Culture

1229 Words3 Pages

It is interesting that Raymond Williams creates a division between high class culture and lower class culture, suggesting that culture is ordinary, shared and common. If this is the case why does he emphasise a division in light of this concept? And if we all share a common culture can there be a division?

It is difficult to understand the term culture. What is culture? Is it a utopian dream, is it a shared group of interests that bring a community together, or is it just simply a way of life? There are so many questions surrounding culture and its meaning. Raymond Williams described culture as “maps of meaning through which the world is made intelligible”, whether we agree with this definition or not, he was right in saying that the term culture is one of the most “complicated words in the English language”;

Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language. This is so partly because of its intricate historical development {…} but mainly because it has now come to be used for important concepts in several distinct intellectual disciplines and in several distinct and incompatible systems of thought.

To formulate an essay entirely on cultures meaning would be extremely difficult due to its meaning being so vast and indescribable and would therefore not lead to any relevant conclusion. Culture has a paradigmatic complexity and it’s this that makes it so hard to analyse effectively. However, if you were to place a leading phrase in front of the word “culture” , a word that defines its disciplines, it becomes more identifiable; pop culture, oral culture and print culture. Throughout this essay I will be mainly focusing on internet culture and will describe my understanding of the term and will ad...

... middle of paper ...

... preachers”, therefore enabling all publicists and promoters to have leadership over the public. It may seem that Tarde was echoing Lebon’s theory, but he certainly was not. Tarde was discussing a pluralistic society by describing the present as “the era of the public or publics”. He suggested that one cannot be part of more than one crowd at the same time, so that, “the gradual substitution of publics for crowds . . . is always accompanied by progress in tolerance” ([1898] 1969, p. 281). He does however suggest that an over public can deteriorate into a crowd but that a “fall from public to crowd, though extremely dangerous, is fairly rare and] it remains evident that the opposition of two publics, always ready to fuse along their indistinct] . . .boundaries, is a lesser danger to social peace than the encounter of two opposing crowds” ([1898] 1969, p. 282).

Open Document