Sociology and Literature: Notes on an Ambivalent Affinity

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v19i4.10

Keywords:

sociology as a science, sociology of literature, narrative, interpretation, disciplinary self-reflection

Abstract

The paper begins with Wolf Lepenies’ idea of sociology as a “third culture“, positioned between science and the humanities. Lepenies argues that sociology arose in the 19th century in the context of a bitter rivalry with literature, as both contestants sought to become the principal guide in helping humanity find its way in the new, modern society ushered in by political and industrial revolutions of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This competition forced sociology to seek legitimacy at the opposite side by borrowing epistemological principles from natural science, which eventually resulted in sociology’s irremediably “middle“ position, which has defined it ever since. The paper focuses on one side of the triangle only, i.e. the relation of sociology to literature, and reviews four possible ways in which the affinity between the two has been construed in sociology’s self-reflection and professional practice. 1) One is based on the recognition of similarities in contents, arguing that both speak of essentially the same subject matter – individuals, families and their destinies within society, conveyed through narrative. Here, the 19th century novel is particularly pertinent, with writers such as Balzac, Zola, and Flaubert leading the way. 2) The second form of affinity points to the similarly privileged social position of both disciplines, and the concomitant responsibility that is ascribed to each in redressing social wrongs and changing the social world for the better. Bourdieu’s conceptualization of the issue is discussed as the most fruitful. 3) Third, the category of “writing“ connects them as two different forms of textual production, with both being subject to comparable requirements of style, genre, and rhetoric. Within contemporary sociology, Jeffrey Alexander’s cultural sociology and social constructionism refracted through sociology’s methodological legacy of qualitative analysis are taken as representative in understanding of sociology as close to literary production. 4) The most abstract conceptualization of similarities locates them at the level of cognitive structures, with both literature and sociology seeking to uncover deeper truths hidden under the screen of self-evident conventions and routines of everyday life. Here, the examples are provided by Lahire’s interpretation of Kafka and Boltanski’s argument about parallels between sociology and detective and spy novels, as well as by more general discussions of literature’s stylistic devices that sometimes give it an advantage in capturing aspects of social reality. In conclusion, it is argued that sociology remains a “third culture“ and that a closer and more open-minded reflection on its affinity with literature could help  revitalize its potentials in the contemporary context.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Abbott, Andrew. 2016. Processual Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Alexander, Jeffrey. (1988) 1999. „Središnji značaj klasika”. U Tekst i kontekst, uredio Aljoša Mimica, 281-329. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.

Alexander, Jeffrey. 2003. The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Avramović, Zoran. 2008. Sociologija i književnost. Beograd: Raška škola.

Becker, Howard. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Becker, Howard. 2007. Telling about Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berger, Peter. 1984. „Robert Musil and the salvage of the self”. Partisan Review 51-52 (4-1): 638-650.

Bielsa, Esperanza 2011. „Some remarks on the sociology of translation: A reflection on the global production and circulation of sociological works”. European Journal of Social Theory 14 (2): 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/136843101140346

Birešev, Ana 2007. „Polje književne proizvodnje: sociološki imperijalizam ili estetizacija sociologije?” Filozofija i društvo 18 (1): 177–211. https://doi.org/10.2298/FID0732177B

Blagojević, Marina and Gad Yair. 2010. „The Catch 22 syndrome of social scientists in the semiperiphery: Exploratory sociological observations”. Sociologija 52 (4): 337–358. https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC1004337B

Boltanski, Luc. 2012. Énigmes et complots. Une enquête à propos d'enquêtes. Paris: Gallimard.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1997. Méditations pascaliennes. Paris: Seuil.

Bourdieu, Pierre. (1992) 2003. Pravila umetnosti: geneza i struktura polja književnosti. Novi Sad: Svetovi.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2003a. „Participant Objectivation”. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9 (2): 281-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.00150

Bourdieu, Pierre and Gunter Grass. 1999. „The ’progressive’ restoration”. New Left Review 14 (March-April 2002).

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii14/articles/pierre-bourdieu-gunter-grass-the-progressive-restoration

Burawoy, Michael. 2005. „For public sociology”. American Sociological Review 70 (1): 4-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000102

Casanova, Pascale. (1999) 2007. The World Republic of Letters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clifford, James and George E. Marcus (eds). 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 2019. Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Demeulenaere, Pierre (ed). 2011. Analytical Sociology and Social Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dromi, Shai and Eva Illouz. 2010. „Recovering Morality: Pragmatic Sociology and Literary Studies”. New Literary History 41 (2): 351-369. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2010.0004

Escarpit, Robert. (1958) 1970. Sociologija književnosti. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.

Felski, Rita. 2016. Namjene književnosti. Prev. V.Cvetković Sever. Zagreb: Jesenski i Turk.

Gerc, Kliford. (1988) 2010. Antropolog kao pisac. Beograd: XX vek.

Goldmann, Lucien. (1964) 1967. Za sociologiju romana. Beograd: Kultura.

Goldmann, Lucien. 1962. Dijalektička istraživanja. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša.

Hall, John R. 1999. Cultures of Inquiry: From Epistemology to Discourse in Sociohistorical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hanafi, Sari. 2011. „University systems in the Arab East: Publish globally and perish locally vs publish locally and perish globally”. Current Sociology 59 (3): 291–309.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111400782

Harrington, Austin. 2002. „Robert Musil and classical sociology”. Journal of Classical Sociology 2 (1): 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X02002001683

Hauser, Arnold. (1974) 1986. Sociologija umjetnosti 1-2. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.

Heilbron, Johan. 1999. “Towards a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cultural World System.” European Journal of Social Theory 2 (4): 429–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/136843199002004002

Heinich, Nathalie. 2000. Être écrivain. Création et identité. Paris: La Decouverte.

Heinich, Nathalie. (2005) 2023. Umetnička elita: Izvrsnost i posebnost u demokratiji. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.

Janković, Stefan. 2019. „Sociološko polje, fraktalne distinkcije i moral: o povoju analitičke sociologije”. Sociologija 61 (1): 5-31. https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC1901005J

Knöchelmann, Marcel, and Cornelia Schendzielorz. 2022. “Writing in the Sciences: Scientists as Writers, Scientific Writing, and the Persuasive Story.” SocArXiv. April 13. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/fmcsp.

Knöchelmann, Marcel. 2024. “Cultural Intermediation and Civil Society: Towards a Hermeneutically Strong Conception”. Cultural Sociology online first https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755241228891

Lahire, Bernard. 2006. La condition littéraire: La double vie des écrivains. Paris: La découverte.

Lahire, Bernard. 2010. Franz Kafka. Éléments pour une théorie de la création littéraire. Paris: La Decouverte.

Latour, Bruno. (1998) 2006. Paris: Invisible City. (Translated from Bruno Latour. and Emilie Hermant (1998). Paris ville invisible. Paris: La Découverte-Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond.) https://web.archive.org/web/20180422085105id_/http:/www.bruno- latour.fr/sites/default/files/downloads/viii_paris-city-gb.pdf. Pristupljeno 13.9.2024.

Lepenies, Wolf. (1985) 1992. Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Longo, Mariano. 2015. Fiction and Social Reality: Literature and Narrative as Sociological Resource. Farnham: Ashgate

Lukács, György. 1989. Roman i povijesna zbilja. Priredili H.Burger i V.Mikecin. Zagreb: Globus.

Milenković, Pavle. 2013. Uvod u sociologiju srpskog nadrealizma. Novi Sad: Mediterran Publishing.

Moretti, Franco. 1998. Atlas of the European Novel 1800-1900. London and New York: Verso.

Moretti, Franco. 2005. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. London and New York: Verso.

Pasco, Allan H. 2016. Balzac, Literary Sociologist. Palgrave Macmillan.

Petrović, Sreten (ur.) 1990. Sociologija književnosti. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.

Reed, Isaac and Jeffrey Alexander. 2009. „Social Science as Reading and Performance: A Cultural-Sociological Understanding of Epistemology”. European Journal of Social Theory 12(1): 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431008099648

Resanović, Milica. 2023. „Simboličke granice i borbe u polju književne proizvodnje u Srbiji danas”. Doktorska disertacija. Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu.

Ricoeur, Paul. 1973. „The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text”. New Literary History 5 (1): 91-117. https://doi.org/10.2307/468410

Ricoeur, Paul. 1993. Vreme i priča, t.1. Sremski Karlovci: IK Zorana Stojanovića.

Sapiro, Gisèle. 2003. „The Literary Field between the State and the Market.” Poetics 31 (5–6): 441–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2003.09.001

Sapiro, Gisèle (ed.) 2008. Translatio. Le Marché de la traduction en France à l’heure de la mondialisation. Paris: CNRS Editions.

Sapiro, Gisèle. (2014) 2023. The Sociology of Literature. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Savić, Dalibor. 2021. „Uspon performativnih društvenih nauka: ka novim formama praksisa”. Društvo i politika 2 (2): 211-231. https://doi.org/10.7251/FPNDP2102211S

Smith, Philip. 2005. Why War? The Cultural Logic of Iraq, the Gulf War, and Suez. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Snou, Čarls. 1971. Dve kulture. Prev. A.I.Spasić. Beograd: NU Braća Stamenković.

Spasić, Ivana. 2012. „Elementi jedne sociologije prevođenja”. Treći program 155/156: 9–29.

Spasić, Ivana. 2015. „O detektivima, špijunima i sociolozima: prikaz knjige Luc Boltanski, Mysteries and Conspiracies”. Sociologija 57 (3): 531-537.

Spasić, Ivana. 2019. „Društvena konstrukcija stvarnosti i konstrukcionizam: nesporazum koji to (možda) nije”. Glasnik Etnografskog instituta SANU 67 (1): 15–32. https://doi.org/10.2298/GEI1901015S

Spasić, Ivana. 2021. „Lociranost znanja: novije kritike slepih mrlja društvene teorije”. U Feminizam, aktivizam, politike: proizvodnja znanja na poluperiferiji. Zbornik radova u čast Marine Blagojević Hughson, uredile Sanja Ćopić i Zorana Antonijević, 89-118. Beograd: Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja.

Váňa, Jan. 2020. „Theorizing the Social Through Literary Fiction: For a New Sociology of Literature”. Cultural Sociology 14 (2) 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975520922469

Váňa, Jan. 2022. „The Sociological Truth of Fiction: The Aesthetic Structure of a Novel and the Iconic Experience of Reading”. U The Cultural Sociology of Reading, uredila Maria A. Thumala Olave, 111-139. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13227-8_5.

Downloads

Published

2024-12-28

How to Cite

Spasić, Ivana. 2024. “Sociology and Literature: Notes on an Ambivalent Affinity”. Etnoantropološki Problemi Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 19 (4):1287– 1308. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v19i4.10.

Issue

Section

Other Humanities and Social Sciences