
When he died in January 1988, Raymond Williams was nearing the final stretch of a writing project that had consumed him for five years. This was not another addition to the 20-strong shelf of influential works in cultural history, literary theory and political advocacy that the Welsh writer, thinker and teacher had published since the early Fifties. Rather, he had climbed two-thirds of the way up the hill of a trilogy of historical novels entitled People of the Black Mountains. As a precocious teenager in the Welsh borders of the late 1930s, Williams had written, then binned, a florid medieval romance apparently called Mountain Sunset. The Black Mountains sequence went back further, into the mists of time, as it traced the evolution of human communities on his beloved home turf from the Stone Age to the present day.
Williams was born in the Monmouthshire village of Pandy, north of Abergavenny, a hundred years ago tomorrow, 31 August 1921. Widely revered at his death (aged just 66) as a leader of radical thought and a pioneer of cultural studies in the education system, he later suffered a partial, but never total, eclipse. Moulded as he was by the seismic, class-driven upheavals of the mid-20th century, Williams adjusted clumsily to the “new social movements” of the Eighties.
Feminism, for instance, hardly features in his best-known work. Fathers and sons dominate his fiction. He tends to speak from, and for, the postwar generations of “upwardly mobile” (a phrase he would have detested) boys left emotionally orphaned amid the chilly, opaque institutions of England. As his 1960 novel, Border Country, laments, “We have, you might say, a personal father but no social father.” A pattern of discipleship, rupture and reconciliation marked his bonds with younger, male devotees. For this, as times and attitudes changed, he paid a posthumous price in waning fame and clout. Terry Eagleton – first a devoted student, briefly a parricidal rebel, then a fervent admirer once again – reports in a centenary tribute that when he offered a piece on Williams to The Guardian not long ago, “the highly literate young journalist on the other end of the phone said ‘Er – remind me’”.
OK: let’s do that. A railway signalman (and market gardener’s) son, Williams won state scholarships and went to Trinity College, Cambridge in 1939. He joined, but soon left, the Communist Party, served as a tank officer in the Guards Armoured Division after D-Day, helped liberate a concentration camp, returned to finish his degree in English, then spent 15 years as an adult-education tutor on the South Coast. After Culture and Society appeared in 1958, and The Long Revolution in 1961, Cambridge appointed him to a lectureship (contrary to myth, they did ask him first). Later literary studies – on drama, the title of his eventual Cambridge professorship, and the English novel – alternated with works that mainstreamed the study of media, gave a cutting social edge to historical linguistics, and sought to elaborate a non-sectarian radical politics, Left of Labour. Meanwhile, three key novels — Border Country, Second Generation (1964) and The Fight for Manod (1979) — showed how history’s transformations feel in the pulse and flow of individual lives. He retired from teaching in 1983, pivoted back to Wales (though living most of the time in Essex), and dipped his pen in a deeper shade of eco-green.
Williams mapped the changing landscapes of class, culture and democracy in Britain with both panoramic, and microscopic, skill and care. Books such as Culture and Society, The Country and the City, Television: Technology and Cultural Form and his historical lexicon of Keywords became teaching staples in many lands. From Argentina via Spain to India, and around the British Isles, conferences and lectures will remind audiences of why Williams matters over the coming weeks. The problem, as their subject knew only too well, is that (save, perhaps, in Wales) these memorial rituals will preach mainly to the choir. As a working-class kid transported, but never alienated, by an elite schooling, Williams both serviced the postwar boom in higher education and the “culture industries”, and lamented its long-term results. Radical dissent marched en masse into the institutions, but those institutions — above all, universities – packaged it into a suite of careerist codes and tricks designed to repel civilians.
For decades he pursued the elusive unicorn of a “common culture” beyond the manipulated splits of consumer-capitalist society (the ideal is sketched in his groundbreaking Culture and Society). He wanted his voice to carry into communities far beyond the common room – or the newsroom. He also cherished a self-image as a writer, not just a critic or theorist. Hence the quixotic farewell fresco of the Black Mountains stories: two volumes appeared after his death. As epic blockbusters, they only sporadically work (in his wise, affectionate but caustic critical biography of Williams, Fred Inglis shakes his head over “characters with names like detergents or computer grammars”). But the sagas’ aeon-spanning sweep and vision does have a craggy awesomeness. These people from the ragged edge of history become the heroic bearers of deep time and epochal change. In the much more successful Border Country, Williams has a clergyman tell his protagonist that “a life lasts longer than the actual body though which it moves”. That goes, supremely, for the author as well.
Williams always taught students and readers to look beyond the flame and froth of transient events and recognise the giant shapes of class, power and history behind them. To this day I find that a dose of his perspective is enough to bestow a degree of serenity about who’s being slaughtered, or sanctified, on social media this week, as the puppet-slaves of Silicon Valley billionaires perform unpaid pirouettes of outrage for extra clicks. Whenever I hear about “culture wars”, I reach mentally for Williams. “Whose culture?”, he would ask, and who declared that war? Who decided to re-frame normal, even profound, democratic disagreements about policy and politics as trump cards of personal identity? Whose interests does that serve? And why should reasoning citizens who want to live well with their neighbours, near and far, sign up for the psychic suicide missions this “war” demands?
Williams, in my view, ceded too much ground to the salon theorists who tried to outflank him from the Left as they sneered at his “socialist humanism” in the canting jargon of the Seventies and Eighties. Indeed, he sat down for weeks to be grilled by the junior Robespierres of New Left Review in the book-length conversations of Politics and Letters (1979). About a work such as the indigestible Marxism and Literature (1977), you have to sigh that — in the deepest sense — his heart wasn’t in it. But his early challenges both to mind-bending commercial media (purely capitalist, not “mass”) and to the ruling-class capture of “high” culture as the cloak of privilege have kept all their moral, and political, bite. “We lack a genuinely common experience,” he thundered in Culture and Society, “save in certain rare and dangerous moments of crisis.” Say that again, in pandemic times. “What we are paying for this lack, in every kind of currency, is now sufficiently evident. We need a common culture, not for the sake of an abstraction, but because we shall not survive without it.” Well, we might survive, huddled in our tribal silos and daily maddened by twittering rage. But will we thrive?
The paradox, as many followers attest, is that this apostle of long views and deep structures won his renown thanks to a strictly personal authority. That owed everything to character, and nothing to the abstract forces of cultural theory. Once Terry Eagleton had got over his Marxier-than-thou phase, he saluted his teacher’s “deep inward ease of being, the sense of a man somehow centred and rooted and secure in himself at a level far beyond simple egoism”. What strikes me as remarkable about Williams’s twin descents on Cambridge — as a working-class teenager laden with grammar-school plaudits in 1939, and a star extra-mural tutor summoned to High Table in 1961 — is not any sense of marginality, but the serene confidence he carried with him at both stages.
I can recall him dismissing George Steiner’s argument that the lowly human ants of modern society could never attain truly tragic status, so what did it matter if you or I were run down by a bus tomorrow? “Speak for yourself” came the riposte. Exactly. Kindly, but granitic and reserved, he seemed as solid as the bulk of Ysgyryd Fawr looming above Pandy. At a time before folk on the Left found themselves vilified as “nowhere” people whose flighty cosmopolitanism humiliated rooted “somewheres”, here was a thoroughly radical writer-thinker who not only came from somewhere very specific — indeed, peculiar — but built his sense of being around it.
The mountain-shadowed village communities of the Welsh borders gave Williams his lifelong template for an authentic existence planted in shared values. Nowhere in his writing does this heartland glow in such a golden light as in the highly autobiographical Border Country. It still serves, for non-academic readers, as the best first stop on a journey through his work. “The real life, for these people, is each other,” says the lonely Anglican priest to Border Country’s hero Matthew Price, who later returns home – as Williams did – for his father Harry’s final days.
Yet Williams, like his left-wing peers, could never quite devise the formula to scale up the blend of solidarity and individuality he cherished in Pandy onto a larger social map. Hence the sad aridity of his efforts to model a practical politics of national, and supra-national, renewal when he had achieved his guru status by the Seventies. His big-picture blueprints and manifestoes lay stillborn on the page. The signal-box and smallholding still cast their semi-pastoral spell. Yes, he always warned against nostalgia – The Country and the City sounds its withering blast against golden-age fantasies in poetry and society alike – but the lost idyll of those hazy borderlands pulls him back as much as forward. As Fred Inglis shrewdly put it, Williams’s “version of socialism” stumbled when it tried, and failed, to turn “losers’ values into winners’ values”. So have many others since.
Pandy made for an odd sort of Utopia, and hardly a standard working-class childhood. Harry Williams, Raymond’s father, not only sharpened his political awareness with comrades in the Great Western signal-boxes up and down the line. He kept bees and grew vegetables as a serious sideline. Green strands mingled with the red in this paradisal place (but not an “organic community” – another fraudulent notion Williams liked to attack). Half-proletarians, half-peasants, these railway children enjoyed a large degree of self-sufficient freedom.
In Border Country, the General Strike of 1926 ends in the failure that exposes the fragility of their way of life and ushers in “a slow and shocking cancellation of the future”. Harry Price’s comrade Morgan Rosser sticks with his Labour ideals but starts to market local produce to the towns. He becomes “a kind of capitalist”. The novel does not condemn him. Matthew follows his creator’s path through scholarships into middle-class academia (though as an economic historian). “You’re asking what change does to people, change from outside them, the big movements,” Morgan says when he and Matthew meet for Harry’s leave-taking. In fiction and criticism, Williams never ceased to ask that question himself. Always, he shows us how to connect inside and outside, experience and history. The “structures of feeling” that shape minds and communities shift slowly: not like inert strata of rock under the hills but in response to the public action that, if we don’t undertake it, those with more money and fewer scruples will.
Perhaps Williams never found the means to make the levers of power work in a fully human way not just at signal-box level but for the metropolitan — and multi-national — junctions where most of us now live. As for so many others, it enriched my understanding hugely that he tried. “I can’t just come back, as if the change was water,” says Matthew to his dying father in Border Country. The change, rather, is history. Neither could anyone revive the special configurations of class, culture and education that made Williams not just an agenda-setter but a bestseller five decades ago. Our social geology has shifted, and our “structures of feeling” with it. Who can map those mountains now?
Boyd Tonkin was awarded the Royal Society of Literature’s Benson Medal in 2020 for outstanding service to literature
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe‘Progressive’ should be between quotation marks
I don’t see universities coming back as bastions of liberalism. Wokeism is a natural result, not a perversion of liberalism. If JS Mill were to live today he’d be a Woke activist.
https://unherd.com/2023/05/js-mill-and-the-despotism-of-progress/
As it stands, universities aren’t a great vocational school. They’re a wasteful and expensive way to learn professional knowledge excepting training with a physical component (e.g. medicine, some engineering, therapy etc).
They’re a great way though for young people to network, socialise and have fun together as well as markers of prestige. There may come a time to more efficiently address these use cases.
Many universities, especially the elite private ones, are well insulated from market pressure through the availability of US government managed student loans and lack of their skin in the game. If a student does pay the loan off, the university does not suffer. Worse, if the student does not pay the loan off, in many cases the loan can be forgiven by the federal government. Thank you Presidents Obama and Biden.
Many colleges have loaded up on non-teaching administrative positions, most perniciously in DEI. I think Yale has as more administrators than undergraduate students. The University of Michigan has over 240 DEI staff with costs exceeding $30 million annually, according to The College Fix.
I would make colleges front their own loans and eat the costs of default or bankruptcy. I do not think that degrees in dance or grievance studies (e.g. gender studies or race studies) are as critical to our nation’s success as medicine or engineering. With cost pressures, colleges would need to trim or jettison the administrative bloat.
We can and should as alumni and donors, shut the money off, and give development officers an earful when they call to solicit. As parents ask probing questions when your child visits the school, such as what are the schools’ DEI policies, how do they enforce speech codes, how many students get kicked out for things such as misgendering or creating an unsafe space (and what is an unsafe space).
This, alongside the thought of Trump winning the next election, offers a fairly pessimistic outlook for the USA in terms of unity.
Political neutrality is unacceptable as it just reinforces the status quo. To achieve real change, enlarge the DEI agenda to include the class issues American powers that be prefer to obfuscate.
And demand full disclosure from present and former donors. Those that hold purse strings shouldn’t be able to call the shots behind the scenes.
“the faculty and administration are doubling down on the ‘it’s a conservative plot’ narrative.”
It is a conservative plot, and one deserving of support before these completely anti-democratic wannabe social despots expand their control from the campuses to the rest of the country.
LGB must not include the T or the Q – the last two are at odds with LGB rights. Please stop lumping them together.
Hear hear.
Trumps gonna win. Europe is electing right wing governments, their populations are sick to death of unchecked immigration from the 3rd world. Woke agendas from institutions that tell them they need to accept that their way of life is not progressive enough. Ordinary people have had it, they don’t control the media, they don’t control any institutions except Governments thru the ballot box. That’s how they will push back against the zealots.
The rumour that always circulates about Harvard is that as a community they were known for supporting national socialism in the 1930s.
That makes one think of the Trudeau dynasty and their similar affinities, notably with Ukrainian nationalists who themselves collaborated with the Third Reich (in genocide) and are driven by neo-F-scist blood and soil values today.
Calling Israel, the national homeland of the Jews, an “apartheid” state, should be classified as hate speech. Any attempt to delegitimize or prosecute a national identity and population should be hate speech. Calling for the destruction and death of any religious group or social class is hate speech.
In my opinion, it is actually the notion of ‘hate speech’ itself that is the cause of many of these problems.
Just a short word on terminology: the term ‘progressive’ is a neutral term, whereas the progressivist agenda is a clearly ideological push for dominance and should be rendered visible as such by using the term ‘progressivist’.
I was a lifelong progressive until about three years ago. It was ideology that drove me away, especially because I’m gender critical. Now I’m just a homeless liberal.
Oh the tangled webs we weave when at first we try to deceive. I would have added quotation marks and a proper citation, but that’s too much effort. Besides it’s just duplicative language.
Kaufman is correct. Ivy league schools have circled the wagons. DEI will be couched in different terms. If Ackman follows through on his threat to use AI to scrutinize dissertations and academic papers for plagiarism, “elite” institutions will take the publications off line. Ackman can afford to be hypocritical and seek retribution for attacking his wife. Small cost to him. But Harvard, along with other high ranked institutions pay a high price. Some highest quality students will go else where, renowned faculty will leave, academic papers will be hidden and therefore uncited. What will remain but the memory? Oh what a tangled web they’ve woven.
“Donors are not the anti-woke heroes some believe them to be. They have punished elite universities for alleged antisemitism rather than their poor record on freedom, with Harvard reputed to have lost $1 billion on the back of the debacle.”
It depresses me that the American elite lack all principles except when it comes to Israel.
In the US the ruling class is seriously deficient in patricians.
> to simply upgrade the status of antisemitism within its DEI apparatus.
This will just expedite their inevitable implosion. Already today you have infighting between feminists and trans activists, muslims and gays, next it’ll be anti-antisemites against post-colonialists. None of what they do and say makes sense and they won’t be able to keep up their charade much longer before a fatal schism hits that ragtag herd of self-righteous, self-serving troglodytes.
But just to be safe, let’s not let up on calling them out on their bullshit in the meantime.
I hope you are right – and I agree with your prescription.
Calling Israel an “apartheid state” is not a legitimate view. It’s an ignorant view, and demeans both Israel and the victims of real apartheid in South Africa.
The ideological virus is embedded and spreads not via the deranged bigots disgracing universities. This focus is all wrong! Here in the UK (and I presume in the US), the mania is sources in our State Equality Laws. Until the CRT inspired victim/oppressor hierarchial system is reformed/overturned, nothing will stop the virus. It lives on separately..in parallel… in our culture and in the anti discriminatory terror in the heads of our cowardly progressive elite. But it is State law that pulses the poison out. Not mad wgf academics.
This is not surprising. As the author notes, Ackman and his fellow billionaire donors haven’t spoken up about DEI and freedom of speech. Their revolt was strictly in connection with anti-semitism. It was jews protecting jews. The rational response by the universities is to include jews in the DEI victim hierarchy.
So far as I can see, universities are beyond repair. Probably our hope lies in the realization by most students that, apart from professional training (e.g., medicine), a traditional university degree isn’t worth the considerable cost anymore. Cheaper, on-line, degrees, and other accreditations, provided by new organizations created to provide internet-based education are probably our hope for the long term.
It’s already going that way in the USA, eg Heterodox Academy, (Jordan) Peterson Academy.
Their revolt was strictly in connection with anti-semitism – Their major mistake. Anti-semitism is simply the first symptom. Believing that by eliminating it you will cure the disease means that you will drive the disease inside and only worsen the situation. By the way, at the next stage of the disease, anti-semitism will definitely return without hope of eliminating it
After me the deluge wrote the French King. When the reaction to WOKE takes power expect the government, under Trump, to attack Harvard. They better hope the Democrats win. If Trump loses the revolutionary MAGA pressure will just build up until they do win. Then comes the deluge and mass executions.
Mass executions? Coo-coo.
Hyperbole.
One day, Harvard will be as diverse as Israel currently is.
But not soon.
Progressives will always win.
…until reality hits. Then you lose.
Where? Cuba, Cambodia, Venezuela…
Try Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, and many, many others.
Did that help you out, bud?
Canada is becoming a basket case. Denmark and NZ had relatively low stable populations but that’s starting to change and their electorates are begin to reject it.
All Looney Left ideologies fail, question is how much damage will be done.
Happy to help, chum.
But you’re not really helping though, are you, slick? You just feel angry that those countries are all progressive and doing great because you are an angry right winger and everything you think you know is actually wrong!
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life
Read ’em and weep!
Their success is mostly down to low stable populations and a mixed economy will extensive natural resources. “Progressive” policies will in time destroy them and you’ll be shaking your head wondering how it all happened as all loony left ideologues do.
Denmark and Norway would severely dispute your statement. While Canada should be so proud of politely turning into a dystopian novel where protesting truckers can be non-personed and Dear Leader can promote “equity” from his $10,000 / Night vacation villa (thoughtfully provided by a monied friend of the family)… Lastly, funny how it’s apparently all about “winning” not about the best policy et all…
The Loony Left always has to rely on authoritarianism to succeed, the electorate routinely rejects their idiocy.
What a weird thing to say!
Was Biden rejected? Trudeau for the last three elections in Canada? Or the upcoming landslide for Starmer?
Its only the MAGA types who can’t accept election results.
I know this doesn’t make you feel happy, Andy lad, but those are the facts!
You’re hilarious. I lived through 4 years of “Russian Conspiracy” and “Trump is illegitimate” narratives.
With the Left it’s always who/whom. You all never let truth stand in the way of your propaganda.
How many people attacked the capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power to Trump?
Why don’t you tell us about all these illegitimate elections of progressives around the world?
I’ll wait. And please remember that Dominion are very litigious before you say anything really stupid!
Let’s hold on and wait for the collapse of N. America, it should take around 10 years whoever is in power.
Justin Trudeau has been voted Canada’s worst prime minister in the past 55 years by three out of 10 respondents in a new public opinion survey from Research Co.
How did he make out in the real votes, Jimbo?
I have explained this to you before. He has the distinction of winning the last two elections with the lowest vote totals in Canadian history. In both those elections he received 33.1% and 32.6% of the vote. The Conservatives received 33.4% and 33.7% of the vote. He has been propped up by the zombie NDP and his ability to win votes in densely populated areas like Toronto and Vancouver. He might win elections – certainly not possible now because he will get obliterated if the Liberal’s keep him – but he is not popular.
Great numbers, Jimbo! Does that mean that he hasn’t been prime minister of Canada these last nine years? Or are you just whistling in the wind?
Fact is that he has been a highly popular and successful prime minister for most of his term – three election victories! – but very few prime ministers remain popular after 9 years. That, combined with global economic factors, means he is facing some headwinds. He may have to step aside.
But once the Canadian public get a good look at Polievre and his dollar-store-Trump antics, combined with strong economic recovery and lower inflation and interest rates, I think we may see a significant swing back to Trudeau.
Ya. That ain’t happening.
You’ve been saying that for 9 years, Jimmy, and wrong every time!!!
The only way to stop this is to categorize Critical Theory and DEI as forms of hate propaganda and deal harshly with its disseminators much like Germany does with regard to those spreading N8zi ideology. They’re pretty much the same anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
This is stupid even by your own comical standards.
https://medium.com/@tamarajulaton/how-not-to-be-an-internet-troll-72c03f9b6d5c#:~:text=Remember%20to%20avoid%20being%20an,t%20chime%20into%20the%20conversation.
All the best
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
You lose.
Again.
Pipe down Fisher you know nothing.
Early signs of dementia are showing, Racist Grandpa. Seek help. I’m sure your family hate you but there are services available for lonely old people.
Only losers self-congratulate, loser.
You’re quite the Oscar Wilde, aren’t you!
You’ve proven yourself again and again to be the expert on stupid.
What’s deeply stupid is using (everyone’s) time and energy in this kind of idiot ten-year-old stuff – nobodies opinions are changed, dogma is reinforced, nobody gets any nearer the truth. If we assume that most ppl here (i think they are) are trying to gain understanding through exchange of info/interpreting that info then CS is dragging him/her/itself and us away from that and into flaming – its fundamentally destructive. CS would be better off in a dogmatic echo chamber reflecting his views – might get some affirmation and wouldn’t be as destructive (which I think may be one of his main underlying motivations, but it’s a ‘failure’ motivation). As far as poss, best not to ‘feed the ducks’.
“CS would be better off in a dogmatic echo chamber”
This is the echo chamber. The sheep who comment here simply regurgitate standard right wing nonsense. My role is to bring enlightenment and wisdom and I’m doing a really good job. You guys should be thanking me!
It is difficult to thank someone you pity without the notion that you are talking down to them. But many of us appreciate the comedy nonetheless, so well done you.
Perhaps you could provide some examples of the ‘enlightenment and wisdom’ you’ve so generously brought to this forum as I’ve never seen anything from you beyond sub GCSE stupidity.
I think one should just ignore CS’s silly wind-ups. Lewis Carroll’s lines come to mind: ‘He only does it to annoy/ because he knows it teases’
The Germans stayed loyal to Hitler to the very end. The Nazi state fell to foreign armies not to domestic resistance.
I assume you follow James? I tend to agree with him that you can’t beat a dialectical movement by becoming being it’s dialectical opposite. Just because the Left uses tyranny to silence opposition doesn’t mean the Right should do the same thing. Fascist Corporatism evolves out of failed Marxist policies because Marxism can’t produce anything but chaos. Both are Statist Ideologies. One stupid and the other heartless.
I like Milei’s solution better. State bureacracies feed the private bureacracies. Instead of silencing Left Wing speech just cut the Federal Funds off. If Harvard can survive as a purely private entity than so be it but Federal funds should not be going to any entity that funds explicitly Anti-American causes.