You are on page 1of 12

Raymond Williams and Cultural Studies Author(s): Catherine Gallagher Reviewed work(s): Source: Social Text, No.

30 (1992), pp. 79-89 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466467 . Accessed: 05/03/2013 14:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RaymondWilliamsand CulturalStudies
CATHERINEGALLAGHER There was something about interdisciplinary decidedlyasymmetrical to the1980s.The title oftheMLA division devoted studies literary prior andsociety, ofliterature toLiteratothestudy "SociologicalApproaches deal aboutourrecent literature," past.Critics saysa great "approached" turevia "sociological"ideas- concepts that developedin a discipline as itsobjectofinquiry. took"society" therelationship between Obviously and societymusthave been conceivedof as intimate forthe literature of one discipline methods to seemapplicableto theobjectsof another: in social practices, a social practice, literature was embedded was itself of othersocial phenomena, and could be yielding representations of a class, an ethnic or gender nation analyzedas theworld-view group, moment. Mostof these"approaches" assumed at a particular historical was the repre"literature" thatin the relateddyad literature/society, or signifying while"society" was thesetof sentational, symbolic, entity, andconditions human thelivedexperience ofthe informing relationships and writers. readers howintertwined andsociety No matter literature wereimagined tobe, andsocialstudies inthose between therelationship however, literary days in Americawas essentially The American non-reciprocal. Sociological on theSociologyofLiterature, Association but mayhavehad a division I don't itdidnothaveone called"literary-critical tosociety." approaches meanby thisthat researchers intothenature ofparticular societies never used literary evidence.I meaninstead did notuse themethods that they I knowof of literary No literary critics or social scientists that analysis. in thewakeof of social stratification. Buttoday, proach"to theproblem the application of ordinary to social theory, the languagephilosophy in French and thegeneral turn social thought, linguistic spreadof hermeneutic one is notsurprised to find Ernesto Laclau self-consciousness, and ChantalMouffe, forexample, aboutthehegemonic class's writing White thetropes ofhistorical displacements, Hayden metonymic defining S. Nelsondetailing thecomplex John ofpolitical science analysis, "plots" or enumerating ofpublicaffairs, therhetorical orCharlesLemmert parts modelsto analyzesocial theorists. usinglinguistic I don'twant for this to claimtoomuch Methods reciprocity. developed in linguistic and literary studies are hardly American social dominating
79 could yield a useful "apsuggested that The Seven Types of Ambiguity

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

80

Catherine Gallagher

and historical inquiry,but they have gained some limited acceptance who see all social phenomena,not among a generationof social thinkers as mediated and "signifying." The ones, linguistically just literary in has to extendour range of objects, so us, turn, encouraged reciprocity that we are now likely to "approach" almost anything.We no longer confine ourselves to a separate realm of representation peculiarly saturatedwithsymbolicvalue, because we don't believe thereis one. in which social and literary-critical The new reciprocity exthinkers of me to be theessence change bothmethodsand objects inquiryseems to of what is now being called "cultural studies." "Cultural Studies" specifies neithera well-definedobject nor a methodof analysis, unlike whichrather clumsilyinsistedon "sociological approaches to literature," written both. Not thata greatdeal hasn't been recently about theputative modes of understanding it. "culture,"and theappropriate object of study, is their almostprogramHowever,thepuzzling thingabout thesewritings matic refusal to tell us what isn't culture. "Nature" was once its most widely agreed-upon opposite, but since the category of nature is now has itselfoftenperceivedas culturally created,even thatbroad distinction no been weakened. In literary the word "culture" has studies, generally stable diacritical term at all, no antonymagainst which it might be contrasted.Perhaps this terminologicallooseness is a reaction against MatthewArnold'sidea of "Culture"witha capital "C"; forArnoldand his butantonyms. The content of theterm followers"Culture"had nothing and said" - managedto be bothludicrous"the best thathas been thought unspecific,butthecatalogue of thingsthatwere not ly narrowand utterly Culture was long and detailed: nature,society,progressivecivilization, mass education, mass communicathe economy, technology,industry, tions, daily life, most formsof politics, and, of course, anarchy.Since opposed the Arnoltoday's culturalstudies' adherentshave consistently of its of culture because restrictiveness, dian concept precisely theyhave in of the the lead to include term thevery tried,following anthropologists, defined it that in the Arnoldians almost is, against: things everything social existence. The inflationof the word, however,has made its contemporary users vulnerable to manyof the same charges thatwere broughtagainst Matthew Arnold. Contemporary critics accused Arnold of tossing the word culturearound because it sounded ratherprofoundbut at the same time specifiedverylittle.But surelytoday's culturalcriticis guiltyof a similar rhetoricalmanoeuvre.We tend to use the adjective "cultural" when we we're describingis bothexternally wantto indicate thatthe phenomenon social and internally and generated(i.e., psychological in old-fashioned material and class and terms), symbolic, genderspecific,specific also as to ethnicity, race, religion, language group, region, profession, historicalperiod, etc. "Cultural" is a world-conjuring nationality, adjec-

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andCultural Williams Studies Raymond

81

when for itis the tive;youcan'tgo wrong "cultural," youcall something without one term carries thefull which, necessarily specifying anything, all forms of of specificity. weight possible with a heavy in the It is thisabsenceofspecifics investment conjoined "culture" as usedbycultural idea of specifics that critics givestheword an uncanny toitsmuch-maligned Arnoldian resemblance "Cultwin, high therestriction of"Culture" with haverejected ture" a capital "C." Wemay realmof "art"and thebeliefthatits value derivesfrom to a privileged universals rather thanfrom human concrete historical cirtranscendent in ouruse of"culture" andArnold's havemore cumstances; nevertheless, common than is generally recognized. ofartis that which As Arnold described it,thework alwaysescapesits an It is excessive determinations i.e., through particularism, uniqueness. ofCulture, thegreat works of literature, forthisreasonthat theproducts in common. haveno definitive Thatis, one cannot forexample, qualities for of art certain works because recognize great by looking properties, was somehowoutside the works, thatwould indicatethatgreatness of whichthe worksare merely themas an abstraction separablefrom works of artare utterly For Arnold are irreducible; examples. great they to specify them. so dense withspecificsthattheydefyeveryattempt is in a constant crisisof signification Arnoldian beCulture, therefore, - theprinciple - is violated ofparticularity for cause whatit stands by one couldgiveofit. definition anygeneral withtheolderinsistence of culture Our newunderstanding resonates on the art work's irreducibility, despite our attackson the idea of fieldof relationbecause we takean inexhaustible Precisely autonomy. determine the of cultural and all other to significance phenomena, ships insidethefieldmust also be "read"as culturally the entities significant, on the we often take that same dense resistance to analysis objects study This tenArnold of theartwork. claimedwas thespecialcharacteristic when we is most marked the of our our dency signal partialness analyses, to givea "full"account ofanycultural Weareapt inability phenomenon. in suchcircumstances, as Arnold that to use "culture" used"Culture;" is, the inexhaustibility, utter as a god-term and total denoting repleteness somewhere at sometime)oftheobjectthat (or at leastpresence presence and exceeds our analyses.Whenwe use the word at once calls forth thisway,to conjurethe object's particularity as a peculiar "cultural" or fullness, or to indicate it is so crisscrossed thickness that with linesof as to be ineffable determination excess,we maybe succumbing through ofculture. to a newmystique
The following is a discussion of how Raymond Williams's works of modernBritain,Williams's encouraged such a mystique.For students books are more than merely illustrativeof cultural studies; they are formative of it. Williams can be creditedwithhaving inventedthe field,

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

82

Catherine Gallagher

Long Revolution,forexample, he protests: It was certainly an error to suppose that valuesor art-works couldbe without to theparticular studied reference within adequately society butit is equallyan error which wereexpressed, to supposethat they thesocialexplanation is determining, orthat thevaluesandworks are mere We have into the since we realized how habit, got by-products. works orvaluescouldbe determined in deeply bythewholesituation whichtheyare expressed, of askingabouttheserelationships in a standard form: "whatis therelationship of thisartto thissociety?" But"society," in thisquestion, is a speciouswhole.If theartis part ofthesociety, there is no solidwhole, outside it,towhich, bytheform of ourquestion, we concede priority.1

of its complexities and no one had a morenuancedunderstanding and was fully awareof theconflicting moreover, perils.Williams, meanings refused of the term to choose one definition of and resolutely simply In bookafter overanother. toplaythemeanings culture off book,he tried in an attempt to avoidwhathe might, at one stagein againsteach other His earlybooks,were,to be sure, his career,have called reification. in theArnoldian aimedagainsttheexclusionary tendencies specifically use of theword, buthe argued that critics couldhardly avoid "Culture" whenreferring to thearts. Williams toinvestigate therelationattempted a capital"C" (thearts)and"culture" with "Culture" with shipsbetween a small"c," in theanthropological sense of "a wholeway of life." He in order in theterm chosetheambiguity toavoidboth thefalse purposely and the determinism that result from one-way might polarity choosing suchas "society," In The someother todesignate thesocialtotality. term,

more comprehensive, more continuous,and more deeply constitutive of thantheword"society"could suggest.He seems to have been subjectivity quite conscious of the effectsof this choice of words. When asked by interviewersfrom the New Left Review to explain his substitution of "culture"for"society" in 1977, he responded:

We cannotpossiblyfall intosuch speciousand reductive categorizing, ofasking Williams "what is therelationship ofthis art if,instead implies, to its society?," we ask, "whatis therelationship of thisCulture to its culture?" binarism and determinism will certainly Categorical rigidity, not survivesuch a question.But thenone is facedwiththe opposite I'm trying to bringinto problem:how am I to separatethesethings in answering Williams never succeeded thisquestion. fully relationship? He did, however, succeedin replacing theidea of artistic autonomy of specificity, andas a result with that thoseofus wholearned from him almost to and eschew tend, automatically, privilege particularity analytical abstraction. Williamstaught us to substitute theword"culture" for and in wherever to believe that so "society" possible doing we were to a "complex of livedrelationships," a "vitalwhole"that was referring

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Williams andCultural Studies Raymond - it was an acculture was cultivation of something Historically, whereas can seemvery I often static. likedtheterm for tivity; society thisreason. Its modern derivation is actually from Vico,whousedit with thisemphasis on process. The term "thelongrevoluprecisely a similar tion"was meant to convey senseof a movement a through longperiod.2 very

83

in short, was vitaland enduring, "Culture," yetevolving; "society," by seemed at once and inorganic. The vitalism at the contrast, static, inert, heartof thissubstitution was certainly not the least of its attractions. Historical cultural criticism of romantic (muchin thetradition promised - think ofCarlyle)to resuscitate historians thepast,to restore it to life. irPrecisely because "culture"connotedpresence,particularity, fullness,it also doomed him to a necessaryanalytical reducibility, one often inreading a shortfall work as Williams's shortfall, experienced an asymmetry theprogrammatic between rather buildupand the often Buthowcouldanyreadings, modest no themselves. yieldofthereadings or insightful, matter howskilful givean adequatesenseof that possibly active,interacting, communicative, living, particular, unique,common, All Williams called"culture?" creative, exceptional thing ordinary, daily, sentence are takenfrom one page of The theadjectivesin theprevious Our very sensethat are somewhat Williams's analyses LongRevolution. in is ofthemystideficient or truncated, the service therefore,ultimately an of that In culture excessive que privileges particularity. a late work, Williamsexplicitly addressed theissues I've been discussing here.He his earlystress on livedexperience reconsidered and madea conscious from to distinguish cultural other called attempt aspectsof whathe then the "social process,"the"social order"or "social life"- still,notice, that The titleof thebookdevoted to word"society." avoiding generally thiseffort, was simply Culture whenit cameoutin Englandin however, under thetitle TheSociology itappeared 1981,but(perhaps significantly) In thisbook, when itcameoutintheUnited a yearlater. States ofCulture Williamsalso uses semiotic terms morefrequently thanhe had before, cultureas "the signifying whichnecessarily defining system through other is communicated, means)a socialorder (though among reproduced, and explored." The idea of"thesignifying he goes experienced system," on to explain, allowsa "convergence between and (i) theanthropological as a distinct 'wholewayof life'" and "(ii) sociologicalsenseof culture ifalso more themore common senseofculture as 'artistic and specialized intellectual activities."'Definingcultureas "the signifying system" it to a singlealbeitessential restricts function within "all forms ofsocial while the activity," simultaneously expanding specializedsense of the
word "to include not only the traditionalarts and formsof intellectual production but also all the 'signifying practices' - from language the artsand philosophyto journalism,fashionand advertising."3 through In short,Williams argues, in thissometimestortuously convolutedbook,

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84

Catherine Gallagher

that as they all social activities, insofar etc.,arecultural signify, products, or containan element of signification, but some are moremanifestly cultural others becausetheir overt function is signification. than Buthow, we might stillask,can we tellthedifference between signifyannounce that as their function and signification ing systems primary in Williams thosethat what calls "dissolve"signification "other" procesanswer to thisquestion ses? Williams's is, it seemsto me,complicated, of detailedattention. In those"other" odd, and worthy (not manifestly he different human cultural)activities, claims,"quite [nonsignifying] needsandactions aresubstantially andirreducibly thenecessary present: as it were,moreor less completely dissolvedintoother signification, needs and actions"(p. 209). Food, forexample,has "signifying" moonecan make offood, thevarious ments; semiotic analyses demonstrating social meanings of howand whatpeopleprepare and consume. But the function of Williams is initsprimary food, claims, submerged signifying of sustaining function life.He suggests we can delineate that thecultural the to which the is covered by analyzing degree nonsignifying by the or vice is in versa. another case signifying Money point:
While a coinage can be studiedas a specificsign-system, and as in many also analyzed there is moreover, examples, aesthetically, no real doubtthat in anygenuine and the needs actions of currency tradeand payment are dominant, and the signifying factor, though is in thissensedissolved.4 intrinsic,

two opposite reasons: such "other"phenomenaare eithertoo material,as in the case of food, or not material enough, as in the case of money. Despite Williams's overt thesis, then,the criterionfor inclusion in the "cultural"is not thedegree to whichthephenomenon signifies,forin the case of moneyit is clear thatwhenthesignifying systemworksefficient-

Food and money, are notmanifestly cultural therefore, because,as sig"in solution." are too much nifying systems, they This distinction between solid or visibleand dissolvedor invisible blinds Williams tothefundamental difference between these signification In thecase offood, twoexamples. a material, function takes physiological over an ideational The more food obtrudes itself as precedence meaning. a material the more social its is effaced. Williams necessity, "language" failsto see that is exactly thesituation in thecase ofmoney. theopposite Williams does its the best more it makes itself claims, Money, job as and unobtrusive a the that better itworks as a is, transparent signifier; of the less it seems like "cultural" else, sign something transparent sigto Williams. nification On theother hand,themorethemoney-signifier thickens intoa material thing-in-itself (say,in thecase of an extremely rareandbeautiful the more Williams is willing itthestatus togrant coin), - culture. of signification Williams thusstumbled intoan unconscious inthecourse ofCulture. Phenomena from "culture" for paradox disappear

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Williams andCultural Studies Raymond

85

todisappear, todissolve; when it's inefficient, ly,ittends though, clogged of withtheresistant the it is If we con"culture." materiality signifier, in hisbrief on what Williams calls cultural centrate ourattention discuswe are notobserving are instead sionof money, but simplesignification ofitsbreakdown, themoments dueeither totheintroduction of observing and values foreign to money's additional meanings primary signifying orjustto theburden ofexcessive function materiality. Whatare theimplications ofthesecontradictions for cultural studies? Williams's confusion hereis potentially valuablebecauseitopensa very fieldof investigation thatlies beyond themetaphysics of presence, the andfully viewoftheobjectas replete indescribably) (although meaningful.The idea of a signifying at least to some extent, a system implies, of objects,their certain abstract interchangeability abilityto standfor of meaning, to circulate other thanthemselves, as carriers and to things modifications of meaning in the processof circulation. The undergo the that of cultural allows us to particularity phenomena, verything a as of is to act as of them moment objects analysis, alwaysgoing specify and resistance to theunproblematic of obstruction extraction negativity, in In other his of ofmeaning. food and words, Williams, analysis money, comes rather late on an insight thatis by now a cliche: the moreone for concentrates on theimmanence ofa signifier, themateriality example, of thecoin,themoreopaque it seems,theless transparent, translatable andsmoothly functional itbecomes When we say,then, that qua signifier. is made up of all thethings thatare integrated culture intosignifying we shouldrealize thatthe thingness of the things exists in systems, as well as in cooperation function tension withtheir as moments in a system. of thesignifier, The problematic is one issue raised then, materiality remarks on Its is a Williams's by money. problematic immateriality thecoin becomesdecisively second.As we've remarked, "cultural" for Williams when it to function as a normal ceases when it coin,only only calls so muchattention to itself thatit is no longer usefulas currency. Williamsis once again unconsciously forwhomsigechoingArnold, forsignification did notdistinguish nification culture, impliessubstitution; culture,ratherconsisted in unreplaceability producedby the ofdifferent andperhaps kinds ofsignificance. This incompatible layering makesWilliams's use of theword"signifying" to thefungible hostility butit makeshis use of theword"system" incompuzzling, practically to Williams, it is precisely the factthata For, according prehensible.
allows systematic substitutions thatsomehow makes "genuine currency" it ineligible for the statusof "culturalprocess." He contraststhe operations of "trade and payment"to money's "signifyingfactor,"as if one receded while the other came into focus, whereas, in the instance of money, the two thingsare almost identical. It is only because money

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

86

Catherine Gallagher

becauseit strives buta signifying ideallyis nothing system, historically and obliterate its supplementarity, thatit to erase its verymateriality and which themselves to "trade be payment," aspire accomplishes nothing butsubstitution. be said to be typicalof act, might disappearing Money'sattempted whichhave a generaltendency to minimize the signifying systems, of thesignifier. itself materiality Signification problematic dependson The history of money, shouldbe parthis minimalization. moreover, to the cultural criticbecause it is comparatively interesting ticularly and therefore traceable. Even a brief look at thishistory modern reveals in a signsystem.5 Bankmoney, from thelogicofimmateriality which the we now call was form a of derived, currency simply "money" originally credit to of circulation out and thus avoid its designed keepgold money For whenever debasement. a preciousmetalis used as a currency, the coins themselves wearaway,their and diminishes, materiality gradually theactualamount ofmetal in thecoinand a gap thus between developes to represent. As BrianRotman thevalueit is authorized has explained,
This reliance on its own materiality, whereby gold money operates whoseweight is supposedto guarantee the sign through signifiers values in question, contains an inherent A gap arises instability.... issue of the state)and between (thepureunsullied "good" money andfraudulently "bad" money diminished coinsin circula(theworn value in between the This nominal ideal, tion). gap signified signifier to thefacevalue and thematerially debasedsignifier corresponding of itsactual, reduces thesignto a function that is contingent, which as theagio. became known weight This agio, an assumed average debasementof coins that Adam Smith

function.Of course, the materiality of the coins mattered because they had to bear the marksof having been coined by a legitimateagency in order to foil counterfeiters, but such symbolic featureswere carefully fromintrinsic differentiated ones. The amountof nickel,tin,copper,etc.,

as "thesupposed difference between thegoodstandard defines of money thestate, and theclipt,worn, anddiminished led state banks currency,"7 to create"imaginary" coins withlittlemetallic worth or paper money, thatwould standforthe gold, whichlay in pristine vouchers, heaps, to material If theintrinsic invulnerable worth disintegration. supposedly of gold was whatallowed it to circulate across national bounfreely, in and out of local circulation was also the daries, economies, very whatwas believedto be its improcessthatopenedthegap between and its signifying intrinsic function. worth manent, Hence, whenthe coin symbolsbegan bankingsystemdevelopedsufficient reliability, The essenceofthese thegoldcoinsincirculation. was replacing symbols thattheir material wouldbe conventionally that qualities specified, they wouldhave no intrinsic worth thatcould interfere withtheir signifying

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

andCultural Studies Williams Raymond

87

in a coin shouldideally,according of bank money, to the theory be as a determinant of thecoin's value. "immaterial," insignificant of suchde-materializations The history has beenthehistory ofmoney of the signifier: from to to screens. coins, paper, blips on computer these whereas have often come under about changes Ironically, pressure to createa moretransparent one "dominated," to use system, signifying "needs Williams's the and of actions trade and each words, by payment," has of de-materialization been as stage actually anxiously experienced an in money's To be sure, increase thelongdebateaboutmoney's autonomy. thegrowing awareness that itmay be unspecifiable, accounts for referent, of thesignifier, someof thisanxiety, butthevery thedecrease shrinking in its bulk alone, has frequently made it seem dangerously a potent, Thus, for system magically signifying capable of rearranging reality. Alexander example, Pope,in his 1732"EpistletoBathurst," depicts paper notas a falserepresentation of goldbutas a frightfully credit efficient can maketransactions In the invisible. one, whoseminimal materiality theclumsiness ofbribing officials with following passage,Popecontrasts goldwiththeease ofdoingso with paper:
beneath thepatriot's Once,we confess, cloak, Fromthecrack'dbag thedropping guinea spoke, downtheback-stairs, toldthecrew, And, jingling "Old Cato is as great a rogueas you." Blestpaper-credit! lastandbestsupply! Thatlendscorruption to fly! wings lighter Gold imp'dbythee, can compass hardest things, Can pocket can fetch orcarry states, kings.8

The contrast between "Old Cato's" clanking, self-accusing goldenbribe and the "imp'd," or (fromWilliam III, accordingto the footnote) thatthe "lighter" is enchanted, gold of papercreditstresses currency morepowerful becausemoreinsubstantial and secretive. Innecessarily act stealsthesubstance ofthevery deed,itsmagicaldisappearing things it represents: "Can pocket orcarry can fetch Disembodied states, kings." is imagined so wellherethat to work itthreatens to become signification a species of anti-matter thatcan translate intoa different everything dimension. And in thissense,Pope's anxiety aboutpaper ontological is part ofa larger credit abouttheminimal in inherent anxiety materiality "signifying systems."9 to consider as a cultural Williams'sunwillingness money "signifying well have been determined the oftwoquite might system" by conjunction "materialist" he had repeatedly considerations. First, separate although the old-fashioned Marxist difference between base andsuperquestioned
in his earlierbooks, in bothPolitics and Lettersand Culture,he structure is more willing thanhe formerly was to let the distinction stand. Hence money's ineligibilityfor culturemightstem partlyfromits dissolution into the economic, which Williams seems to have decided was out of

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

88

Catherine Gallagher

seems to have been money's bounds.The other consideration, though, own problematic lack of defining thecultural materialism that matter; Williamsfrequently advocated as its nameimplies,matter. privileges, cointhat no longer circulates Hencetherareandbeautiful as a coinat all toWilliams than seemsmore that actual"cultural" anypieceofcurrency in a signifying It is thiscultural I've materialism, system. ly functions been arguing, thatavoids confronting theconditions underwhichsignification of relapsing intoan actuallyoccursand is hencein danger Arnoldianbelief thatmatter and signification are harmoniously integrated. I'm suggesting, criticsshouldinstead, Cultural in the be interested tension immanence and signification, between notbecause it givesus a timelesstruth about meaning, but because the tensiontakesso many forms different and has so manydifferent functions. The way things refuseintegration into signifying is systems historically specific.For I've the been which dynamic describing example, by moneyis deitsfunction materialized toaccomplish ofcirculation andis then, because ofitslackofmaterial as dangerously is substance, autonomous, regarded crucialto an understanding of other in modern cultural developments of immanent and nonsignifying Europe.It is just suchinstances opacity that often most in thecourse resonant. To be sure, ofany emptiness prove theresistance willnecessarily to meaning be reclaimed as itself analysis, thelevelsofimmanence andsignification will and,therefore, meaningful it should once againbe collapsed.However, notbe ourintention to erect a barrier between these twoaspects of"culture." I amarguing, that rather, we cannot thehistorical understand function oftheobjectuntil we underitspeculiar stand itself ofimmediate waysofemptying comprehensibility. IndeedWilliams, at theverytimethat he was redefining culture as "the admitted thatit was the word'srefusalto signify signifying system" coherent led himon: "I've onlybecomemore that awareof its anything notless,as I havegoneon,"he confessed tohisinterviewers. difficulties, "You knowthenumber oftimes I've wished I hadnever that ofthe heard damned word."'o Notes.
revised edition 1.The (New York:1966),p. 45. LongRevolution, 2.Politics andLetters; Interviews with NewLeft Review (London:1979),p. 154. 3.TheSociology (New York:1982),p. 13. ofCulture 4Jbid., p. 210. on several sources: AdamSmith's AnInquiry intotheNature and 5.Thefollowing rely paragraphs Causes of theWealth ofNations(New York:1970), especially pp. 250-294;GeorgSimmel'sThe Tom Bottomore and David Frisby (Boston,1982), pp. 146-160;W. Philosophy of Money,trans. Graham's TheOnePoundNotein the inGreat Britain 1911 History are, ). They ofBanking (Edinburgh, most indebted toBrianRotman's excellent TheSemiotics however, heavily study, Signifying Nothing: 1987). ofZero (New York, 6.Rotman, p. 24. 7.Smith, p. 423. to Bathurst," Alexander Dobree(London, Poems,ed. Bonamy 8."Epistle Pope. Collected 1983),pp. 235-6.

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Williams andCultural Studies Raymond

89

itbearsnumerous to be sure, is traceable in theory; tokens of itsorigin and 9. "Blestpapercredit," valuable"gold can support Indeed,one might anonymity history. pointout thatthe "intrinsically have butalso simply is nothing morethanitsown record. notonlymust The whereas papermoney is generated historical withall of its identifying continue, record, by the very signs,one might usnot that toPope'scomplaint, remind Suchobjections dematerialization however, paper Popelaments. itcausedis inscribed in itsform. butthat theanxiety should nothavecausedanxiety, money

andLetters, 10.Politics p. 154.

This content downloaded on Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:39:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions