Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:20:21.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The literary imagination and the explanation of socio-cultural change in modern Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Paul Filmer
Get access

Extract

Much of the substance of the contemporary debate on the nature and consequences of ‘mass culture’ in Britain is to be found in the work of four English literary critics: T. S. Eliot, F. R. Leavis, Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams (1). Their work is in the Utopian tradition of social and aesthetic critical thought that has been termed “the English Dream: the ideal of the collective, unalienated folk society, where honest men work together and create together” (2); the ideal of the organic community, in short. Such a society is seen as composed of homogeneous, self-sufficient, stable and tradition-dominated communities, comprising a population which shares a common language and culture, and which is typified—but not exclusively bound—by a mentality attached to the tangible, local and known (3).

Type
Myths and Mass Media
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , November 1969 , pp. 271 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Archives Européenes de Sociology 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) Cf. especially the following works: Eliot, T. S., The Idea of a Christian Society (London, Faber, 1939)Google Scholar; Id.Notes Towards the Definition of Culture 2 (London, Faber, 1962)Google Scholar; Leavis, F. R., Education and the University2 (London, Chatto and Windus, 1948)Google Scholar; Id.The Common Pursuit (London, Chatto and Windus, 1952)Google Scholar; Id. and Leavis, Q. D., Lectures in America (London, Chatto and Windus, 1969)Google Scholar; Id. and Thompson, D., Culture and Environment (London, Chatto and Windus, 1933)Google Scholar; Hoggart, R., The Uses of Literacy (London, Chatto and Windus, 1957)Google Scholar; Williams, R., Reading and Criticism (London, Muller, 1950)Google Scholar; Id.Culture and Society, 1780–1950 (London, Penguin, 1961)Google Scholar; Id.The Long Revolution (London, Chatto and Windus, 1961)Google Scholar; Id.Communications (London, Penguin, 1962).Google Scholar

(2) Wollheim, R., The English Dream, The Spectator (London), 03 10, 1961, p. 334.Google Scholar The tradition is documented extensively by Williams, in Culture and Society…, op. cit.Google Scholar

(3) Cf. e.g. König, R., The Community (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

(4) To add yet another definition of culture to the welter of those already in existence (cf. e.g. Gould, J. and Kolb, W. L., eds., A Dictionary of the Social Sciences (London, Tavistock, 1964), pp. 165–168Google Scholar; Cowell, F. R., Culture in Private and Public Life (London, Thames and Hudson, 1959)Google Scholar, passim; Kroeber, A. L., Anthropology: Culture Patterns and Processes (New York/Burlingame, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1963), pp. 60–64)Google Scholar would seem to be a pointless as well as a perilous activity. A synthesis, embodying “the elements positively accepted by most contemporary social scientists”, is offered by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (in Gould, and Kolb, , supra cit. p. 165).Google Scholar A more restricted definition, subsumed in Kroeber and Kluckhohn's synthesis but widely used amongst literary scholars, regards the culture of a society as residing pre-eminently in its arts and epistemology. However, the synthetic meaning of the term is intended when ‘culture’ is used hereafter—unless it is prefaced specifically with the adjectives ‘artistic’ and ‘literary’.

(5) Cf. Report of the Committee on Broadcasting, 1960 (London, HMSO, 1962, Cmnd. 1753).Google Scholar Cf. also Hoggart, R., The Difficulties of Democratic Debate, The Critical Quarterly, Autumn 1963, pp. 197–212.Google Scholar

(6) Cf. Williams, R., Towards a Socialist SocietyGoogle Scholar, in Anderson, P. and Blackburn, R., eds., Towards Socialism (London, Fontana, 1965), pp. 367–397Google Scholar; Williams, R., ed., May Day Manifesto, 1968 (London, Penguin, 1968).Google Scholar

(7) Cf. e.g. Wollheim, R., Socialism and Culture (London, Fabian Society, 1961)Google Scholar; Bantock, G. H., Education in an Industrial Society (London, Faber, 1963).Google Scholar

(8) E.g. Shils, E. A., Daydreams and Nightmares: Reflections on the Criticism of Mass Culture, Sewanee Review, LXV (1957). pp. 587–608Google Scholar; Lowenthal, L. and Lawson, I., The Debate on Cultural Standards in Nineteenth Century England, Social Research, XXX (1963), pp. 417–433.Google Scholar

(9) Quoted by Leavis, F. R. in Scrutiny, I (1932), no 3, pp. 209–210 fn.Google Scholar

(10) Leavis, F. R., Under Which King Bezonian? Scrutiny, I (1932), no 3, pp. 207–208.Google Scholar

(11) Id. The Literary Mind, Scrutiny, I (1932), no 1, p. 31.Google Scholar

(12) Id.Education and the University, op. cit. p. 146.Google Scholar

(13) Ibid. p. 143.

(14) Ibid. pp. 143–144.

(15) Id.Under Which King Bezonian? op. cit. p. 207.Google Scholar

(16) Loc. cit.

(17) Cf. Leavis's quotation of the arguments of I. A. Richards in support of this contention, in Education and the University, op. cit. p. 144.Google Scholar Cf. also F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. p. 24.Google Scholar

(18) F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. p. 7.Google Scholar

(19) Loc. cit. (The remarks refer specifically to Dickens).

(20) Leavis, F. R. and Yudkin, M., Two Cultures? The Significance of C. P. Snow (London, Chatto and Windus, 1962), p. 27.Google Scholar

(21) Leavis, and Yudkin, , op. cit. p. 28.Google Scholar

(22) F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. p. 24.Google Scholar

Leavis, F. R., What's Wrong with Criticism? Scrutiny, I (1932), no 2, pp. 145–146.Google Scholar

(24) Leavis, and Thompson, , op. cit. pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

(25) Cf. Gellner, E., Thought and Change (London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1964), p. 154.Google Scholar

(26) Ibid. p. 154 and footnote.

(27) Leavis, F. R., What's Wrong… op. cit. p. 137.Google Scholar

(28) , R. S. and Lynd, H. M., Middletown2 (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1956).Google Scholar

(29) Leavis, F., Education and the University, op. cit. p. 146Google Scholar; Maurice Halbwachs has said of the Lynds's study of changes in religious behaviour that “the enquiry was carried out in only a few medium-sized towns and was no more than a sample. Figures for the past depended on the vague memories of elderly priests” (The Psychology of Social Class (London, Heinneman, 1958), pp. 129 fn)Google Scholar. Since Leavis's argument is concerned with the catastrophic effects of change, the validity of the figures for the past are of crucial importance to the validity of his argument. However, it is presumably the socio-critical intention with which the Lynds conducted their study that interests Leavis, for it enabled them to stress “the constant sameness, the standardization, and the desolation of existence where it is lived without any historical tradition, exclusively according to economic laws, and under the conformist pressure exercised by an established society in which men earn their living” (Adorno, T. W. and Dirks, W., Soxiologische Exkurse (Frankfurt 1956), p. 135Google Scholar; cited in König, R., op. cit. p. 173).Google Scholar

(30) Leavis, F. R., Education and the University, op. cit. p. 146.Google Scholar

(31) , F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. p. 12.Google Scholar

(32) Leavis, F. R., What's Wrong… op. cit. p. 137.Google Scholar

(33) , F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. pp. 11–12, 20–21Google Scholar. Indeed, Leavis appears to extend a qualified welcome to the rise in the material standard of living of the majority, and in the leisure time available to them, that have accompanied industrialisation. Cf. , F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. pp. 4–5Google Scholar; Leavis, F. R., Education and the University, op. cit. pp. 146–147.Google Scholar

(34) , F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. p. 13.Google Scholar

(35) Leavis, F. R., Education…, op. cit. pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

(36) , F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. p. 5.Google Scholar

(37) Ibid. p. 13.

(38) Cf. Leavis, F. R., Under Which King Bezonian? op. cit. p. 210.Google Scholar

(39) Id. What's Wrong…, op. cit. passim.

(40) The term is used by Leavis, Q. D. in her study Fiction and the Reading Public2 (London, Chatto and Windus, 1965).Google Scholar

(41) Leavis, F. R., What's Wrong… op. cit. p. 138.Google Scholar

(42) Id.Education…, op. cit. chaps II and III.

(43) , F. R. and Leavis, Q. D., op. cit. p. 23.Google Scholar

(44) Cf. The Idea of a Christian Society, op. cit. passim, and Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, op. cit. pp. 15, 27–34.

(45) Cf. Notes Towards…, chap. II; also Bottomore, T. B., Elites and Society (London, Watts, 1964), pp. 140–141.Google Scholar

(46) Cf. Leavis, F. R., Education and the University, op. cit. p. 146.Google Scholar

(47) Cf. e.g. Argyle, M., Religious Behaviour2 (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965)Google Scholar; Fletcher, R., The Family and Marriage2 (London, Penguin, 1968).Google Scholar

(48) For a summary of Eliot's proposals see Notes Towards…, op. cit. pp. 14–20.

(49) Culture and Environment, op. cit. and Education and the University, op. cit.

(50) Bourne, George, The Wheelwright's Shop (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1923)Google Scholar, and Change in the Village (London, Duckworth, 1912).Google Scholar

(51) Cf. Leavis, F. R., The Great Tradition (London, Chatto and Windus, 1948).Google Scholar

(52) Cf. Leavis, and Thompson, , op. cit. p. 87.Google Scholar

(53) Williams, R., Culture and Society…, op. cit. pp. 252–253.Google Scholar

(54) Id. Literature and Rural Society, The Listener, LXXVIII, no. 2016, p. 630.Google Scholar

(55) Id.Culture is Ordinary, in Mackenzie, N., ed., Conviction (London, McGibbon and Kee, 1958), pp. 82 sqq.Google Scholar; cf. also Culture and Society, op. cit. p. 253. For a similar view, cf. Hoggart, R., The Uses of Literacy, op. cit. Part I, chap. I and II.Google Scholar

(56) Williams, R., Culture and Society…, op. cit. p. 253Google Scholar. For evidence of these aspects, cf. Laslett, P., The World We Have Lost (London, Methuen, 1965), chaps III–V.Google Scholar

(57) Cf. Bourne, George, Change in the Village, op. cit. chaps, XVIII–XX.Google Scholar

(58) Williams, R., Culture and Society…, op. cit. p. 153.Google Scholar

(59) Leavis, and Thompson, , op. cit. p. 3.Google Scholar

(60) Williams, R., Culture and Society…, op. cit. p. 13.Google Scholar

(61) Id. Towards a Socialist Society, op. cit. p. 375.

(62) Ibid. p. 395.

(63) Id.The Long Revolution, op. cit. p. xiii.

(64) Loc. cit.

(65) Ibid. p. xi.

(66) Id.Communications, op. cit. p. 99.

(67) Ibid. p. 19.

(68) Williams, , Communications, p. 99.Google Scholar

(69) Loc. cit.

(70) Loc. cit.

(71) Loc. cit.

(72) Id.Culture and Society…, op.cit. 321.

(73) Principally Marxist arguments, cf.

Leavis, F. R., Under Which King Bezonian?, op. cit.Google Scholar and Williams, R., Culture is Ordinary, op. cit.Google Scholar

(74) Cf. Kroeber, A., op. cit. p. 64.Google Scholar

(75) Ibid. pp. 65, 94–96, 219–223. Striking exceptions to the general, inter-societal validity of this contention are to be found in complex societies wherein distinct and separate sub-cultures, developed by minority groups of significant size, are in open conflict with a politically and economically dominant majority culture. The separateness of the sub-culture becomes particularly acute, and leads to the phenomenon of culture clash, when reinforced by any or all of linguistic, religious, ethnic and regional distinctions (e.g. French in Canada, Negroes in U.S.A.). The contention holds in the case of British culture, however, since none of these distinctions reinforces the separateness of a sub-culture significant enough to precipitate culture clash.

(76) Of the forty writers discussed at length, twenty-eight can be grouped in at least one of these rather arbitrary categories.

(77) Cf. especially: Culture is Ordinary, op. cit.; The Border Country (London, Chatto and Windus, 1960)Google Scholar, and Second Generation (London, Chatto and Windus, 1964).Google Scholar

(78) Williams, R., Reading and Criticism, op. cit. p. 107.Google Scholar

(79) Ibid. p. 100.

(80) Ibid. pp. 100–101.

(81) Ibid. p. 106.

(82) Williams, , Reading… p. 106.Google Scholar

(83) Ibid. p. 107.

(84) Cf. e.g. Altick, R. D., The Sociology of Authorship: The Social Origins, Education and Occupations of 1,100 British Writers, 1800–1935, The Bulletin of the New York Public Library, LXVI (1962), 389–404Google Scholar; Laurenson, D. F., A Sociological Study of Authorship, The British Journal of Sociology, XX (1900), 311–325.Google Scholar

(85) Williams, , Reading and Criticism, op. cit. p. 101.Google Scholar

(86) Cf. Altick, , op. cit.Google Scholar and Laurenson, , op. cit.Google Scholar

(87) Cf. e.g. Laslett, , op. cit.Google Scholar

(88) Leavis, , Education and the University, op. cit. pp. 69–71.Google Scholar

(89) Coleridge, S. T., Biographia Literaria (London 1817), vol. II, p. 2.Google Scholar

(90) Principles of Literary Criticism, p. 61Google Scholar, quoted by Leavis, , Education and the University, op. cit. p. 144.Google Scholar

* I am very grateful to Professor I.C. Jarvie of York University, Toronto, Canada, and to David Walsh of University of London Goldsmiths' College, for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.