Thoughts on Williams

Thoughts on Williams

On pages 52 and 53 in the chapter entitled “Institutions” Williams discusses how the origin of cultural production for new media; cinema, radio, and television, in the twentieth century is found in the “corporate market.” The dominance of the corporate market makes access to the prior “artisinal” sites of cultural production and distribution more difficult. The older forms of cultural exchange are not eclipsed by the corporate model, but have instead persisted at different sites. “This does not mean, of course, that older forms of relation have not survived elsewhere. In the older arts of painting and sculpture, orchestral music and, as we have seen, some writing, the complex relations of the individual producer (and originator) have persisted” (53). Where is the “elsewhere” that these older art forms survive? Is there some sort of vernacular or folk space that allows the artistic process to adapt and continue? Is there not a middle ground where older forms of production and distribution are combined with newer forms to adapt to emergent technological changes? Is the middle ground a transitional site en route toward assimilation into the dominant corporate form, or can the middle ground adapt enough to originate unique alternative forms? Essentially, I’m interested in how Williams would define and describe folkways and folk culture, because I think they inhabit this “elsewhere” space that seems oblique and indeterminate.

On pages 94 and 95 in the chapter entitled “Means of Production,” Williams discusses how cultural hierarchies became more solidified from the movement of oral to written communication. Oral communication in the realms of “law, learning, religion, and history” already had “marked cultural divisions.” With the movement toward the written word, these hierarchies became more apparent. He argues that the accessibility and distribution of literacy has been slow and the divisions between the literate and illiterate are much larger than we realize. He describes this unequal relationship as “asymmetrical” because “the importance of writing increases but the ability to read rises much more slowly” (108). The most crucial knowledge and information became located in print form, selected, consumed, and understood by a dominant minority of the population. Williams doesn’t go into great detail discussing the asymmetry involved in cultural taste. He does mention the tension cultural elites face in maintaining a “high culture” despite its potential low profit margins. His essential point though, is that print becomes the medium that solidifies class divisions.

A question for discussion: What would be the contemporary equivalent of the printing revolution be for contemporary society? What is an example of a technological development that has changed the way we communicate and understand knowledge but has been slow in accessibility and distribution?

Matt Nelson