[...] the whole of Thompson’s historical work, from The Making to Whigs and Hunters , The Poverty of Theory and beyond 18 —“capitalist society was founded upon forms of exploitation which are simultaneously economic, moral and cultural. Take up the essential defining productive relationship … and turn it round, and it reveals itself now in one aspect (wage-labour), now in another (an acquisitive ethos), and now in another (the alienation of such intellectual faculties as are not required by the worker in his productive role).”

Here, then, despite the many significant differences, is the outline of one significant line of thinking in Cultural Studies—some would say, the dominant paradigm. It stands opposed to the residual and merely reflective role assigned to “the cultural.” In its different ways, it conceptualizes culture as interwoven with all social practices; and those practices, in turn, as a common form of human activity: sensuous human praxis, the activity through which men and women make history. It is opposed to the base-superstructure way of formulating the relationship between ideal and material forces, especially where the “base” is defined as the determination by “the economic” in any simple sense. It prefers the wider formulation—the dialectic between social being and social consciousness: neither separable into its distinct poles (in some alternative formulations, the dialectic between “culture” and “non-culture”). It defines “culture” as both the meanings and values which arise among distinctive social groups and classes, on the basis of their given historical conditions and relationships, through which they “handle” and respond to the conditions of existence; and as the lived traditions and practices through which those “understandings” are expressed and in which they are embodied. Williams brings together these two aspects—definitions and ways of life—around the concept of “culture” itself. Thompson brings the two elements—consciousness and conditions—around the concept of “experience.” Both positions entail certain difficult fluctuations around these key terms, Williams so totally absorbs “definitions of experience” into our “ways of living,” and both into an indissoluble real material practice-in-general, as to obviate any distinction between “culture” and “not-culture.” Thompson sometimes uses “experience” in the more usual sense of consciousness, as the collective ways in which men “handle, transmit or distort” their given conditions, the raw materials of life; sometimes as the domain of the “lived,” the midterm between “conditions” and “culture”; and sometimes as the objective conditions themselves—against which particular modes of consciousness are counterposed. But, whatever the terms, both positions tend to read structures of relations in terms of how they are “lived” and “experienced.” Williams’s “structure of feeling”—with its deliberate condensation of apparently incompatible elements—is characteristic. But the same is true of Thompson, despite his far fuller historical grasp of the “given-ness” or structuredness of the relations and conditions into which men and women necessarily and involuntarily enter, and his clearer attention to the determinacy of productive and exploitative relations under capitalism. This is a consequence of giving culture-consciousness and experience so pivotal a place in the analysis. The experiential pull in this paradigm, and the emphasis on the creative and on historical agency, constitutes the two key elements in the humanism of the position outlined. Each consequently accords “experience” an authenticating position in any cultural analysis. It is, ultimately, where and how people experience their conditions of life, define them, and respond to them, which for Thompson defines why every mode of production is also a culture, and every struggle between classes is always also a struggle between cultural modalities; and which, for Williams, is what a “cultural analysis,” in the final instance, should deliver. In “experience,” all the different practices intersect; within “culture” the different practices interact—even if on an uneven and mutually determining basis. This sense of cultural totality—of the whole historical process—overrides any effort to keep the instances and elements distinct. Their real interconnection, under given historical conditions, must be matched by a totalizing movement “in thought,” in the analysis. It establishes for both the strongest protocols against any form of analytic abstraction which distinguishes practices, or which sets out to test the “actual historical movement” in all its intertwined complexity and particularity by any more sustained logical or analytical operation. These positions, especially in their more concrete historical rendering, are the very opposite of a Hegelian search for underlying Essences. 20 Yet, in their tendency to reduce practices to praxis and to find common and homologous “forms” underlying the most apparently differentiated areas, their movement is “essentializing.” They have a particular way of understanding the totality—though it is with a small “t,” concrete and historically determinate, uneven in its correspondences. They understand it “expressively.” And since they constantly inflect the more traditional analysis toward the experiential level, or read the other structures and relations downward from the vantage point of how they are “lived,” they are properly (even if not adequately or fully) characterized as “culturalist” in their emphasis: even when all the caveats and qualifications against a too rapid “dichotomous theorizing” have been entered.

The great strength of the structuralisms is their stress on “determinate conditions.” They remind us that, unless the dialectic really can be held, in any particular analysis, between both halves of the proposition—that “men make history … on the basis of conditions which are not of their making”—the result will inevitably be a naive humanism, with its necessary consequence: a voluntarist and populist political practice. The fact that “men” can become conscious of their conditions, organize to struggle against them, and in fact transform them—without which no active politics can even be conceived, let alone practiced—must not be allowed to override the awareness of the fact that, in capitalist relations, men and women are placed and positioned in relations which constitute them as agents. “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will” is a better starting point than a simple heroic affirmation. Structuralism does enable us to begin to think—as Marx insisted—of the relations of a structure on the basis of something other than their reduction to relationships between “people.” This was Marx’s privileged level of abstraction: that which enabled him to break with the obvious but incorrect starting point of “political economy”—that of bare individuals.