The discussion and debate of culture and what it represents in British society is very much a modern phenomenon. The first academics to discuss the topic, people such as Leavis, Hoggart and Williams first did so around the 1950s and '60s. Before such time there was no concise, recorded commentary on the meaning of culture, how it affects society and how it is to be approached. This development of cultural debate and the foundations of the specific academic discipline of cultural studies is intricately linked to the economic environment of the time and the time preceding it, in particular the rise of industrialisation. With the development of a division of class, differing educational opportunities and the rise of consumerism the issues surrounding a debate on culture and what it is became particularly relevant. However, what is to be discovered by anyone investigating culture is that it is a very complex concept due to it's multi-dimensional nature. The word culture is used everyday with many different meanings intended. As Williams says, "Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language" (Wil

However, Williams is influenced here by the Marxists in that he recognises that our "culture must be finally be interpreted in relation to it's underlying system of production", capitalism, and that because of this education is restricted. Regardless, he makes clear that simply because members of the working class have less educative opportunities it does not make their way of life with it's traditions and common meanings any less a part of culture. Furthermore, he states that the working class are not any less interested in learning, education and the arts or that they are unable to comprehend it but simply due to their lifestyle and the economic organisation of society they have less opportunity to engage in it. This is illustrated well in Williams' essay when he tells the story of his father, a railway worker, who through reading the Daily Herald got "a clear idea... of the rapid development of combine and interlocking ownership in British industry, which [he] had had made easy for [him] in two or three academic essays" (Williams,1958,p13). For Williams this point is important as it rejects the notion of the 'masses', a disinterested, "low and trivial" mass of people. A notion that developed with industrialisation and the movement from the village to the town and subsequently coming across masses of people everyday whom one had no knowledge or interest in. As Williams said himself,

"At home we met and made music, listened to it, recited and listened to poems, valued fine language" (Williams,1958,p7)

what is good, is the whole positive nature of man" (Williams,1958,p8)

"There are in fact no masses, but only ways of seeing people as masses"(Williams,1958,p12)

This notion put forward by Williams is particularly distinct and obviously involves a variety of different concepts. However, he can be criticised on a number of different levels for viewpoints he has not taken into account when formulating his views. In Dick Hebdige's book, Subculture: the meaning of style, he gives an analytical account of the emergence of subcultures in post-war Britain. He explains how subcultures are revolts against the dominant values of the time. This poses a problem for Williams because his ideas of culture being ordinary and there existing a common culture does not take into account those groups who oppose the common culture and desire to be outside of

Some common words found in the essay are:
Industrial Revolution, Arnold Arnold, Williams Williams, Williams Culture, Dick Hebdige's, Britain Providing, Hoggart Williams, Williams1958p13 Williams, Williams1958p8 Advocating, Hebdige1979p44-45 Williams, common culture, culture ordinary, cultured elite, 'high' culture, industrial revolution, father railway worker, society culture, intricately linked, williams williams, cultural studies, issues race, subculture meaning style,
Approximate Word count = 1605
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)