I am not sure whether or not I am allowed to foreword my blog post in any way, but I like to subvert my assignments whenever possible.

In many ways, I struggled with this text. I grappled with it. I read it, re-read it, and found it so utterly fascinating, but I felt Raymond Williams’ writing could be distancing at times. As a simple yet distinct overview of his perspective, by unpacking it, I am hoping to better understand his own writing; and I hope by my doing so, you will glean something of use as well.

According to Williams, there are two mindsets within the field of cultural studies that investigate the relationship of technology and society. On one hand, there is the “determinist” outlook, which argues that the discovery of tech literally affects human development (i.e., because of the internet’s instant gratification, our attention spans are now shorter). On the other hand, there is another perspective, the “symptomatic,” which establishes that technological advancement is merely a “symptom” of social change. If the television was not directly invented, something else would have merely taken its place. (293)

Williams battles with these two views, however, because they readily imply that technological advancement develops organically, and is “assumed as self-generating.” It places such developments at the margins of social change, where Williams would instead prefer to place tech advancement as an active, central guide, representative to cultural needs and social cause.  (293)

In a way, Williams challenges both outlooks by developing this middle-ground approach. With the way technology advanced from the 19th Century onward, it was inevitable that the television would be invented; as society grew more and more centralized, it only made sense that science and research groups would invest in methods of communication that would prove more conducive to reaching the largest of audiences. These social conditions and needs develop the desire for technological advancement, but Williams shirks the belief that this automatically happens. (295)

And I feel like, in many ways, this approach allows ourselves the inclination to see the television as, for the lack of a better word, a platform or medium. It is necessary to see that the development of the television did not come solely out of thin air, nor that it was some arbitrary military research effort discovered on accident. And by examining this development of social media and platforms, as investigators ourselves, we allow ourselves the room to accept social media as being situated within history, interpreting new media as cultural artifacts of our own contemporary time period.