레이먼드 윌리엄스의 『열쇳말』과 개념사

송승철 ( Seung Cheol Song ) 한림과학원 2012 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.10

레이먼드 윌리엄스(Raymond Williams)의 『열쇳말 Keywords』은 문화와 사회에 관한 논의에 필요한 ‘일상적’ 용어와 ‘일반적’ 용어를 대상으로 각 용어에 내포된 복잡한 의미망의 형성과정과 그 현재적 의미를 기술한 저작이다. 그런데 『열쇳말』에 대한 개념사 내부의 평가는 개념사 밖의 문화연구 분야나 일반 인문학 전공자 사이의 평가와 상당한 차이가 있다. 개념사 내부에서 윌리엄스는 퀜틴 스키너(Quentin Skinner)의 논쟁대상으로 비판적 관점에서 한번 언급되고 사라진다. 그러나 개념사 밖 문화연구와 이론 연구 분야에서 이 저작의 영향력은 지속적인 영향력을 발휘하고 있다. 이 논문은 윌리엄스와 스키너의 ‘대화’를 개념사적 입장에서 접근하되, 『열쇳말』 자체를 윌리엄스의 집필의도와 그의 학문적 이력 속으로 돌려놓고 평가함으로써 양자 간의 ‘생산적’ 대화를 유도하려고 한다. 스키너의 주장은 윌리엄스 식의 접근이 현실에 대한 정확한 지식을 생산할 수 없다는 것인데, 그 이유는 크게 세 가지이다. ①윌리엄스는 단어와 개념을 구분하지 않는다. ②언어분석은 의미, 지시대상, 태도의 세 가지 차원이 있으나, 윌리엄스는 이 셋을 모두 ‘의미의 내적 구조’로 환원시킨다. ③이런 오류의 근본적 원인은 윌리엄스의 반영론적 언어관이다. 스키너의 비판에 대해 윌리엄스는 직접적 답변이 아니라 복화술로 응답한다. 그런데 먼저 지적해야 할 사실은 두 사람 사이에는 차이보다 오히려 공통점이 더 많다는 점이다. 그리고 사회적 맥락을 중시하는 스키너의 접근과 언어의 내적 구조를 강변하는 윌리엄스의 차이는 역사학자와 문학비평가의 차이를 보여 주는 면이 있다. 윌리엄스가 화용론과 의미론을 분리하지 않음으로써 논의에 일부 혼란을 가져온 건 사실이다. 하지만 단어의 내적 구조와 발전에 집중한 것은 그가 반영론적 언어관을 가지고 있다거나 어휘들 간의 상호작용에 대한 이해부족 때문이 아니라, 이 저작의 출간과정과 그의 학문적 발전과정 사이의 불일치 그리고 무엇보다 어휘분석을 통해 노동계급의 언어사용에 예리한 의식을 불어넣으려는 그의 실천적 목적에서 기인한다. 결론적으로 지금 우리의 몫은 『열쇳말』에 대한 스키너의 비판을 넘어서는 일이다. 문학비평가 특유의 통찰로 진행된 단어의 내적 구조와 발전을 강조하는 방법론은 일정한 한도 내에서 개념사적 방법론으로 유용한 접근방식이 될수 있다. 무엇보다 단어를 문제화하려는 저자의 의식은 개념사적 입장에서도 배울 만하다. 그런 의미에서 개념사 입장에서도 『열쇳말』에 대한 가장 중요한 질문은 과연 윌리엄스가 단어를 어떤 방식으로 문제화했으며 어느 정도 성공했는가 하는 점일 것이다. Raymond Williams`s Keywords, first published in 1976 and revised in 1983, concerns the complex process of linguistic changes, and their present significance, as applied to the ``everyday`` and ``general`` terms required to discuss issues of culture and society. The reputation of the work, however, is remarkably different within the community of conceptual history and outside of it. Inside the world of conceptual history, Keywords has often been mentioned as a critical target: being spurned by Quentin Skinner, for example. Outside, it has had considerable influence, especially in the area of cultural studies and critical theories. This article intends to approach the ``dialogue`` between Skinner and Williams, by reading Williams`s Keywords according to his original intentions, as well as by placing the book within the context of his overall academic development. Skinner`s criticisms may be summed up in three points: (1) Williams fails to distinguish words and concepts; (2) Williams collapses three different linguistic dimensions - meaning, reference, and attitude - into the internal structure of meaning alone; (3) the fundamental source of his failure is his idea of language as reflection. Williams made no rejoinder to Skinner, except indirectly through his supporters. We also should admit that the approaches of Skinner and Williams agree more often than they disagree. It is true Williams suffers some confusions, by his neglecting to distinguish semantics from pragmatics. Nevertheless, his focus on the internal structure of words does not arise primarily from expressing the reflectional idea of language, nor from any lack of understanding of the interactions within the words concerned, but rather from the delay between the inception of Keywords and its actual publication, and especially from the author`s intention to provide “an extra edge of awareness” to working-class people. This article concludes that Williams`s methodology of focusing on the internal structure of words and their development may be, when carefully used, a valuable addition to the methodolgy of conceptual history. Moreover, Williams`s intention to make words ``problematic`` should be accepted as a useful way to shake up the current approach, which is inclined otherwise to become too specialized within academic boundaries. The most significant question about Keywords may then be seen as understanding the ways that Williams problematized keywords, and to what degree he succeeded in his intention.

레이먼드 윌리엄즈의 노동계급 교육사상 : 공적 페다고지의 관점에서

이윤미(Yoonmi Lee) 韓國敎育思想硏究會 2016 敎育思想硏究 Vol.30 No.1

이 논문은 영국의 맑스주의 이론가이자 문화사가인 레이먼드 윌리엄즈(Raymond Williams, 1921-1988)의 문화주의적 교육사상을 노동계급에 대한 관점을 중심으로 논의한다. 윌리엄즈는 문화이론(cultural studies) 분야의 선구자이자 대표적 학자로 알려져 있고 교육학에도 영향을 주었지만 그의 교육사상에 대한 본격적 조명이 이루어졌다고 보기 어렵다. 따라서, 이 논문에 서는 레이먼드 윌리엄즈의 문화맑스주의의 핵심개념들을 검토하면서 이를 기초로 한 그의 노동계급 교육론을 살펴본다. 특히, 1946년에서 1961년의 15년간에 걸친 노동자교육 참여기간 동안 저술된 초기 저작들에 초점을 두어 그 교육론을 확인한다. 또한, 윌리엄즈의 논의를 보다 현대적 맥락에서 조명하기 위해 그의 교육사상을 ‘공적 페다고지’의 맥락에서 살펴보면서 그 시 사점을 논의한다. This study explores the educational ideas of Raymond Williams(1921-1988), British literary critic and cultural historian. Williams has not been typically thought of as an educational thinker, yet much can be found in his work that have implications regarding pedagogical thought and practice. This paper is a reappraisal of Raymond Williams as a practitioner as well as theorist in education, especially focusing on his early career related to adult education with the university extension program of Oxford University, associated with the Workers' Educational Association (WEA). He had worked as a tutor for 15 years between 1946 and 1961, and had written a number of pieces on education and pedagogical concerns related to working class education. Raymond Williams is also considered a major scholar that has influenced the development of studies in public pedagogy. At a time when public institutions and civic liberties have increasingly been challenged by neoliberalism and global capitalism, the understanding of cultural politics over politicizing the public pedagogy and providing a language of resistance and possibility is crucial for promoting democratic social change. In this paper, Raymond Williams' work is featured in relation to the cultural politics of public pedagogy as well as his role in the history and tradition of the British working class education

『열쇳말』의 내적 구성원리와 신뢰성

송승철 ( Seungcheol Song ) 한림과학원 2021 개념과 소통 Vol.- No.27

레이먼드 윌리엄즈(Raymond Williams)의 『열쇳말』(Keywords)은 특정 분과학문에 속하는 전문용어가 아니라, 영국이 이차대전 후 복지국가를 지향하던 상황에서 당대의 핵심적 삶에 대한 사유와 경험을 기술할 때 필요한 “일반적 용어” 110 개를 선정하고, 각각의 용어에 담긴 의미의 다양성, 역사적 형성과정, 그리고 상호 관계를 추적한 저작이다. 그런데, 문화연구와 개념사, 그리고 지성사 분야에서 이 저작이 가진 위상과 신뢰성에 대한 평가가 너무 달라서 함께 붙여놓으면 마치 학계의 분열적 증상의 발현처럼 보인다. 필자의 판단하건데, 학계의 이와 같은 불일치의 가장 큰 이유는 윌리엄즈가 『열쇳말』에서 활용한 방법론에 대한 이해의 부족과 연관이 있다. 윌리엄즈 스스로 자신의 방법론을 ‘역사적 의미론’으로 명명했지만 방법론에 대해 구체적으로 밝힌 바가 없다. 그러나 『열쇳말』을 처음부터 끝까지 찬찬히 읽어보면 비록 모든 항목에 다 적용되는 것은 아니지만, 일정한 패턴에 따라 기술됨을 확인할 수 있다. 필자는 이 글에서 윌리엄스가 자신이 선택한 어휘가 지칭하는 의미들의 역사적 변화와 상호연관성을 추적하기 위해 사용한 방법과 이념을 ‘내적 원리’라는 이름 아래 다음과 같이 정리해보았다. 윌리엄즈의 ‘역사적 의미론’은 (1) 개념이나 담론 대신 단어를 중심으로 의미의 역사적 변화과정을 추구하는데, (2) 이때 대상을 “잠정적으로” 괄호치고, 단어의 내적 연관성에 주목하는 게 도움이 되고, (3) 의미변화의 추적 때 문학비평적 방법론의 활용과 단어의 물적 형태변화의 고찰이 중요하며 (4) 이런 변화과정은 의미의 일반화, 전문화, 추상화로 요약된다는 것이다. 윌리엄즈의 이러한 방법론은 언어의 살아있는 활력의 환기를 통해 언어의 전문화, 일반화, 추상화를 통해 작동하는 이데올로기에 대항하려는 그 자신의 비평의식의 산물이었다. 그런데, 이런 식의 서술방식은 독자―특히, 언어와 역사의 비환원적 결합 방식에 대한 요약적 지식을 원하는 개념사 전공자―의 입장에서 볼 때 여러 약점을 노정한다. “잠정적”이지만 현실에 괄호 치고 단어 자체를 살피는 방법론에 유보 없이 동의하기 어려울 것이고, 단어의 활력으로 이데올로기의 지배에 맞서려는 저자의 의도의 실효성에 동의하기도 쉽지 않을 터이다. 또한, 개념을 거부하고 전반적 사회조직과 지배적 관념이 서로 “녹아든”(in solution) “살아진 삶 전체”(a whole lived experience)에 대한 강조로 말미암아 명시적인 체계적 방법론의 개발을 회피하게 되는데, 이로 인해 저자의 방법론에 대한 일정한 사전 지식이 없을 때 논지의 맥락을 잡기가 쉽지 않다. 반면에, 윌리엄즈의 방법론은 장점도 적지 않다. 개념화되기 이전의 살아있는 언어적 활력을 중시하는 윌리엄즈 특유의 서술방식은 새로운 개념을 향한 사유를 촉발하고, 한 단어가 지칭하는 여러 개념들 간 차이를 보다 명확하게 하거나, 추상화된 근대적 개념에 담긴 의미의 미묘한 차이를 드러내는 장점도 가지고 있다. 마지막으로 “진보”를 대상으로 한 윌리엄즈의 용례와 코젤렉의 용례를 비교함으로써 두 사람의 유사성과 차이를 덧붙인다. Raymond Williams's Keywords, first published in 1976 and revised in 1983, is concerned with the complex processes of linguistic change and with the interrelations of about 110 ‘general’ terms which he judged necessary to describe the thoughts and experiences relevant to the British cultural and social issues of his era. Academic responses to this book vary enormously, however, depending upon the field of specialization, with scholars from cultural studies or conceptual history or intellectual history expressing widely discrepant evaluations in a kind of academic schizophrenia attack. In my view this discrepancy arises primarily from a pervasive misunderstanding of the peculiar methodology which William used in Keywords. He termed his approach “historical semantics”, but unfortunately did not describe its methods in any detail. If, however, we read Williams's description of his chosen words, carefully, starting at the beginning and continuing through to the end, it is evident that most (but not all) of the items are processed according to a certain pattern. In this paper I have tried to determine Williams's particular analytical approaches and also the underlying intentions ― that is, the inner constitutive principles he used to track the historical changes and the interrelations of meanings for his selected vocabulary. These principles can be enumerated as follows: (1) In his ‘historical semantics' Williams pursues the historical changes of meaning by focusing on ‘words’ rather than concepts or discourses. (2) He finds it helpful to focus on interconnections among the meanings within a word, putting its relations to social institutions and specific historical situations, “temporarily” to one side. (3) When tracing changes in meaning, Williams applies literary-critical methods, as well as delving into changes in the material form of the words themselves. (4) These changes can be summarized as the historical processes of generalization, specialization, and abstraction of meaning. The peculiar approach which Williams adopted in Keywords was a product of his critical consciousness, by means of which he was trying to counter the contemporary bourgeois ideologies. These ideologies operated through lengthy historical processes of specialization, generalization, and abstraction of language, in an attempt to foreclose the living vitality of language. Thus Williams adopted a narrative method which many readers find unsatisfactory, who are seeking instead a knowledge summary in the form of a non-reductive combination of language and history. Readers may also find it difficult to wholly agree with his examination of the selected words, which cuts them off, if only temporarily, from reality. And not everybody will accept as effective the author’s intention to confront the ruling ideologies with the vitality of everyday words. In fact, Williams's avoidance of an explicitly systematic methodology is related to his emphasis upon “a whole lived experience” in which general social processes and the dominant ideologies are “in solution.” Thus, without some prior knowledge of the author's methodology it is not easy to understand the context of his explications. On the other hand, Williams's method has provided and, even now, still provides many different illuminating insights. Williams's peculiar descriptive narrative, which emphasizes the vitality of living words over conceptualization, prompts us toward new opportunities for conceptualization. His approach also elucidates conceptual differences whenever the same word is used for some conflicting concepts. And finally, it reveals the subtle contradictory differences in meanings which are often contained, and are therefore hard to discern, within most abstract modern concepts.

레이먼드 윌리엄스의 저항적 힘과 이질적 정신

김양순(Yangsoon Kim) 한국비평이론학회 2008 비평과이론 Vol.13 No.2

This study explores Raymond W illiams’s idea of language and literary criticism, focusing on the difference of his approach that epitomizes his role as “the marginal man of Cambridge English,” “alien mind,” and “oppositional” force. His life long-concern for culture and language can be considered as a genuine opposition to the dominant discourse about culture and language in the post-war years. First, reading Culture and Society (1958) and Keywords (1976), this paper discusses Williams’s “historical semantics,” which differs significantly from a mechanism of stabilizing variant meanings of a word in the chronological order of their dominant usage. Second, through Marxism and Literature (1977), it deals with Williams’s critique of Saussurean structural linguistics and his ambivalent relationship to abstract Marxism analysis. Third, it examines Williams’s analysis of modernism that is not simply antagonistic. In The Politics of Modernism (1989), he speaks of the “two faces of modernism”—once a voice of dissent and then a metropolitan orthodoxy with its own supportive critical industry—and forcefully condemns the result of modernism. Finally, this paper illustrates Williams’s argument against the literary formalism of Cambridge English mainly through The Country and the City (1973) that is Williams’s greatest “oppositional” text. Despite its real limitations, Williams’s work is viewed as one of the most important bodies of socialist literary-cultural criticism in a period of postmodernism. The greatness of his work, this paper argues, comes not only from its range, scope and seriousness but also from its negative force that showed how limited and problematic the prevailing idea of culture, language, literary criticism was. Williams had an intuitive ability to make his idea of language and literature against what he saw as the inhumanities of “writing”―of theory, abstraction, schematization, the techniques he often identified with structuralism and chilly modernist distance.

레이먼드 윌리엄스의 이데올로기와 아도르노

김성중 한국영미어문학회 2008 영미어문학 Vol.- No.88

Raymond Williams's fundamental notion, "culture is ordinary," has been very influential to cultural studies. His idea is that literary works are treated under the illusion that they are superior to any other forms of culture, although literature is nothing but a part of culture. His attack against the values of taste and sensibility for assessing literary works has resulted in attributing to popular culture including film, TV, and advertising, the same value as high culture had. Despite the positive result of reconsidering the underestimated value of popular culture, he missed the fact that popular culture is not created by ordinary people themselves but rather by culture industry, which tries to produce as much profit as possible out of it. Theodor Adorno, however, differentiates culture from culture industry which tries to standardize culture in order to facilitate mass production. Standardization, according to him, brings the destruction of autonomy, spontaneity, and criticism that culture used to possess. As a result, culture industry, a distorted form of culture, manipulates people into doing and enjoying things that they would not like unless they were misled. For him, culture is like a work of art which resists against the status quo and unveils the reality distorted by the dominant ideology. In this sense, popular culture is not ordinary any more because that culture has already been distorted by standardization, and culture, which is not affected by it, is the place where we can see the truth. Raymond Williams's fundamental notion, "culture is ordinary," has been very influential to cultural studies. His idea is that literary works are treated under the illusion that they are superior to any other forms of culture, although literature is nothing but a part of culture. His attack against the values of taste and sensibility for assessing literary works has resulted in attributing to popular culture including film, TV, and advertising, the same value as high culture had. Despite the positive result of reconsidering the underestimated value of popular culture, he missed the fact that popular culture is not created by ordinary people themselves but rather by culture industry, which tries to produce as much profit as possible out of it. Theodor Adorno, however, differentiates culture from culture industry which tries to standardize culture in order to facilitate mass production. Standardization, according to him, brings the destruction of autonomy, spontaneity, and criticism that culture used to possess. As a result, culture industry, a distorted form of culture, manipulates people into doing and enjoying things that they would not like unless they were misled. For him, culture is like a work of art which resists against the status quo and unveils the reality distorted by the dominant ideology. In this sense, popular culture is not ordinary any more because that culture has already been distorted by standardization, and culture, which is not affected by it, is the place where we can see the truth.

Singular Universality: D. H. Lawrence and Marxism

Fuhito Endo 한국로렌스학회 2012 D.H. 로렌스 연구 Vol.20 No.1

Given the still frequent and persistent ideological critiques of D. H. Lawrence, it is crucially important to foreground the emancipatory potentialities of this novelist's language, which have often escaped (or rather been suppressed by) this kind of critical commonplaces. The objective of this article is to throw clear light on such possibilities of Lawrence's aesthetics with particular reference to Raymond Williams's brilliant and powerful reinterpretation of this writer. My argument-in so doing-at the same time intends to give due critical evaluation to Williams, a rather underrated Marxist whose theory has frequently been regarded as "out of date" in comparison to "Continental" post/structuralist Marxism and whose famous conception "the whole way of life" has accordingly been said to connote some reactionary ideology such as "organicist aesthetics." Quite ironical is the fact that Williams's interpretation of D. H. Lawrence clearly and strongly re-presents his early novels and stories as radically subversive of this kind of aesthetic organicism, a typical example of which can be found in the Leavisian romanticisation of pre-modern England as "organic unity." Williams's reading powerfully brings to the fore the political possibilities of Lawrence's politics/aesthetics in such a way as connects their-both Lawrence's and William's-language to one of the most radical and "updated" Marxist critical theories, such as Gayatri Spivak's conceptions: "equivalence" or "comparativist imagination," designed to resist contemporary capitalist and nationalist discourses in the age of "globalisation." It is also in this context that Williams's way of self-definition "Welsh European" acquires a new significance as an equally strong Marxist intervention in any capitalist appropriation of something "national."

Singular Universality: D. H. Lawrence and Marxism

후히토 엔도 한국로렌스학회 2012 D.H. 로렌스 연구 Vol.20 No.1

Given the still frequent and persistent ideological critiques of D. H. Lawrence, it is crucially important to foreground the emancipatory potentialities of this novelist’s language, which have often escaped (or rather been suppressed by) this kind of critical commonplaces. The objective of this article is to throw clear light on such possibilities of Lawrence’s aesthetics with particular reference to Raymond Williams’s brilliant and powerful reinterpretation of this writer. My argument—in so doing—at the same time intends to give due critical evaluation to Williams, a rather underrated Marxist whose theory has frequently been regarded as ‘out of date’ in comparison to ‘Continental’ post/structuralist Marxism and whose famous conception ‘the whole way of life’ has accordingly been said to connote some reactionary ideology such as ‘organicist aesthetics.’ Quite ironical is the fact that Williams’s interpretation of D. H. Lawrence clearly and strongly re-presents his early novels and stories as radically subversive of this kind of aesthetic organicism, a typical example of which can be found in the Leavisian romanticisation of pre-modern England as ‘organic unity.’ Williams’s reading powerfully brings to the fore the political possibilities of Lawrence’s politics/aesthetics in such a way as connects their—both Lawrence’s and William’s—language to one of the most radical and ‘updated’ Marxist critical theories, such as Gayatri Spivak’s conceptions: ‘equivalence’ or ‘comparativist imagination,’ designed to resist contemporary capitalist and nationalist discourses in the age of ‘globalisation.’ It is also in this context that Williams’s way of self-definition ‘Welsh European’ acquires a new significance as an equally strong Marxist intervention in any capitalist appropriation of something ‘national.’

레이먼드 월리엄스의 이데올로기와 아도르노

김성중(Sung-Joong Kim) 한국영미어문학회 2008 영미어문학 Vol.- No.88

  Raymond Williams"s fundamental notion, "culture is ordinary," has been very influential to cultural studies. His idea is that literary works are treated under the illusion that they are superior to any other forms of culture, although literature is nothing but a part of culture. His attack against the values of taste and sensibility for assessing literary works has resulted in attributing to popular culture including film, TV, and advertising, the same value as high culture had. Despite the positive result of reconsidering the underestimated value of popular culture, he missed the fact that popular culture is not created by ordinary people themselves but rather by culture industry, which tries to produce as much profit as possible out of it.<BR>  Theodor Adorno, however, differentiates -culture from culture industry which tries to standardize culture in order to facilitate mass production. Standardization, according to him, brings the destruction of autonomy, spontaneity, and criticism that culture used to possess. As a result, culture industry, a distorted form of culture, manipulates people into doing and enjoying things that they would not like unless they were misled. For him, culture is like a work of art which resists against the status quo and unveils the reality distorted by the dominant ideology. in this sense, popular culture is not ordinary any more because that culture has already been distorted by standardization, and culture, which is not affected by it, is the place where we can see the truth.

레이먼드 윌리엄스의 이데올로기와 아도르노

김성중 ( Kim¸ Sung Joong ) 동국대학교 영어권문화연구소 2008 영어권문화연구 Vol.1 No.-

Raymond Williams’s fundamental notion, “culture is ordinary,” has been very influential to cultural studies. His idea is that literary works are treated under the illusion that they are superior to any other forms of culture, although literature is nothing but a part of culture. His attack against the values of taste and sensibility for assessing literary works has resulted in attributing to popular culture including film, TV, and advertising, the same value as high culture had. Despite the positive result of reconsidering the underestimated value of popular culture, he missed the fact that popular culture is not created by ordinary people themselves but rather by culture industry, which tries to produce as much profit as possible out of it. Theodor Adorno, however, differentiates culture from culture industry which tries to standardize culture in order to facilitate mass production. Standardization, according to him, brings the destruction of autonomy, spontaneity, and criticism that culture used to possess. As a result, culture industry, a distorted form of culture, manipulates people into doing and enjoying things that they would not like unless they were misled. For him, culture is like a work of art which resists against the status quo and unveils the reality distorted by the dominant ideology. In this sense, popular culture is not ordinary any more because that culture has already been distorted by standardization, and culture, which is not affected by it, is the place where we can see the truth.

(En)countering Modernity Ethnicly: Resistance and Intervention of Hagedorn`s Poetic Practice

( Shyh Jen Fuh ) 한국현대영미소설학회 2013 현대영미소설 Vol.20 No.3

Taking Raymond Williams`s critique of the ideology of Modernism as its point of departure, this paper studies Jessica Hagedorn`s poems against the context of post-Modernism and illuminates how she, situated as a postcolonial Filipino, explores an alternative route of negotiating modernity. The reading of Hagedorn shows that her inscription of the colonial experience and decolonizing struggle of Filipinos makes a much needed re-mark of coloniality, this “darker side of Western modernity” as Walter D. Mignolo calls it, which has been by the large left out of the precinct of canonical Modernist poetry and its followers beyond its heyday. Furthermore, it observes Hagedorn`s negotiation with mass culture---a practice that distablizes the ostensible divide between the claimed serious art and popular culture as established by canonical Modernism---and illustrates how this poetic practice, through maintaining a dialogue with the widely circulating mass culture, makes a promising route of intervening and negotiating modernity. With this reading, it also contends that the poetic practice emerging from and positioned in the periphery of globalized modernity must be included in the knowledge production of modern and contemporary poetry so that more alternative responsible responses to modernity might be established and the “modern future” which Williams calls for might take place, displacing the ideology of Modernism that still dominates the scene of contemporary poetry.