Raymond Williams

Williams critiques Marxism through the lens of aesthetic theory, reformulating accepted Marxist readings by refiguring concepts such as the base/superstructure and materialism. For Williams, a major pitfall of prevailing Marxist readings are that they fail to consider the social -- and thus material-- nature of all activities. His goal: to craft a social theory that exposes the methods of social operations and eliminates any claims to universality.

Williams bases his critique on the premise that everything is social. That is, Marxism has not sufficiently accounted for the materiality of human action. His assumptions, then, are many: he expects a highly academic knowledge of Marxism --both Marx himself and his critics -- and esoteric knowledge of cultural theory. In addition, he assumes that his readers are either supporters of Marx, or academics sympathetic to his positions. Finally, Williams presupposes a wide knowledge of literature and critical theory so that he can briefly -- and sometimes implicitly -- mention them. In other words, there seems to be little need for direct citation or quotation from texts other than Marx. Finally, but certainly not insignificantly, Williams expects that his audience values literature and academic scholarship --and that they have access to it.

In addition to his critique of Marxism, Williams seems to want to supplant prevailing Marxist theories with a more sophisticated knowledge of Marxism and its relationship to literature. While my own reading of Williams is likely reductive, at the same time I see the focus on materialism and society key elements of the project. Thus, he wants to supplement notions of Marxist aesthetics with a deeper understanding of Marxist terminology and revised understanding of the overall project, by examining literature.

My questions are many. First, though, what, contextually, inspires Williams's critique (or, if you prefer, reformulation) of Marxism? Especially aesthetics shot through Marxism? My version gives 1977 as its date of publication; what, in 1977, was Williams responding to and why? I know this seems like a lame question, particularly since we talked about it during last class, but it's been bugging me. So there goes.

In the chapter on "Hegemony," Williams refers to it as "a lived system of meanings and values-- constituted and constituting-- which as they are experienced as practices appear as reciprocally confirming" (110). If hegemony is redefined in this manner, there seems to be no possibility of "escape," especially if it constitutes a "sense of absolute." How does Williams's discussion of hegemony directly relate to our discussions of aesthetics and the ability to "escape" or "transcend" reality through art? Are concepts like the "aura" or art's revolutionary potential just residues or effects of hegemony?

Why, again, a focus on literature? Does literature do something that paintings, for example, cannot? Why?

Finally, I'm interested in how we might be able to use this, either in our everyday lives or in teaching or scholarship. I'm all for discussions, don't get me wrong, but if Williams wants to make visible the operations of a social theory, then he has a bit of work to do (in my book) if he wants me to apply it to anything. What, then, do I do with this? And how? Is it meant to even be applied?