What do you think?
Rate this book
الماركسيَّةُ والأدَبُ
يوسّعُ هذا الكتاب مبحَثَ العمل الأسبق لريمُند وِليَمز في التحليل الثقافي والأدبي. إذ يحلِّلُ الإسهامات السابقة في النظرية الماركسية للأدب من ماركس نفسه وإلى لوكاتش وألتوسير وغولدمان بِإيجَازِ "الماديَّةِ الثقافيَّةِ" التي تدمج النظريات الماركسية للغة بالنظريات الماركسية للأدب.
وينطلق وِليمز من مراجعة نشأة مفاهيم الأدب والإيديولوجيا إلى إعادة تعريف "الحتمية" و"السيطرة". ويبلغ نقاشه الثاقب في "العملية المادية الاجتماعية" للنشاط الثقافي أوجَهُ في إعادة تقصِّي مشاكل التزام الممارسة الإبداعية وانحيازها للمؤلفين الأفراد والجماعات الاجتماعية الأوسع.
وينطلق وِليمز من مراجعة نشأة مفاهيم الأدب والإيديولوجيا إلى إعادة تعريف "الحتمية" و"السيطرة". ويبلغ نقاشه الثاقب في "العملية المادية الاجتماعية" للنشاط الثقافي أوجَهُ في إعادة تقصِّي مشاكل التزام الممارسة الإبداعية وانحيازها للمؤلفين الأفراد والجماعات الاجتماعية الأوسع.
227 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
79 people are currently reading
3195 people want to read
About the author
Raymond Williams
210 books273 followersRaymond Henry Williams was a Welsh academic, novelist, and critic. He taught for many years and the Professor of Drama at the University of Cambridge. He was an influential figure within the New Left and in wider culture. His writings on politics, culture, the mass media and literature are a significant contribution to the Marxist critique of culture and the arts. His work laid the foundations for the field of cultural studies and the cultural materialist approach. Among his many books are Culture and Society, Culture and Materialism, Politics and Letters, Problems in Materialism and Culture, and several novels.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
July 31, 2007
This was written about 20 years after Culture and Society and Williams, along with the rest of the New Left, had turned into something of a theory-head, but he still keeps his feet on the ground.
My hypothesis why nobody reads this and everybody reads Frankfurt School and Foucault: this, and other works in the tradition (Thompson, Eagleton), at least makes you feel bad for doing nothing, while the latter allow you to sip lattes and bask in the fact that while you certainly can't do anything about it and have no interest in changing your lifestyle you sure are alot smarter than everyone else.
My hypothesis why nobody reads this and everybody reads Frankfurt School and Foucault: this, and other works in the tradition (Thompson, Eagleton), at least makes you feel bad for doing nothing, while the latter allow you to sip lattes and bask in the fact that while you certainly can't do anything about it and have no interest in changing your lifestyle you sure are alot smarter than everyone else.
September 24, 2020
يناقش الكاتب عدة مفاهيم أساسية في النظرية الأدبية الماركسية وإسهاماتها في الأدب ( على المستوى الفكري والنظري). كما يتطرق ل علاقة اللغة الأدبية في المجتمع(الواقعية والأدب أو علاقة الأدب بالمجتمع) . "كما يرى النقد الماركسي الأعمال الأدبية هي انعكاسات للمؤسسات الاجتماعية التي نشأت منها." كذا يتقصى مفاهيم الأدب التي تعترض الطريق، وفق النظريات السابقة للغة والوعي. "نحن لا ندخل الى أي ميدان اجتماعي بدون توسط اللغة."
" إذن، ليست اللغة وسطاً؛ هي عنصر مكون للممارسة الاجتماعية المادية."ص169
ويشتغل الكاتب في القاعدة والبنية الفوقية في النظرية الثقافية الماركسية. كما أن هذا الكتاب بصفة أو بأخرى دراسة لواقع فكر كارل ماركس وفريدريك إنجلز أو الماركسية والتفاعل بين السياق التاريخي وتطور الأفكار وتأثيرها.(رهانات التحولات الكبرى.)
في القسم الأول يسلط الضوء وبرؤية نقدية على أربع مفاهيم أساسية: الثقافة واللغة والأدب والإيديولوجيا. ( على وجه التحديد الاستخدامات الماركسية لهذه المفاهيم.) كما يهتم برؤية الأشكال المختلفة للتفكير الماركسي وهو يتفاعل مع أشكال التفكير الأخرى دون عدِّه تاريخاً منفصلاً بل مقدساً أو دخيلاً. خصوصاً فيما يتعلق بمفاهيم اللغة والأدب. في سياق علاقات بنيوية بعينها، تشكل أساسات الأنشطة الأخرى كلها.
"الماركسية تعتبر أن الأدب يمثل الصراع بين الإيديولوجيا والحقيقة الاجتماعية ."
أما في القسم الثاني يناقش المفاهيم الأساسية للنظرية الثقافية الماركسية بطرح عدة رؤى وتحليلها.
"لا بد لأي مقاربة حديثة نحو نظرية ماركسية عن الثقافة أن تنطلق من النظر في الطرح القائل بقاعدة محتِّمة وبنية فوقية محتَّمة. ومن زاوية نظرية على نحو صارم فليس من هنا نبدأ. فمن المحبذ على أكثر من نحو أن نبدأ إن استطعنا من طرح كان في الأصل محوريًا بالمثل، أصيلًا بالمثل: ألا وهو الطرح القائل بأن الوجود الاجتماعي يحتِّم الوعي. ليس لأن الطرحين يتنافيان أو يتناقضان بالضرورة. لكن الطرح القائل بالقاعدة والبنية الفوقية، بما يحمله من صورة مجازية، بما فيه من إيحاء بعلاقة قائمة في حيِّز، ذات حدود قاطعة ومعالم ثابتة، يشكِّل، على الأقل إن تُرِك لنفر بعينهم، طبعة من الطرح الآخر، ضيقة النطاق وفي بعض الأحيان غير مقبولة. غير أن الطرح القائل بالقاعدة المحتِّمة والبنية الفوقية المحتَّمة، عند انتقاله من ماركس إلى الماركسية، وفي سياق تطوير التيار الماركسي الرئيسي نفسه، هو كما شاع الاعتقاد مفتاح التحليل الثقافي الماركسي."
لقد أخذ هذا الافتراض من فقرة معروفة في توطئة ماركس عام 1859، لكتابِ مساهمة في نقد الاقتصاد السياسي. الفقرة تقع في ص (81-82)
وفي القسم الأخير نظرة أشمل على أسئلة النظرية الأدبية، وتفاعل أشكال الماركسية المختلفة مع غيرها ذات الصلة، أو مع أنواع بديلة في التفكير. ك علاقة الماركسية بنظرية الأنواع. والعلاقة المعقدة بين التحليل التاريخي والاجتماعي المفتوح. كذلك الأدب بين الشكلانية والماركسية( النظرية والتطبيق)، وأوجه الاختلاف بين المدرستين"مشكلات تفصيلية في نظرية الأدب " أو في معالجة المسائل المعاصرة في علم الأدب.
الكتاب دسم وهو في صلب السياق التاريخي- والمجال النظري الاجتماعي.
" إذن، ليست اللغة وسطاً؛ هي عنصر مكون للممارسة الاجتماعية المادية."ص169
ويشتغل الكاتب في القاعدة والبنية الفوقية في النظرية الثقافية الماركسية. كما أن هذا الكتاب بصفة أو بأخرى دراسة لواقع فكر كارل ماركس وفريدريك إنجلز أو الماركسية والتفاعل بين السياق التاريخي وتطور الأفكار وتأثيرها.(رهانات التحولات الكبرى.)
في القسم الأول يسلط الضوء وبرؤية نقدية على أربع مفاهيم أساسية: الثقافة واللغة والأدب والإيديولوجيا. ( على وجه التحديد الاستخدامات الماركسية لهذه المفاهيم.) كما يهتم برؤية الأشكال المختلفة للتفكير الماركسي وهو يتفاعل مع أشكال التفكير الأخرى دون عدِّه تاريخاً منفصلاً بل مقدساً أو دخيلاً. خصوصاً فيما يتعلق بمفاهيم اللغة والأدب. في سياق علاقات بنيوية بعينها، تشكل أساسات الأنشطة الأخرى كلها.
"الماركسية تعتبر أن الأدب يمثل الصراع بين الإيديولوجيا والحقيقة الاجتماعية ."
أما في القسم الثاني يناقش المفاهيم الأساسية للنظرية الثقافية الماركسية بطرح عدة رؤى وتحليلها.
"لا بد لأي مقاربة حديثة نحو نظرية ماركسية عن الثقافة أن تنطلق من النظر في الطرح القائل بقاعدة محتِّمة وبنية فوقية محتَّمة. ومن زاوية نظرية على نحو صارم فليس من هنا نبدأ. فمن المحبذ على أكثر من نحو أن نبدأ إن استطعنا من طرح كان في الأصل محوريًا بالمثل، أصيلًا بالمثل: ألا وهو الطرح القائل بأن الوجود الاجتماعي يحتِّم الوعي. ليس لأن الطرحين يتنافيان أو يتناقضان بالضرورة. لكن الطرح القائل بالقاعدة والبنية الفوقية، بما يحمله من صورة مجازية، بما فيه من إيحاء بعلاقة قائمة في حيِّز، ذات حدود قاطعة ومعالم ثابتة، يشكِّل، على الأقل إن تُرِك لنفر بعينهم، طبعة من الطرح الآخر، ضيقة النطاق وفي بعض الأحيان غير مقبولة. غير أن الطرح القائل بالقاعدة المحتِّمة والبنية الفوقية المحتَّمة، عند انتقاله من ماركس إلى الماركسية، وفي سياق تطوير التيار الماركسي الرئيسي نفسه، هو كما شاع الاعتقاد مفتاح التحليل الثقافي الماركسي."
لقد أخذ هذا الافتراض من فقرة معروفة في توطئة ماركس عام 1859، لكتابِ مساهمة في نقد الاقتصاد السياسي. الفقرة تقع في ص (81-82)
وفي القسم الأخير نظرة أشمل على أسئلة النظرية الأدبية، وتفاعل أشكال الماركسية المختلفة مع غيرها ذات الصلة، أو مع أنواع بديلة في التفكير. ك علاقة الماركسية بنظرية الأنواع. والعلاقة المعقدة بين التحليل التاريخي والاجتماعي المفتوح. كذلك الأدب بين الشكلانية والماركسية( النظرية والتطبيق)، وأوجه الاختلاف بين المدرستين"مشكلات تفصيلية في نظرية الأدب " أو في معالجة المسائل المعاصرة في علم الأدب.
الكتاب دسم وهو في صلب السياق التاريخي- والمجال النظري الاجتماعي.
August 14, 2025
Raymond Williams’ Marxism and Literature (1977) arrives like a herald of late-stage Marxism, attempting to breathe life into a corpse that has been rotting since the orthodox base-superstructure model began collapsing under its determinism.
Williams sets out to rescue Marxist theory from its mechanical dead ends, but in doing so, he exposes what everyone already suspected: classical Marxism is, if not dead, at least clinically brain dead.
The first problem is Williams’ obsession with “culture as process.” On paper, it sounds radical: culture is not a static superstructure imposed by the economic base but a site of struggle, where dominant, residual, and emergent forms jostle for influence. In practice, it’s a gentle euphemism for “let’s make Marxism soft, humanist, and comfortably vague.”
The rigid, ruthless materialist critique that once threatened kings and capitalists now gets dressed up as a meditation on “lived experience.” Marxist revolutionary fire is replaced with cultural studies hand-holding.
Then there’s the grand concept of “structures of feeling.” What a phrase! It suggests society is made of ethereal, half-articulated emotions and values. It’s poetic, yes — dangerously poetic for a discipline founded on class struggle and exploitation. You can almost hear the academic smugness: “Look, comrades, we have feelings now!”
It’s Marxism with mood lighting, a theory of class wrapped in soft-focus nostalgia for experiences no one can fully measure. For those expecting the analytical punch of capital critique, this is like trying to fight a war with origami swords.
Williams’ reassessment of literature as social production is equally double-edged. Literature, he argues, is not just reflective but constitutive, participating in ideological struggles. Wonderful. But now Marxism looks less like a toolkit for understanding exploitation and more like an overworked seminar on thematic motifs and narrative devices. The once-combative critique of power structures becomes a polite discussion of texts and “lived realities.” Revolutionary theory is rebranded as literary sociology, capable of filling journal pages but unlikely to topple empires.
Language, too, gets the Williams treatment: material yet socially contingent. Admirable, until you realize the entire Marxist critique of ideology is now linguistically nebulous. Dominant classes, emergent practices, residual forms — all float around in a mist of words, leaving the economic and structural backbone that made Marxism a threat to power suspiciously optional. You could read a paragraph of this and forget capitalism exists, replaced instead by semantic negotiations. It’s Marxism, if Marxism were on a wellness retreat.
He draws from Gramsci to introduce cultural hegemony, showing how the ruling class maintains dominance not just through force but through leadership. Again, theoretically sound — but suddenly Marxism becomes a theory of polite consent management rather than a revolutionary project. The proletariat isn’t rising to smash the system; it’s negotiating with culture in a seminar room somewhere in London, sipping tea and discussing “emergent values.”
The overall effect is undeniable: Marxism and Literature shows, with devastating clarity, that classical Marxism is dead. Its rigid critiques of material exploitation, historical inevitability, and class antagonism have been softened, humanized, and aestheticized. Williams’ revisions make Marxism accessible, yes — approachable, even — but at the cost of its revolutionary teeth. The working class is no longer the engine of historical change; it’s a participant in cultural discourse, co-writing narratives rather than storming factories.
Bottom line roast: Williams’ work is brilliant, humane, and endlessly influential — and also a eulogy for the Marx of Capital.
He transforms Marxism from a theory of ruthless critique into a field of literary and cultural analysis, softening its edges until the revolutionary spark is more of a candle flicker than a torch. Classical Marxism isn’t just challenged here; it’s politely invited to sit down, sip a cup of tea, and watch emergent forms jostle with residual ones — while capital quietly ticks along, uninterrupted.
Williams sets out to rescue Marxist theory from its mechanical dead ends, but in doing so, he exposes what everyone already suspected: classical Marxism is, if not dead, at least clinically brain dead.
The first problem is Williams’ obsession with “culture as process.” On paper, it sounds radical: culture is not a static superstructure imposed by the economic base but a site of struggle, where dominant, residual, and emergent forms jostle for influence. In practice, it’s a gentle euphemism for “let’s make Marxism soft, humanist, and comfortably vague.”
The rigid, ruthless materialist critique that once threatened kings and capitalists now gets dressed up as a meditation on “lived experience.” Marxist revolutionary fire is replaced with cultural studies hand-holding.
Then there’s the grand concept of “structures of feeling.” What a phrase! It suggests society is made of ethereal, half-articulated emotions and values. It’s poetic, yes — dangerously poetic for a discipline founded on class struggle and exploitation. You can almost hear the academic smugness: “Look, comrades, we have feelings now!”
It’s Marxism with mood lighting, a theory of class wrapped in soft-focus nostalgia for experiences no one can fully measure. For those expecting the analytical punch of capital critique, this is like trying to fight a war with origami swords.
Williams’ reassessment of literature as social production is equally double-edged. Literature, he argues, is not just reflective but constitutive, participating in ideological struggles. Wonderful. But now Marxism looks less like a toolkit for understanding exploitation and more like an overworked seminar on thematic motifs and narrative devices. The once-combative critique of power structures becomes a polite discussion of texts and “lived realities.” Revolutionary theory is rebranded as literary sociology, capable of filling journal pages but unlikely to topple empires.
Language, too, gets the Williams treatment: material yet socially contingent. Admirable, until you realize the entire Marxist critique of ideology is now linguistically nebulous. Dominant classes, emergent practices, residual forms — all float around in a mist of words, leaving the economic and structural backbone that made Marxism a threat to power suspiciously optional. You could read a paragraph of this and forget capitalism exists, replaced instead by semantic negotiations. It’s Marxism, if Marxism were on a wellness retreat.
He draws from Gramsci to introduce cultural hegemony, showing how the ruling class maintains dominance not just through force but through leadership. Again, theoretically sound — but suddenly Marxism becomes a theory of polite consent management rather than a revolutionary project. The proletariat isn’t rising to smash the system; it’s negotiating with culture in a seminar room somewhere in London, sipping tea and discussing “emergent values.”
The overall effect is undeniable: Marxism and Literature shows, with devastating clarity, that classical Marxism is dead. Its rigid critiques of material exploitation, historical inevitability, and class antagonism have been softened, humanized, and aestheticized. Williams’ revisions make Marxism accessible, yes — approachable, even — but at the cost of its revolutionary teeth. The working class is no longer the engine of historical change; it’s a participant in cultural discourse, co-writing narratives rather than storming factories.
Bottom line roast: Williams’ work is brilliant, humane, and endlessly influential — and also a eulogy for the Marx of Capital.
He transforms Marxism from a theory of ruthless critique into a field of literary and cultural analysis, softening its edges until the revolutionary spark is more of a candle flicker than a torch. Classical Marxism isn’t just challenged here; it’s politely invited to sit down, sip a cup of tea, and watch emergent forms jostle with residual ones — while capital quietly ticks along, uninterrupted.
March 27, 2018
Doktorat in progress.
To genialna odtrutka na Matthew Arnolda. "Literatura burżuazyjna będzie tylko literaturą burżuazyjną". Love it <3
To genialna odtrutka na Matthew Arnolda. "Literatura burżuazyjna będzie tylko literaturą burżuazyjną". Love it <3
July 14, 2023
One of those books that's probably right about literally everything, and therefore demands a permanent spot on my shelf for things I will quote from and think about for the rest of my life.
July 24, 2011
This is simply outstanding and over three decades after being written remains one of the clearest, sharpest most insightful forays into a materialst theory and practice of culture and cultural analysis. For my work in History I find the first section dealing with basic issues and concepts in Marxist analysis (there is a superb essay on ideology that cuts through all the Althusserian obscuratism that was popular at the time) helpful. More so the second section which contains essential essays on base-superstucture relations, cultural determination, structures of feeling and most especially the idea of residual, dominant and emergent cultural forms. These are classic essays in cultural analysis and essential reading for anyone working in cultural history. Without a doubt, one of the most important books in my library.
June 30, 2016
Williams' densest. Be aware of the overall structure before you start so you can choose what's most relevant (if you really want to just look at his sociological account of literary concepts, turn to the last third - the first section is more about positioning relative to Marxist tradition in this historical moment - i.e. the 70s).
January 1, 2025
RW is cooking with gas here
April 3, 2022
OMG, my professor who is extremely strict and rigid just said that I explained William's concept,
"structures of feelings" really well. My heart really melts.
The following are the paragraphs I wrote on the concept~For anyone who is interested in the book~
"In Marxism and Literature, Williams coins the concept “structures of feelings” to demonstrate the relationship between personal/individual feelings and social structures. While the formal concept of worldview, in William’s perspective, is limited to fixed and codified beliefs, the structure of feeling captures social consciousness as an experience in process before it forms into fixed and codified beliefs. Williams argues that social consciousness is changing rather than fixed, and these changes are subject to different time periods, and cultures. He defines the structure of feeling as “a particular quality of social experience and relationship, historically distinct from other particular qualities, which gives the sense of a generation or of a period” (131). In using the word “feeling,” Williams refers to the emergent values and meanings in that changing social consciousness. He points out that feelings, which are often perceived in opposition to thoughts, are indeed part of the rational thoughts forming the societal structures. In other words, individual feelings have structures that can be subject to rational analysis, and the analysis holds a collective social and cultural significance. The definition of structures of feelings allows Williams to blur the boundary between the social and the personal or individual.
To define the structure of feelings, Williams first argues that society and culture are expressed and understood as formed products rather than forming progress. He points out that in most descriptions, society is expressed in the past tense for the habitual recognition of human activity with an immediate and regular conversion of experience into finished products. The idea that society as a formed whole rather than forming and formative progress leads to a cultural mode in which personal experience separates from social forms. As the experiences of people are in a constant present, they differ from the acknowledged institution and formations. Even if the social institutions and norms remain fixed and known, the relationships and positions individuals hold in society are present and moving, and all the deviation and changes from the fixed and known are therefore defined as “personal” and “active.” Williams further makes a related distinction. While thought is also described in the past tense, it is considered as against the “more active, more flexible, less singular terms---consciousness, experience, feeling,” and gradually drawn towards fixed, finite, receding forms.” (128). In other words, while the thoughts are often formed ideas, the process of forming these ideas requires constant changes. Williams summarizes the distinction between feelings and social convention as conflicts between the two major modern ideological systems, the psychological system, and Marxism. While experience, immediate feelings, and subjectivity are assembled from the psychological system, absolute formations, fixed social generality, and categorical products thrive in specific dimensions, with one dominant strain being Marxism. Williams argues that limitations existed in the Marxist perception of the world as it reduces the social to fixed forms. While the dead might be able to be reduced to fixed terms, though their surviving records still constantly changes, the living person with all the complexities and uncertainties exists against such reduction. Williams names these changes of the present social system as “social consciousness” of what is being lived. The social consciousness, which is thrown under its time, does not await classifications, definitions, or rationalizations before they put effects on experience and actions.
Williams then defines the development of social consciousness in terms of “the structures of feeling.” In choosing “feeling,” William emphasizes that meanings and values are actively lived and felt. The feeling is interpreted as a practical consciousness of the present, assisting living individuals to interrelate in their community, and to interlock their relationships in tension. In this sense, Williams blurred the boundary between thoughts and feeling and indicates feeling as a way for people to perceive the world. Feelings help people to navigate their social experience in process, which is not recognized as “social” but is taken as a private and isolating gesture. However, the gesture itself has its connection with the specific hierarchies and is built into institutions and formations. William further expands the structure of feeling to a cultural hypothesis in which it relates to specific conventions in art and literature as “inalienable elements of a social material process.” The structure of feeling provides the social solution in which people in different classes find to balance themselves and the changing world they lived in. To demonstrate, Williams showcases that the differentiated structures of feelings are often related to differentiated classes. Without giving specific details, he showcases the emergence of a new structure of feeling as related to the rise of a class in England, either from 1700-60 or mutation within a class."
Feeling to be such a kid.
Whenever I made something excited, I need to show the whole world about it.
It does reminds me so much of Carlo Ginzburg's Clue, myths and the historical record!!!
"structures of feelings" really well. My heart really melts.
The following are the paragraphs I wrote on the concept~For anyone who is interested in the book~
"In Marxism and Literature, Williams coins the concept “structures of feelings” to demonstrate the relationship between personal/individual feelings and social structures. While the formal concept of worldview, in William’s perspective, is limited to fixed and codified beliefs, the structure of feeling captures social consciousness as an experience in process before it forms into fixed and codified beliefs. Williams argues that social consciousness is changing rather than fixed, and these changes are subject to different time periods, and cultures. He defines the structure of feeling as “a particular quality of social experience and relationship, historically distinct from other particular qualities, which gives the sense of a generation or of a period” (131). In using the word “feeling,” Williams refers to the emergent values and meanings in that changing social consciousness. He points out that feelings, which are often perceived in opposition to thoughts, are indeed part of the rational thoughts forming the societal structures. In other words, individual feelings have structures that can be subject to rational analysis, and the analysis holds a collective social and cultural significance. The definition of structures of feelings allows Williams to blur the boundary between the social and the personal or individual.
To define the structure of feelings, Williams first argues that society and culture are expressed and understood as formed products rather than forming progress. He points out that in most descriptions, society is expressed in the past tense for the habitual recognition of human activity with an immediate and regular conversion of experience into finished products. The idea that society as a formed whole rather than forming and formative progress leads to a cultural mode in which personal experience separates from social forms. As the experiences of people are in a constant present, they differ from the acknowledged institution and formations. Even if the social institutions and norms remain fixed and known, the relationships and positions individuals hold in society are present and moving, and all the deviation and changes from the fixed and known are therefore defined as “personal” and “active.” Williams further makes a related distinction. While thought is also described in the past tense, it is considered as against the “more active, more flexible, less singular terms---consciousness, experience, feeling,” and gradually drawn towards fixed, finite, receding forms.” (128). In other words, while the thoughts are often formed ideas, the process of forming these ideas requires constant changes. Williams summarizes the distinction between feelings and social convention as conflicts between the two major modern ideological systems, the psychological system, and Marxism. While experience, immediate feelings, and subjectivity are assembled from the psychological system, absolute formations, fixed social generality, and categorical products thrive in specific dimensions, with one dominant strain being Marxism. Williams argues that limitations existed in the Marxist perception of the world as it reduces the social to fixed forms. While the dead might be able to be reduced to fixed terms, though their surviving records still constantly changes, the living person with all the complexities and uncertainties exists against such reduction. Williams names these changes of the present social system as “social consciousness” of what is being lived. The social consciousness, which is thrown under its time, does not await classifications, definitions, or rationalizations before they put effects on experience and actions.
Williams then defines the development of social consciousness in terms of “the structures of feeling.” In choosing “feeling,” William emphasizes that meanings and values are actively lived and felt. The feeling is interpreted as a practical consciousness of the present, assisting living individuals to interrelate in their community, and to interlock their relationships in tension. In this sense, Williams blurred the boundary between thoughts and feeling and indicates feeling as a way for people to perceive the world. Feelings help people to navigate their social experience in process, which is not recognized as “social” but is taken as a private and isolating gesture. However, the gesture itself has its connection with the specific hierarchies and is built into institutions and formations. William further expands the structure of feeling to a cultural hypothesis in which it relates to specific conventions in art and literature as “inalienable elements of a social material process.” The structure of feeling provides the social solution in which people in different classes find to balance themselves and the changing world they lived in. To demonstrate, Williams showcases that the differentiated structures of feelings are often related to differentiated classes. Without giving specific details, he showcases the emergence of a new structure of feeling as related to the rise of a class in England, either from 1700-60 or mutation within a class."
Feeling to be such a kid.
Whenever I made something excited, I need to show the whole world about it.
It does reminds me so much of Carlo Ginzburg's Clue, myths and the historical record!!!
November 19, 2025
Raymond Williams es ese profe con olor a pucho y con una probable adicción al alcohol que te sienta en tu primer año de facultad y enseña cuantos pares son tres botas en 2 horas de teoría literaria. Si hubiese nacido en este gran país sería peronista. Cambio y fuera.
Read
January 16, 2020حسنًا، هنا الترجمة والتجربة المختلفة الأخيرة. وليَمز الأكاديمي الناقد البارع وما هو غير ذلك الذي سرَدَ فكره ومرئياته في ارتباط الماركسية بالأدب، حاملًا معه أفكاره التي أسس بها المادية الثقافية. هذا نصٌّ أكاديمي ليس بالأكاديمي حقًّا! سرد جمالي ثقيل وحمَّال لكنه غير عويص لأسلوب وليَمز الخفيف في البيان والعرض غير المرجعي جدًّا. بالنسبة للقارئ، وليَمز كاتب مريح وبالنسبة للباحث فهو متعب، - ربما. ولغة وليَمز هذه من اللغات التي أستسيغها في النقد والنظرية لأنها تسير دون إعاقات. على العكس، توقفك عند مكانٍ ما مسيرٌ آخر جميل. وهذا ما كنت أحس به كل مرة وأنا أسير في الترجمة؛ هذا نص أكاديمي مختلف. مختلفٌ لأنه حي ويسير، يخاطب ويحوي المجالات الشُّسَّع. يزج بك في أماكن رحبة تود أن تسير فيها طويلًا. وآمل أن يكون كما آراه حقًّأ لقارئه. النقد جميل وليس كما يظهر مرات في الحي الأكاديمي. هذا نصٌّ أكاديمي ليس بالأكاديمي!
February 23, 2010
Good ol' Ray-jay Billiams breaks down old concepts. He does that Rayjay thing he likes to do, by which I mean, he looks at the historically evolving meanings of words accumulated over many English centuries, inside and outside of that Marxist tradition.
Takes 'sensuous activity' from Theses on Feuerbach and embroiders it on a banner. Waves said banner vigorously. "Let's not divide 'thought' from 'material'; let's banish vulgar economism alongside bourgeois idealism." In other words, 'praxis makes perfect.'
My favorite essays are in the first two sections.
Takes 'sensuous activity' from Theses on Feuerbach and embroiders it on a banner. Waves said banner vigorously. "Let's not divide 'thought' from 'material'; let's banish vulgar economism alongside bourgeois idealism." In other words, 'praxis makes perfect.'
My favorite essays are in the first two sections.
Read
January 5, 2015Despite the sludgy writing style, there is a lot of valuable stuff in here. You'll have to forgive the author for living in his time period to a certain degree (the dubious specters of Althusser and Lukacs are found throughout), and you'll have to forgive the fact that “literature,” despite being present in the title, only really shows up in the last 30 pages or so, but as an analysis of how hegemony filters into our daily life, it's a decent argument.
July 12, 2024
4.5 ⭐️ Williams’ treatment of a topic of such complexity is nothing short of brilliant. Each chapter contributed to the overall argument, and the author clearly positions himself between his sympathies and disagreements with classical Marxist theory. While the writing felt overly opaque at times, this is the kind of book that I’ll undoubtedly revisit in a couple of years and probably gain insights that differ significantly from those initially obtained.
March 10, 2014
part of an introductory series of "Marxism & [stuff]," nevertheless offers author's own original contribution to doctrine, such as the residual/emergent distinction, "structures of feeling" as a development of ideology theory, and so on.
October 27, 2017
Creo que, en los estudios literarios, es una lectura casi obligada.
March 15, 2024
great book only downside is you can’t read it in public without looking like a wanker
January 21, 2025
Es una pena, porque empieza bien. Es una pena que , en su batalla contra las influencias del estructuralismo y el psicoanálisis sobre la teoría marxista en la filosofía continental, Raymond Williams haya terminado construyendo una argumentación tan pobre como banal.
Ese es el principal problema del libro: Williams no parece entender demasiado lo que está cuestionando. Rechaza toda idea de "inconsciente" como un vicio burgués (al punto de que parece la parodia de un censor estalinista), y termina hablando una y otra vez de "intencionalidad" sin siquiera mencionar las críticas a esta idea desde el (post)estructuralismo; ¿cómo puede ser que Roland Barthes no aparezca nombrado ni para cuestionarlo?
¿Cuál es el argumento? Que la cultura no es superestructural, no es "ideología", sino una serie de prácticas materiales situadas. Son "vividas y reales", como insiste una y otra vez, como si decir que algo es real lo hiciera más real. Al fin y al cabo no es mucho más que criticar la noción de "construcciones sociales" porque se cree que se habla de cosas que no son "de verdad". Williams discute contra hombres de paja (¿qué teórico marxista o posmarxista rechazaría esta noción de cultura?) y para colmo lo que provee son ideas imprecisas y poco útiles. Este texto es famoso por introducir el concepto de "estructuras de sentimiento" (es gracioso que un libro escrito contra el estructuralismo termine desarrollando justamente una noción de estructura). El autor la usa, básicamente, como una herramienta para explicar el cambio social de un modo no-determinista (de hecho tiene un capítulo dedicado a l término de "determinación" que es bastante resccatable). Su idea es que las prácticas culturales son parte de la producción social,, y no epifenómenos de ella, entonces hay formaciones (dominantes, emergentes o residuales) que existen y se transforman no como consecuencia de las transformaciones económicas sino por un régimen propio. Este régimen no es el de lo estético (cuya autonomía Williams rechaza) sino el de las "estructuras de sentimiento", que a fin de cuentas forman una definición circular. Son un a priori absoluto, el punto cúlmine del idealismo que supuestamente critica Williams.
Mención aparte para la grave confusión que tiene el autor con la palabra "subjetivo", que asocia directamente con "individual, personal" y por lo tanto con un concepto burgués. Pero, si no es del orden de lo subjetivo, ¿qué es el "sentimiento" de la "estructura de sentimientos". Buena pregunta, ¿no? Sería bueno que el autor la respondiera. Alas...
En síntesis: una serie de vaguedades que terminan con la aseveración de que lo importante es la "creatividad" en el sentido de que la humanidad se crea a sí misma. Es sorprendente cómo un autor marxista puede dedicar un libro entero a cuestionar distintos conceptos y no percibir que su propio vocabulario está igualmente reificado. En fin: todos estos problemas teóricos contribuyen a un marco conceptual pobre, poco útil para el marxismo y para la literatura. Y para colmo se lo usó para todo, desde análisis la izquierda peronista en los 70 hasta estudios micro etnográficos contemporáneos. Los efectos han sido devastadores para la sociología.
Ese es el principal problema del libro: Williams no parece entender demasiado lo que está cuestionando. Rechaza toda idea de "inconsciente" como un vicio burgués (al punto de que parece la parodia de un censor estalinista), y termina hablando una y otra vez de "intencionalidad" sin siquiera mencionar las críticas a esta idea desde el (post)estructuralismo; ¿cómo puede ser que Roland Barthes no aparezca nombrado ni para cuestionarlo?
¿Cuál es el argumento? Que la cultura no es superestructural, no es "ideología", sino una serie de prácticas materiales situadas. Son "vividas y reales", como insiste una y otra vez, como si decir que algo es real lo hiciera más real. Al fin y al cabo no es mucho más que criticar la noción de "construcciones sociales" porque se cree que se habla de cosas que no son "de verdad". Williams discute contra hombres de paja (¿qué teórico marxista o posmarxista rechazaría esta noción de cultura?) y para colmo lo que provee son ideas imprecisas y poco útiles. Este texto es famoso por introducir el concepto de "estructuras de sentimiento" (es gracioso que un libro escrito contra el estructuralismo termine desarrollando justamente una noción de estructura). El autor la usa, básicamente, como una herramienta para explicar el cambio social de un modo no-determinista (de hecho tiene un capítulo dedicado a l término de "determinación" que es bastante resccatable). Su idea es que las prácticas culturales son parte de la producción social,, y no epifenómenos de ella, entonces hay formaciones (dominantes, emergentes o residuales) que existen y se transforman no como consecuencia de las transformaciones económicas sino por un régimen propio. Este régimen no es el de lo estético (cuya autonomía Williams rechaza) sino el de las "estructuras de sentimiento", que a fin de cuentas forman una definición circular. Son un a priori absoluto, el punto cúlmine del idealismo que supuestamente critica Williams.
Mención aparte para la grave confusión que tiene el autor con la palabra "subjetivo", que asocia directamente con "individual, personal" y por lo tanto con un concepto burgués. Pero, si no es del orden de lo subjetivo, ¿qué es el "sentimiento" de la "estructura de sentimientos". Buena pregunta, ¿no? Sería bueno que el autor la respondiera. Alas...
En síntesis: una serie de vaguedades que terminan con la aseveración de que lo importante es la "creatividad" en el sentido de que la humanidad se crea a sí misma. Es sorprendente cómo un autor marxista puede dedicar un libro entero a cuestionar distintos conceptos y no percibir que su propio vocabulario está igualmente reificado. En fin: todos estos problemas teóricos contribuyen a un marco conceptual pobre, poco útil para el marxismo y para la literatura. Y para colmo se lo usó para todo, desde análisis la izquierda peronista en los 70 hasta estudios micro etnográficos contemporáneos. Los efectos han sido devastadores para la sociología.
January 30, 2025
Structure of feelinggg
July 8, 2025
Muuuuy complejo 🤯
Muy interesante cuando he conseguido entenderlo (+ 1 mes de lectura y mucho chat GPT)
Muy interesante cuando he conseguido entenderlo (+ 1 mes de lectura y mucho chat GPT)
December 8, 2023
llegit pel màster
June 30, 2021
Marxism and Literature was the culmination of Williams's increasing engagement, through the rise of the New Left from the mid-1950s, with a whole range of 'Western Marxist' texts as they had been translated into English at that point in time.
A challenging volume, but one which despite being published just over forty years ago still has remarkable influence on the way we view culture, and subsequently literature, today. Williams's version of Marxist humanism, developed over the course of his life and which he came to call 'cultural materialism', finally gets named in this text early on. Indeed, it is in this text that the Marxist character of cultural materialism is explicitly affirmed. The main takeaway from Marxism and Literature for me was Williams's trademark concept termed 'structures of feeling' and the notion of dominant, residual and emergent culture (his tripartite temporality of the historical present).
The idea of a 'structure of feeling' has been variously designated by Williams in his work under a variety of monikers - 'a whole way of life', the 'totality of consciousness', the 'field of mutually if also unevenly determining forces' to name a few. A structure of feeling is a historically contingent set of perceptual, affective and creative responses to social life. It was/is a way to describe the irreducible, experiential, qualitative dimension of existence as opposed to the rigid definitions imposed by officialdom and received normality. In essence, it captures those aspects of experience which exist socially but are as yet unrepresented in the terms that society uses to describe itself. Structures of feeling fundamentally emphasise the polyvalent complexity of experience and social nature of subjectivity. Human experience is thus always a dialectical experience because there is a relation between the ways that we feel we inhabit our social lives and the structures imposed upon us. A structure of feeling captures the sense of nuance and dialectical relationship between imposed structures and limitations and the experiences of those structures. Williams's trailblazing idea departs from and moves beyond a simplistic 'false consciousness' narrative towards something that acknowledges that humans have a degree of agency over their lives. It moves beyond a 'vulgar' Marxism, beyond the idea that culture is pure distilled ideology towards a critique that is deeply rich. It isn't hard to see why, within this context, Raymond Williams's work was so radical within the field of what came to be known as cultural studies.
The structure of feeling, in this way, is somewhat akin to the idea of 'emergent' culture. 'Emergent' culture is much more difficult to locate than 'residual' culture, Williams argues, because it is a challenge to distinguish between what is 'emergent in a strict sense' and what is 'merely novel'. The emergent in social experience is the introduction or formation of new elements - oppositional elements - that resist the values and meanings of a dominant social order. Thus, progressive art occurs when an artist succeeds in articulating some element of experience - or a structure of feeling - which isn't reflected or represented in society.
A highly influential and highly theoretical text which, while challenging to read, offers illuminating concepts for the study of culture, some of which are Williams's lasting theoretical legacies.
A challenging volume, but one which despite being published just over forty years ago still has remarkable influence on the way we view culture, and subsequently literature, today. Williams's version of Marxist humanism, developed over the course of his life and which he came to call 'cultural materialism', finally gets named in this text early on. Indeed, it is in this text that the Marxist character of cultural materialism is explicitly affirmed. The main takeaway from Marxism and Literature for me was Williams's trademark concept termed 'structures of feeling' and the notion of dominant, residual and emergent culture (his tripartite temporality of the historical present).
The idea of a 'structure of feeling' has been variously designated by Williams in his work under a variety of monikers - 'a whole way of life', the 'totality of consciousness', the 'field of mutually if also unevenly determining forces' to name a few. A structure of feeling is a historically contingent set of perceptual, affective and creative responses to social life. It was/is a way to describe the irreducible, experiential, qualitative dimension of existence as opposed to the rigid definitions imposed by officialdom and received normality. In essence, it captures those aspects of experience which exist socially but are as yet unrepresented in the terms that society uses to describe itself. Structures of feeling fundamentally emphasise the polyvalent complexity of experience and social nature of subjectivity. Human experience is thus always a dialectical experience because there is a relation between the ways that we feel we inhabit our social lives and the structures imposed upon us. A structure of feeling captures the sense of nuance and dialectical relationship between imposed structures and limitations and the experiences of those structures. Williams's trailblazing idea departs from and moves beyond a simplistic 'false consciousness' narrative towards something that acknowledges that humans have a degree of agency over their lives. It moves beyond a 'vulgar' Marxism, beyond the idea that culture is pure distilled ideology towards a critique that is deeply rich. It isn't hard to see why, within this context, Raymond Williams's work was so radical within the field of what came to be known as cultural studies.
The structure of feeling, in this way, is somewhat akin to the idea of 'emergent' culture. 'Emergent' culture is much more difficult to locate than 'residual' culture, Williams argues, because it is a challenge to distinguish between what is 'emergent in a strict sense' and what is 'merely novel'. The emergent in social experience is the introduction or formation of new elements - oppositional elements - that resist the values and meanings of a dominant social order. Thus, progressive art occurs when an artist succeeds in articulating some element of experience - or a structure of feeling - which isn't reflected or represented in society.
A highly influential and highly theoretical text which, while challenging to read, offers illuminating concepts for the study of culture, some of which are Williams's lasting theoretical legacies.
February 15, 2011
Raymond Williams is one of those brilliant writers and thinkers who often makes you believe that there's nothing left to say, despite the fact that he wrote all of his stuff decades ago. This book is no exception. Though it provides less empirical evidence for his arguments than many of his earlier works, it does nicely bring many of his previous theories and ideas into dialog with each other and presents a coherent trajectory for understanding the development of Williams' own work and the work of Marxist theory more generally. I found the ways he developed concepts I was familiar with -- particularly his work on literature/literacy and the dominant/residual/emergent distinctions -- particularly useful. Likewise, the chapter on "structures of feeling" neatly links up his work on the emergent/residual with larger societal structures. I wouldn't recommend this to someone who hadn't already read some of Williams' earlier work, but it is a fantastic review and provides a lovely summation for anyone who is already familiar with his broader cannon. Williams was one of the first theorists (as far as I know) to provide almost airtight arguments for the necessity of studying the social practices of individuals as a means of understanding the abstract concepts that define their lives. His desire to marry cultural criticism with actual lived experience might be difficult (if not impossible) to do, but he does a great job of convincing anyone that it is a worthwhile attempt to make.
October 18, 2012
Didn't read the Literary Theory section but the rest was solid. The introduction to certain concepts and themes is really just Williams breaking down the use of language to show the historical progression of the concepts, followed by his take on the concept which usually challenges a standard reading so that was mildly interesting.
The book really becomes valuable/awesome around page 100 where he begins to address hegemony. His take isn't radically different than Gramsci's yet it in many ways succeeds because it is an emphasis of Gramsci's original take. The way hegemony is taught in university courses is basically what Williams is challenging in these sections. Rather than hegemony being an Illuminati-esque structure reigning over society, it is the everyday practices which we assimilate through culture which work to benefit the dominant power structure. It isn't an Orwellian TV screen in everyone's bedrooms spouting off orders as I've often seen it compared to. To some this might seem like common sense but Williams delves deeper into the subject and really clarifies just what should be meant by hegemony when discussed.
The book really becomes valuable/awesome around page 100 where he begins to address hegemony. His take isn't radically different than Gramsci's yet it in many ways succeeds because it is an emphasis of Gramsci's original take. The way hegemony is taught in university courses is basically what Williams is challenging in these sections. Rather than hegemony being an Illuminati-esque structure reigning over society, it is the everyday practices which we assimilate through culture which work to benefit the dominant power structure. It isn't an Orwellian TV screen in everyone's bedrooms spouting off orders as I've often seen it compared to. To some this might seem like common sense but Williams delves deeper into the subject and really clarifies just what should be meant by hegemony when discussed.
August 31, 2011
brilliantly illuminating - would recommend to anyone. at the heart of williams' argument is a stress on language as activity (active practice rather than static, separated fact). this may seem self-evident but williams shows how muddled it can all get once you move out into the territory of "literature" and a certain tendency to separate the forms from the social process. the real contribution of a marxist theory of literature would be to prove that they can never be separated from each other: form is "inevitably a relationship," embedded in and constitutive of processes that are at once social, historical, and material.
It is the special function of theory, in exploring and defining the nature and the variation of practice, to develop a general consciousness within what is repeatedly experienced as a special and often relatively isolated consciousness. For creativity and social self-creation are both known and unknown events, and it is still from grasping the known that the unknown – the next step, the next work – is conceived.
It is the special function of theory, in exploring and defining the nature and the variation of practice, to develop a general consciousness within what is repeatedly experienced as a special and often relatively isolated consciousness. For creativity and social self-creation are both known and unknown events, and it is still from grasping the known that the unknown – the next step, the next work – is conceived.
Read
April 1, 2008I didn't put a rating up. Because... well this really has some important ideas for Marxist Literary theory. Some of its very inspiring and thought-provoking. Thinking about this in relationship to Althussier or Foucault is good. Also, he suggests things that really alter the ideas of Marxist construction (breaking down the rigidity of base and superstructure).
But, the writing style is so dry, full of tangents, and stiff. I picked it up and put it right back down four times even though I had a short deadline within which I needed to read it. Good luck if you're brave enough (or have to) read this.
I definitely recommend it, but be forewarned.
But, the writing style is so dry, full of tangents, and stiff. I picked it up and put it right back down four times even though I had a short deadline within which I needed to read it. Good luck if you're brave enough (or have to) read this.
I definitely recommend it, but be forewarned.
July 23, 2020
despite the aridity of william's prose, the book can still qualify as perhaps, sige na nga, an indispensable resource in studying literature and culture from a historical materialist perspective.
or, while the book can still quality as an indispensable resource in studying literature and culture from a historical materialist perspective, it is heavily tainted by william's arid and seemingly uninspired prose, lumbering, like plumbing strenuously all the dirt out of your clogged sink
or, while the book can still quality as an indispensable resource in studying literature and culture from a historical materialist perspective, it is heavily tainted by william's arid and seemingly uninspired prose, lumbering, like plumbing strenuously all the dirt out of your clogged sink
April 9, 2015
First of all, I HATE Marxism! :)
That being said, this book is an excellent intro to Marxist theory in literary and cultural studies. A lot of the concepts discussed by Williams are extremely helpful to any student attempting a study of literature or culture under hegemony. Although I have to say, he's very focused on cultural hegemony based on social class, if you want a discussion of foreign hegemony, you'll have to look elsewhere.
That being said, this book is an excellent intro to Marxist theory in literary and cultural studies. A lot of the concepts discussed by Williams are extremely helpful to any student attempting a study of literature or culture under hegemony. Although I have to say, he's very focused on cultural hegemony based on social class, if you want a discussion of foreign hegemony, you'll have to look elsewhere.
November 4, 2008
Here's what I've learned so far:
Ideology is tricky to define.
Sensuous Human Activity = culture, kind of. More like material culture.
From his picture on the cover Marx must have had great bed head in the mornings. I wish I could touch it.
Ideology is tricky to define.
Sensuous Human Activity = culture, kind of. More like material culture.
From his picture on the cover Marx must have had great bed head in the mornings. I wish I could touch it.
May 23, 2012
Interesting concepts, but Williams' writing is so dry at times. I read this just after finishing Eagleton's "Introduction to Literary Theory," which could not be more different in terms of style.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews