I was having lunch with a student in my ministry when he began talking about the book he was reading in class, which is Marxism and Literature by Raymond Williams.
It was an interesting conversation because he was sharing with me some of his feelings regarding church, Christianity, etc. And what was most interesting to me was that he was almost saying verbatim what I have been reading in Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures. And he’s not even reading the book. But as he was sharing with me he was talking about this book by Raymond Williams and the cultural theory of a residual, dominant, and emergent culture.
Here is a paper I found online by Raymond Williams regarding these ideas. Here are a few excerpts of what he says about emergent culture:
By ‘emergent’ I mean, first, that new meanings and values, new practices, new relationships and kinds of relationship are continually being created. But it is exceptionally difficult to distinguish between those which are really elements of some new phase of the dominant culture (and in this sense ‘species specific’) and those which are substantially alternative or oppositional to it: emergent in the strict sense, rather than merely novel. Since we are always considering relations within a culÂtural process, definitions of the emergent, as of the residual, can be made only in relation to a full sense of the dominant.
and
The case of the emergent is radically different. It is true that in the structure of any actual society, and especially in its class structure, there is always a social basis for elements of the cultural process that are alternative or oppositional to the dominant elements.
and
Cultural emergence in relation to the emergence and growing strength of a class is then always of major importance, and always complex. But we have also to see that it is not the only kind of emergence. This recognition is very difficult, theoretically, though the practical evidence is abundant. What has really to be said, as a way of defining important elements of both the residual and the emergent, and as a way of understanding the character of the dominant, is that no mode of production and therefore no dominant social order and therefore no dominant culture ever in reality includes or exhausts all human practice, human energy, and human intention.
and
What matters, finally, in understanding emergent culture, as distinct from both the dominant and the residual, is that it is never only a matter of immediate practice; indeed it depends crucially on finding new forms or adaptations of form. Again and again what we have to observe is in effect a pre-emergence, active and pressing but not yet fully articulated, rather than the evident emergence which could be more confidently named. It is to understand more closely this condition of pre-emergence, as well as the more evident forms of the emergent, the residual, and the dominant, that we need to explore the concept of structures of feeling.
Interesting stuff. I am not cultural theorist so I will not pretend to be one. But has anyone done any research in this area, or have any thoughts on this topic. I am speaking and writing out of what I have not read at length, but am curious about.
I found this statement to be interesting:
Cultural emergence in relation to the emergence and growing strength of a class is then always of major importance, and always complex. But we have also to see that it is not the only kind of emergence. This recognition is very difficult, theoretically, though the practical evidence is abundant.
Why? Because I know that the “emergent church” has been accussed of a lot of things such as having no theology, or defining perimeters, etc., etc. And even as I read through Ryan Bolger’s book, I am still trying to get a better grasp of the “emerging church” though he and Gibbs do an excellent job. But more compelling in the book, and in what I am seeing is the practical evidence that is abundant in regards to the “emerging church.” The communities are springing up everywhere and the topic is growing, though the recognition may be very difficult theoretically.
Does this make sense? Or am I way off, and misinterpreting his writing. I guess what I am saying is that the “emergent church” is here, and has arrived, but now is in the process of defining themselves more clearly…though I don’t believe that is necessarily a goal of the “emerging church” at this point. A little bit of chaos on the inside and on the fringes is acceptable and even welcome, and keeps the communities thriving.
So if any smart person can illuminate me on the work of Raymond Williams or the cultural theories of the residual, dominant and emergent, I would appreciate it.
And in closing, I guess why I am interested in this thought is because in church circles, emergent usually refers to a style, or structure, or type of church movement, but in reality, emergent is more encompassing than how it relates to church. Just as postmodernism is more encompassing than its relation to theology, but stretches and probably even had its genesis in architecture and art.
To be continued…hopefully my student will be posting in the near future the thoughts we shared at lunch. Because the unsolicited conversation that we had, pretty much solidifies the research by Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs in their book, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures.
