English novel (and the language itself) as a means to socio-political criticism. The section on the Romantic Period is excellent, as are the sections on Eliot and Orwell. This isn't your typical "critical theory" work: Williams doesn't use the ridiculous theoretical schemes often found in the field. Also, while his analysis is ultimately radical left, Williams remains undogmatic and clear-headed throughout (also a rarity), attributable in part I think to his working class background (this is really one of the themes of the work itself - upper middle-class liberalism and "radicalism" versus working-class radicalism).

Don't be put off by the claim that this is a "materialist analysis." Yes, he describes the creation of the author as the result of an economic/social process, but this isn't the main thrust of the work.

If nothing else, read this book for Williams's sensitivity to the origins and meanings of the "keywords" of the English language.

I bought this book off Amazon.com almost one year ago to the day. I paid 25 bucks for this book, and it came in terrible condition- it is literally falling apart on my desk. I've been actively trying to finish Culture & Society for at least six months- like actively trying to read it- but it is just so boring and turgid. However, Williams also has profound things to say about artists and artistic criticism.

I would have to say that this is the single most profound book I've read in the area of Literary/Artistic Criticism slash aesthetics. Williams is generally labelled a "Marxist" in the U.S., but if so he's a cultural Marxist. Culture and Society was published in 1958 to considerable acclaim. In it, Williams traces the history of the concept of "culture" in English artistic and literary criticism. The table of Contents for Culture and Society is like a road-map for understanding the subject in its entirety:

NINETEENTH CENTURY TRADITION
2. The Romantic Artist
4. Thomas Carlyle
6. J.H. Newman and Matthew Arnold
7. Art and Society: A.W. Pugin, John Ruskin, William Morris

TWENTIETH CENTURY TRADITION
1. D.H. Lawrence
2. R.H. Tawney
3. T.S. Eliot
4. Two Literary Critics: I.A. Richard, F.R. Leavis
5. Marxism and Culture
6. George Orwell
Conclusion

Do you know what that list is? That is the exact recipe of influence for contemporary hipsters whether they are actually aware of it OR NOT. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most contemporary Indie Artists, of whatever genre/discipline, don't know the difference between Thomas Carlyle and Matthew Arnold, but the beauty of Williams argument in Culture & Society is that this DOESN'T MATTER. Culture does not require "active" appreciation to be "good." Culture is what people like, there can be no question of elevating the taste of a "literate minority" above the tastes of the "masses."

In fact, critiques which postulate, "The concept of a cultivated minority, set over against a 'decreated' mass... lead to... damaging arrogance and skepticism." (italics added.) Further: "The concept of a wholly organic and satisfying past to be set against a disintegrated and dissatisfying present, tends in its neglect of history to a denial of real social experience."

Both of these concepts: the "cultivated minority" and the "wholly organic and satisfying past" are ENDEMIC to the mind set of contemporary Artists who are striving/struggling to bridge the gap from AMATEUR (poor & unsuccessful) to PROFESSIONAL. That most of them are ignorant of the terms themselves and their genesis speaks more to individual under education then the irrelevance of the concepts themselves. Kind of like the rules of physics, you don't have to be conscious of how they work to have them effect your life.