In Raymond Williams’ essay, “Culture is Ordinary”, I gather that he is implying that culture is a common experience. In the essay he articulates that it is an inconsistency in language for culture to be related to the elitist term “cultured,” which considers something to be refined, sophisticated or well-educated. Williams describes himself as a person coming from a rural background and from the working class. His family and many of the people he associates with do not appear to possess great levels of education, but they still contribute (along with the higher classes, or “bourgeoisie”) the daily experience of a particular society, which we call “culture.” Williams' seems to say that culture is simply the product of living by all the classes in one society. As culture is formed in an everyday, common experience it cannot be said that culture is good or bad, high-brow or low-brow, for it will go down in history as being all that and perhaps, gain or lose credibility with the “cultured” people, as we further ourselves from it with time.
Today, the commonality of culture is perhaps, easiest identified as “pop culture.” There is a common experience for the American society in television, movies, books, magazine, art and the Internet. This is a common experience that no one is above, for all people partake in it. Also, we have globalization in which the commonality of culture is reaching all peoples, unrestricted to any one society, and thus, creating an ordinary culture at a global scale.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“Williams' seems to say that culture is simply the product of living by all the classes in one society. As culture is formed in an everyday, common experience it cannot be said that culture is good or bad, high-brow or low-brow, for it will go down in history as being all that and perhaps, gain or lose credibility with the “cultured” people, as we further ourselves from it with time.”
ReplyDeleteConsidering the class is taking the time to analyze culture through a theoretical perspective, I’m hesitant to agree that culture can “simply” be anything. As Williams claims in his plea for a full liberal education for everyone, “[E]very man’s ignorance diminishes me, and every man’s skill is a common gain of breath.” This bold claim leads one to believe that there can in fact be what one could consider a “bad” culture if in fact these “ignorant” men strongly influence the lives of others. Clearly through his remarks, Williams believes in both the weakening and strengthening of a culture; he refuses to take culture in an “as is” condition.
However, I struggle with my own line of thinking because when people perceive something in a positive or negative light, that thing being analyzed suddenly takes on an entirely different reality. Does perception shape reality or reality perception?
To continue with your question: Does perception shape reality or reality perception?
ReplyDeleteI’d have to say that perception shapes reality. All the articles that we have read so far seemed to have the common theme of nothing is what it seems. This is an idea that all of us have probably heard at one point or another, but to be forced to question our “truths,” which are really our perceptions, can definitely shift our “reality.” By reality, I mean how we go about the world and the beliefs we hold to be true and acknowledge as such.
I think it takes a very broad perception to begin to comprehend the complexities of our world’s “reality” and ultimate truths, which are made up of the past and future and many complexities we cannot access nor comprehend. However, I would not say this is chaotic
Recently, I spoke to a professor that spoke to me about the chaos theory, which holds that all that we believe to be random and chaotic is really higher order that we cannot comprehend. I feel that is the case with what we call perception or reality. If we could remove ourselves from linear time and see all that has been, the present and future at once—like De Certeau in the “Walking in the City”—we’d be able to see a higher order and thus, understand all that which can overwhelmingly seem incomprehensible.
I agree. As a philosophy major especially interested in phenomenology, the interplay between external reality and our subjective perceptions is fascinating to me. I'm no idealist. I do believe in an external reality which we do not create, but perceive. But our perceptions: not only our senses, but our convictions and past experiences, especially of other people, undeniably influence how we read reality. While I love music, I am no trained musician and how I perceive and interpret a beautiful piece classical composition is different and less rich than a piano player trained in conducting. Our past experiences also contribute to our perception. I might have no particular attachment to a Mozart composition and thus might find it less beautiful than someone whose first date with their girlfriend was at a restaurant where the composition played in the background.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I think that, while there is external, universal reality, our perceptions are limited and that reality is knowable only incompletely - like the shadows in Plato's cave. One of the principle tasks of human existence is to move from the shadows to the light through a process of examining other perspectives, reflecting on our own beliefs and convictions and separating the bad and false from the good and true. This is a lifelong process that will never be complete, through there is much to be gained in the trying.