They are different critics raised by Raymond William and Marshall McLuhan regarding relationship between culture and technology. For example, Raymond’s Williams’ viewed culture as not being a form of technology. This was a sociological critique of Marshall McLuhans view. Majority of this aspect of his materialism of culture is a critique of Marshall McLuhan. Raymond tries to develop and recover what he viewed as the lost early promise of McLuhan’s accomplishment. The article thus takes on the relationship between the two writers. This comparison of the two researchers will give us a conclusion of who was right in defining the relationship between culture and technology. For example, there have been works from different origins in criticism of English literary to Raymond’s rejection of McLuhan’s "proto-postmodern avant-gardism". William’s argued means of communication to be significant to contemporary research.
The relationship between McLuhan and William’s work is also a main indicator of shifts within William’s own project. The immediate influence of the projects’ intelligence happened long ago, but the relevant works remain, and in media theory textbooks. This has figured widely in the recent, influential literatures. Raymond’s continues to be regarded as a foundation of many cultural study fields. A debate by media political economists about cultural studies was relevant in that both defenders, and critics of the cultural studies. The debate argued that William’s work as a major boost in departing their own projects (Garnham 1995).
The main critique that William’s had on McLuhan was the cautious 1964 review on Television. The disputed attack of the three pages is famous, and linked by commentators to Raymond’s charge of determining technology (Spiegel 1992). The book, also refer to the well known critique of determinants of technology, and also the improvement of a social shaping that