Elationship Ishika Jain

18060321056
CA 1

Q. How does Raymond Williams define Culture? Do you find the definition useful? Give an
example for your agreement or disagreement.

The construction of the world in binaries has been the norm as it stabilises the society and
helps those to retain their power who fix the relations between these binaries. For a long time
in history, the definition and understanding of ‘culture’ has been regulated by those in power
and restricted to those practices and meaning making structures which are considered as
refined by the elites of the society. Often, the concept of being cultured was associated with
the membership of a certain class of society possessing some amount of cultural capital.
Cultural studies tries to understand this association of power and culture. This paradigm
understand culture as shared logical system of organising the world and attributes this
capability to every culture equally. In other words, cultural studies believes that various
cultures comprises of related ideas constructed in a logical manner, not parallel to each other
but mostly overlapping one another. Therefore, to comprehend the construction of societal
structures and cultural norms, it is important to have a nuanced understanding of the essence
of ‘culture’.

The culturalist tendency emerged as a challenge to the fixity imposed by viewing the world in
binaries; proponents include Williams, who proposes the idea of ‘structures of feelings’ (Hall,
1980). He brings together the larger structure of the society with individual feelings,
consciousness and agency. He deliberates that making sense of one’s experience as rational
and conscious human beings in addition to coming together against structural oppression can
resist the binary view of the society. According to Williams, the marginalised come together
on the basis of their experience, consciousness and rationality to make sense of their reality
only to question the existing hegemonic structure of the culture. According to Saussure, the
various meaning making rationales adopted by different cultures depend on the language they
prescribe to. The meanings of reality is not organised using rationality, but on arbitrary
relations and differences created by language which is agreed upon through consensus in a
community.
William’s (1989a) description of the ‘tea shop culture’ presents this typical understanding of
culture, also emphasising on the role of education and academic hegemony in recreating these
spaces of restrictive access to everyone not ascribing to this definition of culture. This
understanding of culture helps comprehend the question of caste and its link to Sanskrit
language in India. Sanskrit as a language has been the tool of the powerful to separate
themselves from the masses, forming distinct categories of caste- the cultured upper caste and
the uncultured lower caste- by restricting educational access to the language and therefore to
the religious scriptures (written in Sanskrit). Interestingly, some cultural nationalists like
Anand K Coomaraswamy defined culture as a product of refined taste against Tagore’s idea
of basing culture in the activities of the working class (Prasad, 2001). India widely accepted
Coomaraswamy’s definition of culture and therefore, viewed Sanskrit to be cultured and
accessible to only those elites of the society who had the ability to distinguish the fine nature
of Sanskrit against other languages.

Williams points out this primary division in the society between the elite and the non-elite,
and proposes that these seemingly parallel field constantly interact with each other to assume
the power of meaning making in the society. For Williams, the point of exclusion is not
opposing the centre of power but a lot more agreeable and at the same time challenging. This
space of negotiation is where Williams conceptualises his understanding of culture. He
situates culture as a site of convergence emphasising on the interaction of various practices
within and with one another. Acknowledging the divide between the centre and the
marginalised, he advocates for observing the marginalised as conscious human beings
possessing similar capabilities of making sense of the world for themselves, which often
results in conflicting notions in the society. In these spaces of resistance, people come
together to negotiate with the dominant discourse and challenge it to make sense of their life.
With the aim to democratise culture, he defines it as ordinary (William, 1989a). According to
him, culture is a sum of meanings which helps reflect on the common experiences in a
society and therefore it is ordinary. He insists on the absorption of all practices into the
totality of real indissoluble practices, viewing the concept of culture as a ‘whole way of life’
(Hall, 1980) which is inclusive of the definitions of experiences. His construct of culture lies
in a state of indeterminacy rather than being a logically clarified idea. He further overcomes
the problem of determinacy of certain base or superstructure (a position against that of
Marxism) by emphasising on the interaction and integration of culture and structure in
society, suggesting that the positions of base and superstructures not necessarily exist in
hierarchies but constantly determine each other. Williams’ consistent association with the
Welsh working class cultural identity amidst the teashop culture is an example of opposing
cultural identities constantly negotiating for constructing meanings of their own. Similarly,
the marginalised caste groups in India either revolutionise their struggle against the
supremacy of the upper caste or immerse themselves in the process of Sanskritization only to
negotiate their space in the society. His belief in a congregation of people to come together
and make rational decisions to assume power against the meaning making systems of those
regulating the dominant discourse, helps to understand how restricted knowledge systems like
the exclusive access of a certain caste to learning Sanskrit and further studying the religious
scriptures give way to mass accessibility of translations off these scriptures which helps
bridge the knowledge disparity within the society.

Williams is also influenced by F.R. Leavis’ formulation of the relation between art and
experience, which primarily states that understanding of the aesthetic value lies in experience
and internal logic rather than the value associated with the creator of the work. The modern
society cheapens human responses to experience, to some extent and Leavis says that, only
education can keep the human sensibility and individual value alive (Williams, 1989a). In
relation to this idea, Williams talks about the perception of technology in the modern society.
He emphasises on the fact that while the formation of the modern society has replaced and
reduced the value of experience, it has also brought about the technological advancement and
improved the standard of living; a change not many are willing to give up for the accusation
of cultural vulgarity. He does not deny technological advancements due to its biased nature,
rather he proposes for its democratisation which supports his critique of the hierarchical
nature of base and superstructure in society.

Williams observes the speciality of modern society in understanding the construction of the
nation and the national culture. One of the primary meanings that circulate in the modern
society is that of the word ‘nation’. There is always a collision within such meanings for
persons in power and those marginalised. William’s conception of culture as spaces of
negotiation is a helpful tool to understand the nationalist construction of the idea of nation
during the 19th century in India. The definition of Indian national culture lied in the
interaction of the desired technological advancement with the preservation of the indigenous
practices of India in the realm of religiosity and spirituality. While India strived towards a
democratised modern society in the material sense of order, the nationalists asserted the
Indian cultural identity through the realm of spirituality, central to the cultural fabric of India.
Therefore, Indian national culture is constantly negotiating between these seemingly opposite
paradigms, yet complimenting each other in the construction of the nationalist struggle.

Nehru’s definition of national culture differed from this amalgamation of the spiritual and the
material. According to him, culture cannot be defined in its purity rather in its dynamic
nature. He organises culture in the material reality and contends that the nationalist notion of
claiming superiority in the spiritual thought comes from a lack of technological advancement
and is therefore flawed. He bases his definition of culture in cooperation and unity in
diversity understanding it as a whole way of life (adopting William’s notion of culture)
(Prasad, 2001). Progressives like Tagore acknowledged the colonial influence on Indian
society and tried to construct an inclusive cultural history located in modernity. Milton Singer
and Arjun Appadurai agree on the ability of cultures to assimilate themselves in modernity in
their own way and still retain their individual characteristic features. On the other hand,
Ashish Nandy criticises Nehru’s ideals of western rationality and individualism. He claimed
that westernisation of Indian culture can lead to destruction of cultural differences and
diversity of the Indian traditional culture. He proposes a process of continuity rather than
disruption in the reconceptualization of the Indian national culture (Prasad, 2001).

I agree with Williams’ definition of culture in the ordinary as it supports the recognition of
every person’s practices and at the same time accepts the existence of rationality,
consciousness and capability in all human beings to make sense of their lives. It not only
democratises the idea of culture but also provides a space for revolution and reformation and
for people to come together and challenge the dominant cultural hegemony often constructed
by the elites of the society. This definition helped me to understand how culture functions
along with power in societies to reinforce hierarchies of class, caste, gender and even
ideologies. William’s definition of culture made it easier for me to understand the modernist
ideas of scholars like Nehru, Appadurai and Singer against those of Nandy and other scholars
who believed in the continuity of the traditional and the spiritual India. Interestingly, all these
definitions of culture assume some kind of power dynamics in the society and either try to
resolve the power struggle or reinforce it. Either ways, hierarchical formation of society feels
inevitable through these definitions of culture and yet at the same time answers the key to
breaking this pattern of hierarchy. These definitions are not mere insights into the society, but
also questions which makes us reflect on our positions in the society. Therefore, studying
culture not only delves into the social realm but invariably reflects the social into the
individual and vice versa.
References

Hall, S. (1980). Cultural studies: two paradigms. Media, Culture & Society, 2(1), 57–
72. doi:10.1177/016344378000200106 

Prasad, M. (2001). Culture. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural

Sciences, Oxford : Elsevier Science.

William, R. (1989a). Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. London: Verso, 3-

14.