Posted at 11.22.2018
Twentieth century literary critic Raymond Williams was one of the most reputable, yet contested scholars from the British New Left. Once dubbed "our best man" in the New Departed by his contemporaries, Williams's reputation in a post colonial context is less secure. Patrick Brantlinger said it best: "Williams was extensively the representative man. He was the words of the ordinary, the tone of voice of the working-class, the tone of voice of Wales, the tone of British isles socialism, the conscience of Britain and of European countries. He recognized that his life mattered since it was regular, and representative. " However, the early 1980s signified the shift in political and economic relationships between western and non-western countries through post-colonialism, including past British colonies. In addition, post-colonialism dished up as an avenue to "recover alternative means of knowing and understanding or simply those 'other voices' as alternatives to prominent american constructs. " While Raymond Williams provides English colonial commentary, primarily in his seminal work, The Country and the City, it was at the periphery of his grander ethnical theory. Scholars within the Birmingham University and post colonial studies have debated the implications of the, including Williams himself. Subsequently, this article will format the scholarly argument regarding Raymond Williams's alleged ambivalence towards British colonialism and competition within his conception of culture. This permits an examination of Williams's work within the context of postcolonial studies, specially the legacy of his cultural theory in a modern context.
Raymond Williams's evaluation in THE UNITED STATES and City certainly coincides with postcolonial theories emphasis on geography, whether in discussions around areas, centers, peripheries or edges. This analysis is especially significant because as argued by Anthony Alessandrini, "postcolonial theory has benefited from the Marxist and Marxist-influenced analyses performed by figures involved in the post-Second World battle activities against imperialism as well as for nationwide liberation. " Alessandrini attributed "the 1970s and 1980s politics work and social analysis of writers like Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy" for influencing major information in postcolonial studies such as Franz Fanon and Edwards Said. Therefore, as Alessandrini prolonged, "We'd need to look more closely at the historical circumstances under which the field of postcolonial studies has arisen, and especially at the sorts of strategic decisions mixed up in adoption or rejection of particular theoretical paradigms. Paul Giles would certainly acknowledge as he provides, "It might be disingenuous to disregard the simple fact that postcolonial scholarship or grant in its modern guise has as you of its permitting conditions of opportunitythe increasing attention paid to issues of subalternity and hegemony by forms of ethnical Marxism such as those of Antonio Gramsci and Raymond Williams. " Therefore, this newspaper is framed around this very approach with regards to the work of Raymond Williams.
While few would question the merit or need for Raymond Williams and his nuanced review of the nineteenth century British isles rural working class in both Culture and Population and the Long Revolution, there has been significant criticism of Williams credited in part to his silence regarding United kingdom colonialism. It has proved to be disturbing for a few, and certainly difficult for a number of Williams's contemporaries and successors even within the United kingdom New Left. Gauri Viswanathan has an exceptional layout of the criticisms against Raymond Williams and the English New Left on the whole to conceptualize culture and imperialism. He outlines that within English cultural Marxist traditions since Williams, the conception of United kingdom nationalism has been used interchangeably with issues of contest, colonialism, or imperialism. This is quite visible in Raymond Williams's Keywords (1976), where the definition of contest is not a separate entry of its, but is distinctively tied to ideas of nationalism. Williams creates:
Nationoriginally with, the burkha sense of a racial group rather than politically arranged grouping. Since you can find obvious overlap between these senses, it isn't easy to date the emergence of the predominant modern sense of your political formation. . . . The consistent overlap between racial grouping and politics formation has been important, since promises to be always a nation, and have national privileges, often envisaged the formation of a nation in the political sense, even resistant to the will of an existing political nation including and claimed the loyalty of the [racial] grouping. It could be and continues to be often said, by competitors of nationalism, that the foundation of the group's say is racial. (Contest, of uncertain origin, had been found in the sense of any common stock from C16 [sixteenth century]. Racial is a C19 [nineteenth-century] creation. In most C19 uses racial was positive and favourable, but discriminating and arbitrary theories of competition were becoming more explicit in the same period, generalizing countrywide distinctions in supposedly radical medical differences. In practice, given the scope of conquest and domination, nationalist motions have been normally based on a preexisting but subordinate politics grouping as after a group recognized by a particular language or with a meant racial community.
Gauri Viswanathan features Raymond Williams's knowledge of English nationalism as "less of an theoretical oversight or blindness than an interior restraint with complex methodological and historical roots. " Citing Raymond Williams's conception of foundation and superstructure, Viswanathan dissects Williams's technique and level of comfort with Marxist construction. While Viswanathan shows the dynamic dynamics of Williams's work as seemingly "accommodating a broadened examination of culture" to include colonial relationships, he in the end concedes that Williams constantly resisted that kind of refinement of his work. In addition, Viswanathan continued that this "base and superstructure" framework "restricted him [Williams] to exclusively economic determinist effects" and pointed to the "inefficacy of Williams's ethnic materialism. " Hence Viswanathan figured Williams's model was inherently unable to accommodate British isles imperialism as a function of metropolitan culture due to the internal restraints of his "troubled self-conscious" with Marxian frameworks.
Forest Pyle presented a similar commentary in his article, "Raymond Williams and the Inhuman Limitations of Culture. " Pyle argues that since "language is a real human instrument" it is subsequently "inhuman" for Williams to consider culture as "the mapping of a specific historical settings and of interpersonal, economic, and politics life. " Additionally, Williams's ethnic theory is beyond repair and cannot simply be "corrected" due to the intertwined nature of culture and community within Williams's work. Therefore Pyle concludes that Raymond Williams's sense of culture "cannot account for the historical and structural types of colonialism and its own aftermath. " Pyle then runs a set further than Viswanathan in asserting that this points to not "merely a personal restriction but a structural limitation" that is explicitly exhibited by Williams's unapologetic understanding of empire.
Both Pyle and Viswanathan provide interesting critiques in light of Raymond Williams's 1973 essay, "Base and Superstructure. " Within this essay Williams mentioned that he had "no use or static or highly motivated model(s) where the rules of contemporary society are highlighted to the exclusion of the processional and historical. " Yet as both Pyle and Viswanathan conclude, Raymond Williams's research does not apply this ethnic materialism model within an imperial or colonial context. Viswanathan indentified Raymond Williams as having an "internal restraint" due to his knowledge of British isles culture and nationwide identity. Therefore Williams's conception of "national culture" remained "hermetically covered from the continually changing political imperatives of empire. " For example in THE UNITED STATES and the City, Raymond Williams classifies imperialism as "the previous mode of the location and countrywithin the bigger framework of colonial extension in which every idea and every image was consciously and unconsciously infected. " In the long run, however, "British affect extended outward alternatively than that the periphery had a functional role in deciding internal innovations. " Subsequently, Williams could only conclude that "Britain achieved dominance through the power of a fully formed ethnic and institutional system which was transplanted and internalized within United kingdom colonies. "
Unsurprisingly, Raymond Williams's cohorts within the Birmingham have attributed this type of colonial evaluation to racism or an egregious form of Eurocentrism on Williams's part. This is especially the case for those involved with black cultural studies, namely Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy. Stuart Hall openly critiqued the restrictions of the Birmingham ethnic theory in working with the "other" during his tenure as program director in the past due 1960s. Hall discovered that the issues competition and cultural relations as advocated by his predecessors were specifically oppressive to minority teams, therefore highlighting a departure of the institution itself from Raymond Williams. In "Cultural Studies and its own Theoretical Legacies, " Hall discusses the question of competition in cultural studies as a major period of time in the Birmingham School. He emphasizes:
Actually getting ethnic studies to put on its own plan the critical questions of race, the politics of race, the resistance to racism, the critical questions of ethnical politics, was itself a profound theoretical. and sometimes bitterly contested internal struggle against a resounding but unconscious silence. A struggle which prolonged in what has since become known only in the rewritten history. of the Centre for Cultural Studies.
Paul Gilroy, who examined with Stuart Hall at the Birmingham University in England, focused on "postcolonial settings of deracination" within transatlantic culture. As Paul Giles states, Paul Gilroy needed issue using what he regarded as "traditional racism and ethnocentrism of English ethnic studies, " citing specifically the tendencies of E. P. Thompson and Raymond Williams to systematically omit blacks using their analysis on British isles cultural identity. Therefore, Gilroy looked at America as a counterpoint to British isles cultural research, and a way of disturbing any "narrowly ethnic definition of racial authenticity" or the "purity of civilizations" on either side of the Atlantic. Gilroy juxtaposed dark culture in Britain with American dark protest movements, in order to discredit conceptions of competition, people or nation as advocated by Raymond Williams. In fact, Gilroy presents one of the very most extreme critiques of Raymond Williams, charging him with proposing a "new racism" in his evaluation of culture.
New Still left scholar Benita Perry features that the new racism advocated by Raymond Williams was especially problematic for Paul Gilroy, who argued that New Left work in the 1960s to reclaim patriotism and nationalism resulted in cultural absolutism. She proceeds that the concept of culture itself became a "site of challenges over the meaning of race, country, and ethnicity" for scholars considering minority studies such as Gilroy. The primary concern for Gilroy was that Raymond Williams's conception of culture, with its emphasis on "long experience, " deflected the "nation" away from "race", preparing the course for British isles Cultural Marxists on the whole to create irresponsibly and quite ambivalently about "race". Additionally, this excluded blacks from the "significant" entities credited to Williams's silence on racism, which for Gilroy "has its historical marriage with ideologies of Britishness and countrywide identity. This is very similar to the argument provided by Gauri Viswanathan previously the influence of Raymond Williams on United kingdom imperial and countrywide scholarship.
Beyond overt notions Eurocentrism, Williams's critics vehemently opposed his knowledge of the "long [United kingdom] experience" deriving from "rooted settlement deal, " which excluded colonized groups and immigrants from the "significant" entity. Paul Gilroy notes that the most egregious silence in Williams's work is his "refusal to examine the concept of racism which has its own historical relationship with ideologies of Englishness, Britishness and nationwide that belong. " He adds, "There can be little uncertainty that blacks. . . are familiar with the legacy of United kingdom 'bloody mindedness' in which he will take great pride. From where they stand it is simpler to see that its current cornerstones are racism and nationalism, its foundations slavery and imperialism. " Therefore, Gilroy concludes that ethnicities aren't isolated from the other person as Raymond Williams seemly implied in THE UNITED STATES and the town, but are associated with "the prolonged crisscrossing of countrywide restrictions. "
Additionally, Paul Gilroy reviewed the implications of Raymond Williams's benefit individuals of color surviving in or immigrating to Great britain. In direct response to Williams's position on "lived experience" and "rooted arrangement, " Gilroy pointedly asked: "The length of time is long enough to become a genuine Brit in the framework of lived and made identities?" Gilroy argues, that Williams's favored the exclusion of immigrating peoples of color and added to a "new racism" grounded in a discourse of "nation, " focused on "the enemy within" and without "race. " This new racism is rooted on social rather than biological determination, showing them undeserving of citizenship and creating "authentic and inauthentic types of countrywide belonging. " This is a posture that his Birmingham School program director, Stuart Hall agreed with as well.
Raymond Williams's requirements for English citizenship acquired major implications for those colonial "subjects" of the Commonwealth beyond Britain, such as Jamaican scholar Stuart Hall. These communities lacked the "settled kind" of identity and would certainly not meet the requirements under this sort of citizenship as advocated by Raymond Williams as well. Raymond Williams's commentary in Towards 2000 preferred "lived and made identities, " preferably those of "a resolved kind, " for "practical creation of social id" should be "lived. " Williams continues: "Real social identities" are shaped "by working and living alongside one another, with some real place and common interest to recognize with". Unsurprisingly, Stuart Hall retorts: "I am the glucose in the bottom of the British cup of tea. I am the sugary tooth, the sugars plantations that rotted years of British children's teeth. There are a large number of others beside me that are, you understand, the glass of tea itself. Because they don't really increase it in Lancashire, you understand. Not a solo tea plantation is accessible within the United Kingdom"? What could Williams say to this-this "outside background that is inside the annals of the English"?
Donald Nonini increases this debate in his analysis of Stuart Hall's critique of Raymond Williams. He creates: "The issue here for Stuart Hall, is the requirements of "real" and "lived" communal identities, and the manner of exclusion of recent immigrants, who although house of Great britain, have only been there for a couple of generations. Clearly they don't talk about the "long historical connection with the land and forcible integration" after it as Williams necessary for real citizenship. This acquired major implications on Stuart Hall's work within the Birmingham College because he could not disregard the racialized aspects of Raymond Williams's social theory. In his article, "Culture, Community, and Country, " Hall equates Williams's "cultural belongingness" through "actual, lived connections of place, culture and community, amidst politically and culturally subordinate individuals" as an alternative for biological determinism and "coded terms for race and color". Therefore, Stuart Hall will abide by Paul Gilroy that there is overt cultural absolutism within Raymond Williams work. Moreover, Hall concludes that post-colonial "diasporas of the late-modern experience" will never be "unified culturally" because they're products of "cultures of hybridity. " Hall equates this "hybridity" to a "diasporic awareness, " which supposed that non- keep strong links with the practices and places with their roots while adapting with their present circumstances, in order to "produce themselves anew and in another way. "
In security of Raymond Williams, Andrew Milner argued that both Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy misinterpreted Williams's position on race, citing Towards 2000 for example. Milner creates that Williams had not been only vocal about contest, but advocated the kind of grassroots social actions that would raise understanding for the "heterogeneous strands" of English society. Actually, Williams details anti-globalization social actions as "resources. . . of hope". Additionally, Milner relates Williams' analysis of social motions to his knowledge of class. He provides that for Williams, neo- imperialist issues led 'into the central systems of the industrial-capitalist function of production and. . . its system of classes'. He facilitates his position quoting Williams discussion of "rooted settlements" in Towards 2000: "Rooted settlements were 'alienated superficialities' of 'legal explanations of citizenship' with the bigger certainty of 'deeply grounded and energetic social identities. '" This interpretation, relating to Milner, was problematic for future Birmingham University scholars, especially Paul Gilroy, who concluded that Williams's "authentic and inauthentic types of national belonging" implemented the same racist rhetoric of British conservatives. Milner, however, preserves that this was a distortion of Williams's original discussion. He finally concludes that future scholars should reexamine Williams's position on race.
Similar to Milner, Donald Nonini and Christopher Prendergast reveals Towards 2000 as the best proof Williams conception of racism and noticeable "others" in a post colonial framework. Nonini cites Williams's observation that "the most recent immigrations of more visibly different peopleshave misrepresented and obscured pasts". Nonini continues that Raymond Williams does take into account the variations within English culture and the contested characteristics of citizenship. For example, Williams wrote that when recently arriving immigrants interacted with "true Englishman""angry confusions and prejudices" were apparent as a result of repression of rural culture and people within Great Britain. Nonini interprets this as a sign of Williams' internalized colonist sentiment. Therefore, Raymond Williams grasped racism as the result of the "hostility between your 'formerly integrated peoples' and the immigrating 'more visibly different peoples' due to colonial ideology. " Moreover, Andrew Milner continues that Raymond Williams didn't exclude blacks from "a significant social identity using their white friends and neighbors, " as Paul Gilroy advises highlighting Williams's examination of rural mining areas in Towards 2000. On top of that, Stuart Hall's assertion that Raymond Williams not only questioned, but eliminated the probability that 'human relationships between blacks and whites in many inner-city neighborhoods' can be 'actual' and 'sustained' is even more unfounded when examining Williams's work in Towards 2000.
Christopher Prendergast clarifies that Raymond Williams didn't consider this as "actual racism, " but a "profound misunderstanding" credited to "purely communal and social tensions" between your English working course and who they perceived as outsiders. While Williams appears to side with the normal, working-class man, Prendergast does indeed specify that Williams does counter nativist claims in his realization that "foreigners" and "blacks" were "equally British even as we are. " Therefore, Prendergast retains that Williams recognized the limitations of any merely legal classification of what it is usually to be "British". He offers that Williams experienced that attempts to solve issues around interpersonal identities were often "colluded with the alienated superficialities of 'the nation' that have been often limited by the functional terms of the present day ruling class". In the end, both Prendergast and Milner conclude that Raymond Williams was not oblivious to racial relationships, citing Williams again: "It really is by working and living together. . . as free as may be from exterior ideological meanings, whether divisive or universalist, that real public identities are produced. "
While Milner and Prendergast offer an apologetic interpretation of Raymond Williams and colonial relationships, Paul Giles and Forest Pyle emphasize William's conception of culture as the liability in his analysis. In his article, "Virtual Americas: The Internationalization of American Studies and the Ideology of Exchange, " Paul Giles cites Raymond Williams's idealized conception of community as an "empowering and socially cohesive force"as problematic. Williams's obstinate insistence in all natural neighborhoods and rooted settlements creates significant troubles when interacting with imperial interactions. Apparently, Raymond Williams's social research accommodates a broadened conceptualization of culture that is including "colonizer-colonized relations, yet this never materializes. Instead, Williams's knowledge of the cultural experience becomes overtly exclusive of colonial others, minorities, and immigrants scheduled to his naturalized and geographically localized notion of English countrywide culture. " As specified previously with Forest Pyle, Williams's appropriation of culture as "inhuman and fictional" due to the 'pervasive and elusive' characteristics of the term itself in relation to colonial evaluation.
Post colonial scholar R. Radhakrishnan provides a critique of Raymond Williams's social theory as a means of deconstructing Eurocentrism in a post colonial context. While Radhakrishnan acknowledges the information provided in THE UNITED STATES and the City, he argues that Williams's continual self-reflexivity posits him in a contradictory position when it relates to colonialism and culture. Therefore his commentary becomes both "oppositional-marginal and dominant-central" and ultimately coincides with a "demonstrably metropolitan tone. " Because of this, those within the margins or periphery of prominent British culture are "too easily and prematurely altered and accommodated within what Williams regarded as a 'connecting process towards a typical background. '" Radhakrishnan keeps that what differentiates post colonial scholars such as Edward Said or Paratha Chatterjee from Raymond Williams is their recognition and articulation of subaltern marginality that often negates Williams's idea of a "successfully transplanted method of ethnic commonality. " In that sense English nationalism or culture can be enacted in the postcolonial context to the detriment of indigenous, peripheral cultures because it does not "speak on their behalf". Therefore, Radhakrishnan concludes that Williams's social analysis is incapable of interacting with the nuances of the colonial or post colonial world.
Nevertheless, numerous scholars have worked to comprehend Williams's rationale for situating colonial and racial identities at the periphery of his work. Donald Nonini argues that "Williams's ambivalence toward issues of imperialism and competition needs to be studied very seriously. " David Simpson would certainly agree. He gives: "Williams's 'nativist streak' prevented him providing an intensive critique and knowledge of colonialism. " Donald Nonini addresses the resentment and exclusion Williams experienced as well, citing his inside have difficulties as a "Welsh European. " He cites Raymond Williams's commentary regarding his own experiences in the country for example of this: "I was created in a village, and I still stay in a communitythis country life then has many meanings: in sense and activity; in region and with time. " Williams carries on: "Country is both a land and a part of a land; the country could possibly be the whole population or its rural area. " Evidently, as Nonini argues, Williams was a sufferer of "a colonization of your body, the intellect and soul that took place within national limitations, alternatively than across them. " Therefore, colonization was indeed inner for Williams, and it expressed itself during his Cambridge experience when his "country" was being silenced, and transformed by the dialect of the metropole, the "city". This is finish that Williams reached when questioned by his co-workers in the New Left on the issue of his ambivalence with colonialism.
Raymond Williams comes to terms with these criticisms in his work, Politics and Characters: Interviews with New Left Review (1979). Williams remarks on how he was often taken up to activity for not discussing the partnership between culture and the Uk Empire. When challenged by his fellow New Still left colleagues involving his understanding of colonial/imperial discourse, Williams areas that imperialism was not something which was "secondary and exterior, it was instead absolutely constitutive of the whole character of the English political and sociable orderthe salient truth. " He goes on note that his Welsh experience, which must have enabled him to take into account the imperial experience, was "quite definitely in abeyance" at the time he wrote the booklet. Williams then contextualizes his inner colonization by quoting from his prior work The Country and the town, highlighting his fixation to the oppressive city: "It's the 'city' that will assault to the 'country' and also to the 'actual, ' 'resided identities' that country life generates. " While Williams struggles to extend this is of "city" as analogous of colonialism and empire overseas, he is able to associate it to his personal inner oppression.
Raymond Williams published thoroughly of his personal experience at Cambridge University as attributing to his knowledge of culture on multiple events. In Politics and Words he published: "I got wholly unprepared for this. I knew nothing about it. " Williams goes on to go over his name change while enrolled at Cambridge University or college: "All the people [in Wales] who knew me till I used to be eighteen called me Jim. I used my legal name Raymond at university. this issues to the condition of being two persons, and negotiating between two different worlds. Yet I usually find it peculiar how quickly one adjusts to being called a certain name in a certain place. " This do it yourself examination is also present within Williams's 1958 article "Culture is Ordinary". Regarding his approval to Cambridge Williams writes: "The actual fact of limitation I accepted, since it was still evident that only the "deserving" poor get much educational opportunitiesI was no better no worse than individuals I originated from. " All in all, Raymond Williams's indicated throughout his professional profession that his upbringing in the border country led him to conclude that "culture all together life-style, " and inhibited him from interacting with external United kingdom colonialism extensively.
That being said, Raymond Williams constantly mirrored upon this glaring distance in his work especially in light of the use of his ethnic theory in post colonial studies, by scholars like Edward Said. In his article, "Traveling Theory, " Edward Said details his opposition to Raymond Williams's romanticized social separatism and belongingness as "the the purer form of the community as a way of salvation. " This contributed to his a reaction to Raymond Williams in their 1986 interview over the nature of community at the Institute of Education in London. Edward Said records his displeasure with Williams's response to his critics regarding culture, because, as Said adds, "historically culture has not been cooperative and communal term as Williams advises, but instead exclusive. " Said then cites cases in Culture and Population in which references are made to "our" culture instead of "their culture", as "theirs" is described and marginalized by virtue of contest. Therefore, Said designates Williams's commentary as documenting a privileged culture that's not only excluding, but also exported to all of those other world. Said remains, that this exported culture "remains at a distance; you can therefore be in it, but you can never be of it. Therefore, people are unable to belong to a particular culture, but are seemingly beyond it.
However, Williams countered that his idea of a "common culture" that excluded the marginalized "outsiders" was greatly misinterpreted. Common culture was meant to be oppositional to at the very top or dominating culture for Williams. It had been to be an ideal that opened gain access to and distribution to all or any level of world instead of being exclusionary. In the long run, common culture was meant to challenge the divisions, separation, and issue which Williams thought to be rooted in real historical situations and including variety. In Politics and Characters, Williams adds that "however dominating a cultural system, may be, the very interpretation of its dominance requires a restriction or selection of the activities it covers, so that by description it can't be exhausted, and for that reason it always consists of space for different acts and substitute intentions which are not articulated or understood by a cultural institution or system. Additionally, Raymond Williams had not been muted on the issue of imperialism. In the united states and City, he creates that, "the relationship between England and its own colonies, have removed deeper than can be easily followed, it is in every idea and every image both consciously and unconsciously. Within this sense, John Higgins is appropriate in his defense of Williams, when it comes to imperialism or racial exclusivity. Higgins sustains that despite Williams's sporadic focus on imperialism, his examination was certainly strange and nuanced because of its time. When almost all of his contemporaries were absolutely blind to it, Williams attemptedto come to conditions with British imperialism. Therefore, Williams's work should be considered as an success, especially because it played such a significant place within Edward Said's work, notably Culture and Imperialism.
Andrew Rubin writes that Williams's THE UNITED STATES and the City provided Said with a theoretical problem. Said, therefore, wanted to extend Williams's work when it comes to subordinate organizations, and their engagement in contested public relationships over geographical, territorial, and property division within Britain. This focus on geography is certainly one of the primary concepts that Edward Said appropriates within his own work from Raymond Williams. In Said's article "Narrative, Geography and Interpretation, " he notes that Williams conceived of culture as 'a extremely varied group of structures deriving from the land', and that his conception of Britain 'is in a quite radical sense a geographical one'. He employs this by proclaiming that because of Williams's work "we can now retrospectively analyze 'other nations' of the world without which any true geography of the historical trip of mankind would be incomplete. " Therefore as Alexander Moore asserts Edward Said does indeed extend Williams's geographical and spatial formularies, rather than explicitly questioning them. For example Edward Said's states that his mission is to find "something as comparable to so that as certain as England's geography in post-war world culture and ask how, in their own way, do these other [cultural] formations rely upon no less cement a geography than will, say, THE UNITED STATES and the City?'.
Moreover, Alexander Moore persuasively argues that while Edward Said records the paradox within Williams's work due to his ethnocentrism, he recognized if it as a good tool of analysis, rather than a liability. For example, Said essay, "Narrative, Geography and Interpretation" applied Williams's ethnocentrism in comparative studies of other "centrisms" stretching from Britain in the seventeenth and twentieth decades, to Ireland, Africa, India, the Caribbean, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. Inevitably, Said sought to answer the question: "So how exactly does Williams's work in and about England help us to handle a few of the related cosmetic, political and ethnic problematic that people will get in locales and text messages far less British and Western than Williams's?" Evidently, Said assumed that Raymond Williams's research of Great Britain, when broadened, allowed for the emergence of various colonial "structures of feelings principles, embeddedness, difference, and the particularities of the counterhegemonic discourses and social relations oppositional communities construct" within those "other" places. Moor concludes that unlike his other critics, Said gives Williams the benefit of the hesitation because he seen Williams not as a "reflective criticwho could start to see the limitations of theory or a particular ideology understanding that any liberating idea may become a snare of its own. "
Unsurprisingly then, Benita Parry sustains having said that owes more to Raymond Williams than other people. She writes that Said draws on Williams's work, and can provide one of the most sophisticated critiques of Williams's work. Said acknowledges that it is from Williams that he produced his use of culture as "a negotiated sociable practice, within which subjectivities, cognition, and consciousness are created and remade under determinate historical and political conditions". Said features Raymond Williams's understanding that the events in the peripheries reshaped and identified domestic relations at home. For instance, he quotes for The Country and the City: "From at least mid-nineteenth century, there is this larger framework of colonial extension within which every idea and every image was consciously and unconsciously influenced. Therefore, Said accepts the challenge of Williams's ethnic theory can offers an expanded interpretation of Williams's focus on empire and designed metropolitan civilizations.
Notwithstanding, it was not only Said and other post colonial scholars how offered a reinterpretation of Raymond Williams, but Williams offered his on revision. Williams did not write in isolation of his critics and was quite aware of the criticism his work generated. In fact, he was very candid and openly critiqued his work in a series of New Still left interviews, and in the later part of his career wrote extensively on the limits of his English Marxist theory and his own conceptions. Additionally, Williams attempted to increase his original conceptions of culture and social materialism to add the distinctive and "salient fact". As Andrew Milner notes as well, Williams makes up about his early on shortcomings and was highly encouraged by the probability and desirability of shared social identities in the foreseeable future. Therefore, Raymond Williams seen his contribution to both colonial and post colonial scholarship as eventually continuing an earlier conversation. Evidently, regardless of the constraints of Raymond Williams's work, his ideas and ethnic theory provided the groundwork for post colonial and ethnic scholarship as evident in the task of Edward Said, Stuart Hall, Paul Gilroy and the other known scholars in this essay. Therefore, his relevance in the post colonial work, although contested, continues to be apparent.
All in every, it can be concluded that Raymond Williams was never completely oblivious to issues of competition and imperialism due to depth and endurance of his scholarship. While Raymond Williams can't be regarded as a founding shape of post colonial studies or an unapologetic racist, he does meet the criteria as a reflective scholar who needed an uncompromising accountability for his work. Raymond Williams provided not only the platform of cultural studies, but discussed the troubles of early British Marxist scholarship throughout the 1960s when it comes to racial identities. Moreover, the transparency of Williams's own interior struggles allowed for an open dialogue in the later 1970s 1980s between Williams and his critics within both New Left and postcolonial studies. This allowed Williams's successors to either critique, change, or appropriate his work to cope with modern issues, which is obviously something Raymond Williams could have liked in light of his own career with Marxist theory. Therefore, through analysis of Raymond Williams's own work on imperialism, a fuller knowledge of Raymond Williams's scholarship can be treasured in relation to post colonial scholarship.