“Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams

“Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams was first published in 1974 in the journal New Left Review. This adaptation of a keynote address delivered in 1973 underscores the importance of communication studies in literature and literary theory. Williams, a renowned scholar and Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, explores the intricate relationship between communication and culture, emphasizing the significance of language, meaning, and context in shaping human understanding. His work has had a profound influence on the fields of cultural studies, media studies, and literary theory.

Summary of “Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference/Quotation
Communication Practice	The idea that communication is not just about transmitting information but a practice deeply embedded in culture and human interaction.	“Communication study is open to whatever can be learned of the basis of this practice: the detailed processes of language and of gesture, in expression and interaction…”
Artifacts	Cultural products such as poems, paintings, films, etc., which are often analyzed in isolation from their broader social and historical contexts.	“The study of cultural artifacts… in an academic context can separate out… from that more central perception that they were made by real men in real places in real and significant social relationships.”
Cultural Science	An interdisciplinary approach to understanding communication and cultural practices, combining insights from social sciences, humanities, and technology.	“The approach I want to describe is that of cultural studies, which is English for ‘cultural science’… Communication study is open to whatever can be learned of the basis of this practice.”
Mass Communications	A term criticized by Williams for limiting the scope of communication studies by focusing on media like television and cinema, neglecting broader communication forms.	“‘Mass-communications’… describes and too often predicts departments and research programs… and which it is time to bury.”
Elective Affinities	A term from Weber, referring to the relationships and mutual influences between cultural and social practices.	“Weber… was persistently concerned with the relations between fundamental social and cultural practices, and his hypothesis of elective affinities… has proved an attractive halfway house in cultural analysis.”
Technological Mediation	The influence of technology on communication, where different media like television and books shape the way communication is produced and received.	“The effects on these processes and features of particular technologies which since it is a modern study it necessarily considers over a range from the printed book and the photograph to broadcasting and motion pictures.”
Aesthetic Analysis	The detailed examination of cultural works such as literature, film, or art, often criticized for being overly focused on past works and ignoring contemporary practices.	“What the practice of aesthetic analysis contributed was a capacity for sustained and detailed analysis of actual cultural works.”
Social Relations in Communication	The idea that communication is deeply intertwined with social contexts and relationships, requiring attention to the conditions under which communication occurs.	“The study of social relations within which the practice occurred… losing its touch with life.”
Cultural Institutions	Organizations and systems (like media institutions or academic bodies) that produce, regulate, and disseminate communication, influencing cultural practices.	“Studies of institutions, in the full sense—of the productive institutions, of their audiences, and of the forms of relationship between them…”

Contribution of “Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Cultural Materialism

• Contribution: Williams advances the idea that culture is inseparable from material conditions, contributing to the development of Cultural Materialism. He emphasizes that communication practices are not only about aesthetic value but are embedded in social relations and material production.
• Reference: “Marx challenged that by naming the guiding element… as material production and the social relations it embodies.”
• Theory: Cultural Materialism, which sees cultural practices as shaped by the socio-economic structures of society. Williams extends this by examining communication as both a cultural and material practice, breaking away from purely idealist or aesthetic interpretations.

2. Interdisciplinary Approach in Cultural Studies

• Contribution: Williams pushes for an interdisciplinary approach in cultural studies, arguing for the integration of literary analysis with social science, technology studies, and communication theory. This promotes a broader analysis of texts as cultural artifacts influenced by social, technological, and institutional contexts.
• Reference: “Shall we try, in some form… to put them physically if in no other way in contact for say the next five years, and see if we learn anything?”
• Theory: This interdisciplinary approach contributes to Cultural Studies theory by integrating diverse methods from sociology, aesthetics, and communication studies. Williams’ suggestion to bridge these fields reflects his belief that analyzing texts should go beyond aesthetic appreciation to include social and institutional forces.

3. Critique of “Mass Culture” and “Mass Communication” Theories

• Contribution: Williams critiques the notion of “mass communication” as reductive, calling it a limiting term that focuses on a narrow scope of media such as television and cinema, while ignoring other important forms of communication, such as speech and writing.
• Reference: “‘Mass-communications’… describes and too often predicts departments and research programs… and which it is time to bury.”
• Theory: This critique aligns with and extends the Critique of Mass Culture by theorists like Theodor Adorno, who also questioned the standardization and commodification of culture. Williams, however, shifts the focus to explore how the study of mass communication often neglects the diversity and complexity of human communication.

4. Extension of Marxist Theory to Communication

• Contribution: Williams applies Marxist theory to communication studies, stressing that cultural practices (including communication) are shaped by the material and social relations of production. He highlights how communication is intertwined with economic and social systems, rather than being a purely ideological or aesthetic function.
• Reference: “Out of this argument, about the relation between practices, came the new concept of cultural science and with it a significant part of modern sociology.”
• Theory: This contribution extends Marxist Literary Theory by analyzing communication not just as an ideological product but as a material practice deeply embedded in the relations of production. Williams emphasizes how technologies and institutions shape communication, reinforcing Marxist ideas about the influence of material conditions on culture.

5. Challenge to Formalist Literary Criticism

• Contribution: Williams challenges traditional Formalist Literary Criticism, which isolates texts as aesthetic objects without considering their social and cultural contexts. He argues that focusing solely on aesthetic analysis turns cultural practices into artifacts, ignoring the social relations and practices that produce these texts.
• Reference: “It is also that a practice has to become an artifact… to deserve much attention. A seventeenth-century political pamphlet deserves disciplined attention; a current party political broadcast does not.”
• Theory: This is a challenge to New Criticism and other formalist approaches that prioritize the text’s form and structure over its socio-political and historical context. Williams calls for the inclusion of social and cultural analysis in literary studies.

6. Communications as Cultural Practice

• Contribution: Williams emphasizes that communication should be understood as an active cultural practice, not merely as the transmission of information. He expands on Cultural Practice Theory by focusing on how communication is embedded in everyday social life and shaped by cultural conventions.
• Reference: “Communication study is open to whatever can be learned of the basis of this practice… of course any general features of underlying human structures and conventions.”
• Theory: This aligns with Practice Theory, which focuses on the ways in which human actions (including communication) are shaped by cultural, social, and historical contexts. Williams stresses that communication is a living cultural process rather than a static object of study.

7. Critical Inquiry into Media and Technology

• Contribution: Williams’ emphasis on the effects of technology on communication and cultural forms contributes to Media Theory. He advocates for a critical analysis of how technologies shape the way communication is produced, transmitted, and received, moving beyond a purely aesthetic or content-based analysis.
• Reference: “It is also a cultural form, and that the form indicates many overt and covert relationships.”
• Theory: Williams’ perspective contributes to Media Ecology and Technological Determinism, where media forms are seen as crucial in shaping cultural and social relations. He insists that technology is not neutral but an active agent in shaping communication practices.

8. Holistic Approach to Cultural Studies

• Contribution: Williams advocates for a holistic approach to cultural studies, where both aesthetic and social analysis are combined to understand the full scope of cultural practices. He calls for the inclusion of economic, political, and technological factors in the analysis of communication and culture.
• Reference: “Studies of institutions, in the full sense—of the productive institutions, of their audiences, and of the forms of relationship between them—will have to be carried out by procedures of social science.”
• Theory: This holistic approach aligns with Cultural Hegemony Theory (Gramsci) and Cultural Studies, where the role of institutions, power, and ideology is critical to understanding cultural forms.

Examples of Critiques Through “Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams

Title & Author	Critique through “Communications As Cultural Science”
1984 by George Orwell	Using Williams’ framework, 1984 can be critiqued through its portrayal of communication as a tool of political power and control. Orwell’s depiction of “Newspeak” and the suppression of free thought aligns with Williams’ analysis of how institutions manipulate communication for political ends. Quotation: “The great or at least large institutions of modern communications need intensive and continuous study.”
Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf	In Mrs. Dalloway, Williams’ emphasis on the social relations underlying communication is relevant. Woolf’s stream-of-consciousness technique reveals how characters’ inner dialogues are shaped by their social and cultural contexts. The novel can be critiqued for illustrating how personal and social communication intersect. Quotation: “The study of social relations within which the practice occurred…”
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Williams’ critique of turning cultural practices into “artifacts” is applicable to The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald’s depiction of the American Dream can be viewed as a commentary on the commodification of culture and identity. The novel critiques how communication, particularly through social symbols like wealth, is mediated by class and economic structures. Quotation: “Cultural practices… shaped by material production and the social relations it embodies.”
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley	Huxley’s Brave New World can be critiqued through Williams’ ideas about “mass communications” and the manipulation of culture. The World State’s use of media to control and pacify its citizens mirrors Williams’ concerns about how communication is limited and shaped by powerful institutions, reducing human interaction to a controlled practice. Quotation: “‘Mass-communications’… confidently named as the study of ‘mass-communications.’”

Criticism Against “Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams

1. Overemphasis on Institutional Influence

• Critics might argue that Williams places too much emphasis on the role of institutions in shaping communication, potentially downplaying the agency of individuals in creating and interpreting communication.

2. Idealistic View of Interdisciplinary Collaboration

• Williams advocates for interdisciplinary collaboration among communication scientists, sociologists, engineers, and cultural analysts, but critics may point out the practical difficulties and power imbalances that make such collaboration challenging in academic and institutional settings.

3. Lack of Focus on Global Perspectives

• The article is largely focused on Western communication practices and institutions, particularly those in Britain. Critics could argue that Williams overlooks how communication practices and cultural science function in non-Western societies, potentially limiting the global applicability of his ideas.

4. Vague Concept of Cultural Science

• The concept of “cultural science” as defined by Williams may be seen as vague or ill-defined, making it difficult to apply in practical research or academic study. Critics might call for a clearer methodological framework to distinguish it from other fields like cultural studies or media studies.

5. Limited Engagement with Digital Media

• Although Williams acknowledges the influence of modern technologies like broadcasting and motion pictures, critics might argue that his analysis does not fully engage with the rapidly emerging digital media landscape, which significantly transformed communication practices since the article’s publication.

6. Elitist Critique of “Mass Communications”

• Williams’ critique of “mass communications” could be seen as elitist, as he appears to dismiss popular media such as television, cinema, and pop culture without fully exploring their complexities or potential for cultural value.

7. Neglect of the Audience’s Active Role

• Williams focuses heavily on the production and institutional control of communication, but some critics might argue that he underestimates the active role of audiences in interpreting, resisting, and reshaping communication.

Representative Quotations from “Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The study of communications—that significant plural—is by contrast, at least at first sight, a modern phenomenon.”	Williams emphasizes that the field of communication studies is relatively new compared to older disciplines like grammar and rhetoric. This reflects the modern societal developments and the need to study communications in a broader, pluralistic context, beyond traditional academic boundaries.
“The institutions of communications, in modern societies, are of a size and importance which give them, inevitably, social and political significance.”	Williams highlights the centrality of communication institutions in shaping social and political life, suggesting that communication is not just an academic subject but one with real-world impact on politics, economics, and society.
“Here, centrally, communication is a practice.”	This quotation illustrates Williams’ belief that communication is not merely the transmission of information, but a dynamic practice shaped by cultural, social, and historical contexts. It emphasizes the practical, everyday nature of communication in human interactions.
“That communication scientists cannot communicate with each other is by now one of those old jokes that with repetition become melancholy.”	Williams points out the irony that scholars in communication studies often fail to communicate effectively across disciplinary boundaries, critiquing the fragmentation within the field. This reflects his call for interdisciplinary collaboration to unify the study of communication.
“Marx challenged that by naming the guiding element—even, in language he inherited, the determining element—as material production and the social relations it embodies.”	Williams invokes Marxist theory to stress that communication and culture are shaped by material production and social relations. This aligns with his broader argument that communication cannot be separated from the economic and social structures in which it occurs.
“‘Mass-communications’ is a term which… describes and too often predicts departments and research programs… and which it is time to bury.”	Williams critiques the concept of “mass communications,” arguing that it limits the study of communication to specific media (like television or film), ignoring the complexity and diversity of communication practices in society. He advocates for a broader and more inclusive approach.
“The study of social relations within which the practice occurred… losing its touch with life.”	Williams criticizes traditional approaches that isolate cultural artifacts from the social relations in which they are produced. He argues for a more holistic understanding of communication that integrates the social and cultural contexts of its creation and use.
“A practice has to become an artifact… to deserve much attention.”	Here, Williams critiques the academic tendency to prioritize historical or classical artifacts over contemporary practices. He suggests that this disconnects the study of communication from living culture, making the field overly focused on the past rather than relevant modern practices.
“The great or at least large institutions of modern communications need intensive and continuous study.”	Williams calls for more rigorous research into the institutions that shape modern communication, such as media companies and broadcasting networks. He suggests that understanding these institutions is essential for understanding how communication affects society on a larger scale.
“Who says what to whom with what effect?—but ‘with what purpose?’ Nobody seemed to be mentioning or inquiring into that.”	Williams critiques the omission of intent or purpose in traditional models of communication analysis, such as Lasswell’s communication model. He argues that understanding the purpose behind communication is crucial to understanding its effects and meanings.

Suggested Readings: “Communications As Cultural Science” by Raymond Williams

1. McGuigan, Jim. “Raymond Williams on Culture and Society.” Key Words: A Journal of Cultural Materialism, no. 10, 2012, pp. 40–54. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26920315. Accessed 28 Sept. 2024.
2. Pooley, Jefferson. James W. Carey and Communication Research: Reputation at the University’s Margins. Peter Lang, 2016. JSTOR, https://jstor.org/stable/community.31637716. Accessed 28 Sept. 2024.
3. Mintz, Lawrence E. “‘Recent Trends in the Study of Popular Culture’: Since 1971.” American Studies International, vol. 21, no. 5, 1983, pp. 88–104. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41278697. Accessed 28 Sept. 2024.
4. Corner, John. “‘MASS’ IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH.” Studying Media: Problems of Theory and Method, Edinburgh University Press, 1998, pp. 35–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctvxcrgpr.5. Accessed 28 Sept. 2024.