Everyday Life as Culture: Revisiting Raymond Williams’ Democratic Ideal

In his most important text, “Culture is Ordinary,” Raymond Williams challenges the very notions of culture as they have been limited by previous thinkers. He states that it is not the exclusive province of the elite but is rather formed by ordinary living. The dogma of culture equaling refinement, formal education, or a high form of artistry is therefore discarded by him in favor of a democratic and inclusive view of culture. To truly comprehend culture, we have to be able to accept the lived experiences of people coming from everywhere. This view of culture as a common, evolving, and everyday process calls on both scholars and society to expand their vision and accommodate out-of-the-way groups in cultural practices.

Having inherited his working-class Welsh background, Williams presents his life as the evidence for an apparent disparity between dominant academic arguments and the reality wrought by culture. He says, “Culture is ordinary: that is the first fact. Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings” (Williams, 1958). This puts forth an extremely revolutionary statement—thereby de-elevating culture from the ivory tower and setting it down in kitchens, backyards, and neighborhoods. The point Williams is trying to assert is that how people raise families, share meals, hold festivals, and tell stories holds no less cultural meaning than Shakespeare or an opera.

This inclusive perspective is further expounded when Williams comes up with two central definitions of culture: first, culture as “a whole way of life—the common meanings”; second, culture as “the arts and learning—the special processes of discovery and creative effort” (Williams, 1958). Williams insists instead on the understanding of the two aspects together. By the mix of these aspects, watching a TikTok video about cultural identity could well be as much a subject of cultural study as would be analyzing a classic novel. The former represents the shared meaning system and accounts for one communal expression of life—the very “ordinary” culture channeled by Williams.

Such thoughts are deeply resonating in contemporary tradition, particularly within the confines of the realms of online communities. Democratizing social manufacturing, and allowing citizens from all backgrounds to participate in the creation of meaning, platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram are preferable. The hashtags #BlackGirlMagic or #IndigenousTikTok represent Williams’ idea that society is not active but populate, manufactured, and remade as a daily routine. These electronic expressions, through storytelling, wit, or activism, hinder mainstream narratives and transport underprivileged voices into visibility. They repeat what Williams calls the “sculpting meaning and direction of a whole individual”, reinforcing that heritage is never complete but is instead constantly being negotiated.

In addition, the current negotiation can be observed in traditional offline space. For instance, when I was raised by a Mexican American family, my understanding of society came not from textbooks but from weekend tamale making sessions with my grandmother. There wasn’t a symphony or gallery nearby, but York had a heritage in the arrangement of narratives during fold Masa in corn chaff, Spanish conversations with Spanglish, and songs that jumped between mariachi and Tupac. These moments were not thymine known as ‘cultural in the educational institution’s study course, but they were formative, more real to me than all conventional lectures on society. Williams’ assertion that heritage must be ” ordinary ” confirms the aforementioned events, making them subject to the same personal and intellectual demands.

The legacy of Williams’ strategy is deeply ingrained in social examinations. His own ideas laid the foundations for the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Community Studies (CCCS), where Dick Hebdige analyses the way youth subculture reflects deep civic and economic conditions. In Subculture: The Meaning of Style, Hebdige writes that hood mannerism isn’t just a rebellion but a valuable resistance technique for working class youth in order to converse in the reverse to influence. This is in line with Williams’ belief that ordinary ethnic expressions are not used in academic writing as politically or trivial but where individuals contest meaning and assert agency.

Still, some critics claim that broadening the definition of culture to include “everything” might reduce its analytical value. If we consider all human behavior as culture how can we tell important cultural practices from background noise? Williams tackles this issue by promoting contextual analysis: “We must study culture within the society that produces and experiences it.” He doesn’t suggest relativism, but grounding—analysis that takes into account people’s real-life experiences. Building on Williams’ ideas, Stuart Hall writes, “Culture serves as the key arena for social action and intervention where power dynamics are both set up and questioned” (Hall, 1997). Both thinkers see culture as active—a dynamic field where people create, debate, and change meanings.

When we think about what Williams meant by “culture is ordinary,” we’re reminded that we shouldn’t judge cultural value based on how exclusive, educated, or fancy it is. Culture comes from life itself—how people do their jobs, have fun, fall in love, speak up, grieve, and imagine. To understand culture in a way that includes everyone, we need to look past big institutions and pay attention to everyday life. The normal stuff is where we find the amazing things—both in what they mean and what they could become.

---

Works Cited

Hall, Stuart. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Edited by Stuart Hall, Sage Publications, 1997.

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Methuen, 1979.

Williams, Raymond. “Culture Is Ordinary.” Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism, edited by Robin Gable, Verso, 1989, pp. 3–18. Originally published 1958.

AI Statement:

I used ChatGPT to help with my paper. It helped me fix spelling mistakes. It also
helped with grammar. I used it to make sure my paper followed MLA format.