Category: Theory Article Summaries

1. Casual Racism as a Teaching Challenge

• Betensky describes how teachers of Victorian literature frequently encounter racist references in texts. Initially, these references are discussed, but over time, they become normalized and unnoticed:

“We learn, like the Victorians, to take it for granted.” (Betensky, p. 723)

• The essay explores how racism appears incidentally in many works, not just those thematically centered on race and empire.

2. The Pervasiveness of Casual Racism

• Casual racism is deeply embedded in Victorian literature, appearing in everyday descriptions and offhand comments rather than forming a major thematic concern.
• For instance, in East Lynne (1861), a character uses the phrase “with a Jew’s eye,” a casually anti-Semitic remark that is not central to the novel:

“The slur doesn’t stand out as especially egregious to anyone familiar with Victorian culture.” (p. 724)

• Casual racism in these texts is offensive but often overlooked, unlike the explicit anti-Semitism in Oliver Twist (1839), where Fagin’s Jewish identity is central to the novel’s depiction of criminality.

3. Victorian Racism as a Cultural Norm

• Victorian literature reflects the widespread racism of the time, much of which was unconscious or unexamined. This raises the question of how contemporary scholars and students should engage with it.
• Scholars have traditionally focused on how imperialism is central to Victorian literature, but casual racism, which appears in texts that are not explicitly about race, has been largely ignored.
• Betensky questions:

“How do we contend with the pervasive instances of Victorian racism that do not dominate our readings of the texts in which they appear?” (p. 725)

4. The “Speaker’s Benefit” and the Problem of Historical Distance

• The essay draws on Michel Foucault’s concept of the “speaker’s benefit,” wherein modern readers take pride in acknowledging the racism of the past to feel morally superior.
• This creates a false sense of progress, implying that contemporary society has evolved beyond racism:

“Calling the Victorians repressed is thus not a neutral nor merely an erroneous act… it represents an important investment on the part of those who propagate it.” (p. 732)

• By contextualizing Victorian racism without acknowledging ongoing racism today, scholars risk reinforcing the illusion that contemporary society has fully transcended racial prejudices.

5. Implications for Teaching and Antiracist Pedagogy

• Betensky discusses how casual racism should be addressed in the classroom.
• She critiques the tendency of educators to note racism in texts but then instruct students to “bracket” their reactions in favor of “sophisticated reading.”
• She acknowledges her own past failures:

“I had always wanted students to recognize racism when they saw it but had been asking them, at the same time, to take that recognition and bracket it.” (p. 730)

• She argues for a pedagogical approach that connects Victorian racism to contemporary systemic racism.

6. Case Study: “Infestation” in The Moonstone

• Betensky highlights an example from Wilkie Collins’s The Moonstone (1868), where an Indian character is described as part of a group that “infests the streets.”
• She draws a comparison between this and modern political rhetoric, such as Donald Trump’s 2018 tweet about immigrants “infesting” the country.
• The use of dehumanizing language persists, illustrating the continuity of casual racism from the Victorian era to the present.

7. The Risk of Ignoring Racism in Literature

• Ignoring casual racism in Victorian literature has two key dangers:
  1. It alienates students of color, forcing them to endure repeated exposure to racist content without discussion.
  2. It trains all students to accept systemic racism as normal or irrelevant.
• One of Betensky’s students reflects on how racism should be addressed upfront in classroom discussions:

“Every instance of racism needs to be taken seriously. If, as educators, we decide not to discuss the racism within these texts because of our own discomfort… then we shouldn’t be teaching them at all.” (p. 742)

8. Conclusion: Toward Strategic Presentism

• Betensky advocates for a “strategic presentism” approach, which balances historical context with contemporary relevance.
• Scholars should not simply historicize Victorian racism but use it to help students understand ongoing racial injustices.
• The study of Victorian literature should challenge students to recognize that racism is not just a thing of the past:

“Noticing, thinking, and talking about casual racism in Victorian texts is not even radical. It’s really the least we can do.” (p. 741)

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Expands the scope of postcolonial critique beyond empire-focused texts

• Postcolonial literary criticism often examines the central role of empire and colonialism in shaping literature. Betensky extends this focus by highlighting casual racism in texts that are not primarily about empire.
• Key Quote: “As opposed to texts with full-on explorations of race or nation, the ones that interest me here are the texts that are not typically read in this connection.” (p. 723)
• This aligns with Edward Said’s (Culture and Imperialism) argument that imperialism shapes even those texts where it is not explicitly foregrounded.
• Challenges the notion that racism must be explicit to be significant

• Postcolonial critics like Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak have argued that racism is embedded in language and culture. Betensky builds on this by showing how even minor, throwaway references reinforce racial hierarchies.
• Key Quote: “The throwaway reference to supposed Jewish greed is not an intrinsic element of the novel, whereas in Oliver Twist, by way of comparison, the depiction of Fagin is explicitly, extensively, and thematically anti-Semitic.” (p. 724)

2. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Foregrounds the concept of ‘casual racism’ as a systemic issue rather than an individual failing

• Betensky aligns with CRT’s premise that racism is structural and systemic, rather than a collection of individual prejudices.
• Key Quote: “Casual racism is no less structural or systemic than the racism that demands and has undergone in-depth analysis.” (p. 726)
• This complements Cheryl Harris’s (Whiteness as Property) argument that whiteness operates as an invisible system of privilege.
• Calls for a shift in literary pedagogy to address embedded racism

• Betensky critiques the way Victorian literature is often taught in a way that dissociates contemporary readers from its racism. She urges a pedagogical approach that connects historical racism with modern systemic racism.
• Key Quote: “By insisting on the historical specificity of Victorian racism… I had been instructing students to think, falsely, that we stood in an evolved relationship not only to Victorian racism but to racism, period.” (p. 730)

3. Historicism and Presentism (Strategic Presentism)

• Reframes the role of historical context in analyzing racism

• Betensky critiques traditional historicism, which aims to understand texts purely in their own time, arguing that this approach can lead to the erasure of racism’s ongoing impact.
• Key Quote: “If we portray the Victorians as if they were different from us in their ignorance and in the throwaway casualness of their racism… we are effectively portraying our own culture as one that has, to some unexamined degree, transcended racism.” (p. 733)
• This aligns with Fredric Jameson’s (The Political Unconscious) argument that literature must be interpreted through both its historical conditions and its ongoing ideological effects.
• Supports ‘Strategic Presentism’ as a method for engaging with Victorian racism

• Betensky builds on the V21 Collective’s idea of “strategic presentism,” which calls for actively connecting past texts to present-day issues rather than treating them as historically distant.
• Key Quote: “Strategic presentism offers a path toward contemporary relevance that does not cast aside historical specificity so much as it reframes our relationship to it.” (p. 738)

4. Reader-Response Theory

• Explores how different readers experience casual racism in texts

• Betensky argues that whiteness as the default position in literary studies affects how racism is perceived in Victorian texts. Readers of color are more likely to notice and be affected by casual racism than white readers.
• Key Quote: “For the students who are the most sensitive to every nuance of racism in contemporary discourse, ignoring casual racism in the texts we teach constitutes a betrayal.” (p. 735)
• This aligns with Stanley Fish’s idea that interpretation is shaped by the reader’s background and identity.
• Critiques the ‘sophisticated reader’ model in academia

• Betensky examines how students are trained to bracket their moral reactions to racism in Victorian literature in the name of scholarly detachment.
• Key Quote: “I had been asking them, at the same time, to take that recognition and bracket it.” (p. 730)
• This echoes Louise Rosenblatt’s (The Reader, the Text, the Poem) view that emotions and ethics are central to literary interpretation.

5. Foucauldian Discourse Analysis

• Applies Foucault’s concept of ‘The Speaker’s Benefit’ to discussions of Victorian racism

• Betensky adapts Michel Foucault’s argument (from The History of Sexuality) that modern speakers construct their own self-image by positioning themselves as more enlightened than the past.
• Key Quote: “Disavowing Victorian repression has an analogue in disavowing Victorian racism. When we tell our students that Victorian culture was deeply racist… we reap a collective speaker’s benefit.” (p. 732)
• Questions how power operates in literary studies through discourse

• Betensky critiques the “veil of ignorance” that scholars sometimes impose by separating Victorian racism from contemporary issues.
• Key Quote: “Encountering purged words in Victorian texts without noting these continuities allows the triumphalism of the speaker’s benefit to go unchallenged.” (p. 734)
• This aligns with Foucault’s (Discipline and Punish) argument that discourse is a means of social control.

6. Pedagogy and Antiracist Education

• Advocates for pedagogical methods that highlight casual racism in Victorian texts

• Betensky argues that Victorian literature should be taught in a way that makes students critically aware of both past and present racism.
• Key Quote: “How do we contend with the pervasive instances of Victorian racism that do not dominate our readings of the texts in which they appear? How, in other words, do we remark the unremarkable?” (p. 724)
• Emphasizes the importance of pre-reading activities

• One of Betensky’s students suggests that teachers should “frontload” discussions of racism before students read the text, so they are better prepared to notice it.
• Key Quote: “A unit on Wuthering Heights should include… what it meant at that time to call a character ‘gipsy,’ and how this was a construction of race and identity.” (p. 742)

Conclusion: A Multidisciplinary Contribution

• Betensky’s work bridges literary studies, postcolonial critique, critical race theory, and pedagogy, offering a new framework for understanding casual racism in literature.
• By challenging historical contextualization as an excuse for past racism, she redefines the relationship between Victorian texts and contemporary racial discourse.
• Her work contributes to ongoing debates in academia about race, privilege, and the role of literature in shaping societal norms.

1. Overemphasis on “Casual” Racism at the Expense of Structural Racism

• Some critics argue that Betensky focuses too much on incidental racist remarks rather than the deeper systemic and institutional racism that shaped Victorian literature.
• By emphasizing casual racism, the analysis may obscure the broader, more deliberate racial ideologies at play in empire-building and colonial discourse.

2. Risk of Overgeneralization About “The Victorians”

• Betensky acknowledges the problem of lumping all Victorians together but still frequently refers to “the Victorians” as a collective.
• This broad characterization risks flattening the diversity of opinions on race within Victorian society, including abolitionist and anti-imperialist perspectives.

3. Presentism and Moral Judgment

• Some scholars argue that Betensky’s approach leans towards presentism, applying contemporary racial frameworks to historical texts without fully accounting for their historical contexts.
• The essay sometimes implies that Victorian racism should be analyzed through modern moral judgments, which could lead to anachronistic readings.

4. Lack of Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives

• While Betensky critiques how Victorian texts treat racial others, she does not sufficiently incorporate perspectives from scholars of color or postcolonial theorists outside the Western academic tradition.
• This could limit the scope of the analysis, particularly when discussing how racialized subjects resisted or reinterpreted racist narratives.

5. Overemphasis on Pedagogy Over Literary Analysis

• The essay is heavily focused on how educators handle racist elements in Victorian literature rather than providing a detailed literary theoretical framework.
• Some critics may argue that it lacks a rigorous engagement with existing literary theories on race and empire (e.g., postcolonialism, critical race theory).

6. Ambiguity in Defining “Casual Racism”

• The concept of “casual racism” is somewhat nebulous in the essay—sometimes referring to incidental slurs, sometimes to broader ideological undercurrents.
• A clearer theoretical definition of how casual racism differs from structural racism or unconscious bias could strengthen the argument.

7. Limited Consideration of Counterexamples

• The essay focuses on examples where casual racism is ignored or normalized but does not sufficiently engage with Victorian texts or figures who actively challenged racist ideas.
• Works by authors such as Mary Seacole or Frederick Douglass, who responded directly to Victorian racism, are absent from the discussion.

8. Implications for Modern Readership

• Betensky suggests that recognizing casual racism in Victorian texts should lead to deeper discussions on modern racism, but critics argue she does not fully explore how this would work in contemporary literary studies.
• The essay could provide more concrete strategies for how contemporary readers and scholars should navigate these texts beyond merely acknowledging their racist elements.

Overall Summary of Criticism

While Casual Racism in Victorian Literature offers an important lens for analyzing racial discourse in Victorian novels, it has been critiqued for:

• Potentially overshadowing systemic racism with a focus on incidental slurs.
• Overgeneralizing Victorian attitudes toward race.
• Leaning into presentism.
• Lacking engagement with global perspectives.
• Prioritizing pedagogy over literary theory.

1. The Intertextual Connection Between Marx and Balzac

• Marx and Engels highly valued Balzac’s depiction of French society, with Engels stating that Comédie humaine taught him more than historians and economists of the time (Petrey, 1988, p. 448).
• Marx intended to write a study of Balzac, highlighting the deep connection between literature and socio-political analysis (p. 448).
• Petrey explores how Balzac’s Colonel Chabert and Marx’s The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte share a common vision of history and representation.

2. Challenging Economism: The Limits of Base-Superstructure Theory

• Traditional Marxist thought emphasizes economic determinism, where material conditions dictate ideological and political structures.
• Petrey argues that both Balzac and Marx reject a simplistic economic model, instead depicting ideology as an independent material force (p. 449).
• Both authors reveal that social reality is not merely a reflection of economic forces but is shaped by representation and ideology.

3. The Weight of Ideology: History as a Nightmare

• Both Balzac and Marx describe ideology as an oppressive weight on individuals and societies.
• In Colonel Chabert, Chabert experiences the weight of social and legal institutions pressing down on him “like a nightmare” (p. 450).
• Marx echoes this in The Eighteenth Brumaire, writing that “the tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living” (p. 450).
• This shared imagery suggests that history does not progress linearly but instead haunts the present, shaping and distorting political action.

4. Crisis of Representation: Identity and Politics in Flux

• In Colonel Chabert, Chabert’s physical existence is undeniable, but because society has declared him dead, his identity is erased (p. 452).
• Similarly, in The Eighteenth Brumaire, the class struggle exists but fails to manifest politically, leading to a political void (p. 457).
• Both texts highlight the failure of representation: economic and social realities do not always translate into political recognition.

5. The Rupture Between Sign and Reality

• Petrey examines how Marx and Balzac dismantle the idea that words and symbols reliably reflect reality.
• Marx describes Napoleon III’s supporters with a chaotic list of labels: “swindlers, mountebanks, pickpockets, tricksters” (p. 451), showing that political legitimacy is constructed rather than inherent.
• Similarly, in Colonel Chabert, Chabert’s name no longer signifies a living person, underscoring the fragility of identity in a world dictated by social conventions (p. 452).

6. The Paradox of Class Identity: When is a Class Not a Class?

• Marx asserts that the French peasantry in The Eighteenth Brumaire is both a class and not a class (p. 459).
• Lacking political representation, the peasants “must be represented” by Napoleon III, who claims to embody their interests even though he does not serve them (p. 459).
• This parallels Chabert’s dilemma—he exists, but society refuses to recognize him, mirroring the struggle of the dispossessed (p. 460).

7. Ideology as a Material Force: Social Reality is Constructed

• Petrey draws on Althusser’s theory that ideology interpellates individuals as subjects, meaning people do not exist outside of ideological structures (p. 465).
• In Colonel Chabert, Chabert is legally dead because ideology dictates it—even though he is alive, he is denied legal and social recognition.
• Similarly, in The Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx shows that ideology shapes political outcomes, as Napoleon III gains power by exploiting historical nostalgia (p. 464).

8. Political Theatricality: Power as Performance

• Marx describes Napoleon III’s rule as a theatrical performance rather than a genuine political movement (p. 467).
• His legitimacy is based not on economic or political reality but on his ability to manipulate signs, symbols, and historical myths (p. 467).
• Petrey links this to J. L. Austin’s concept of performative speech, where language does not merely describe reality but creates it (p. 464).
• This is mirrored in Colonel Chabert, where Chabert’s identity ceases to exist because legal and social discourse has erased him.

9. The Dialectic of Realism and Ideology

• Petrey argues that Balzac and Marx reject the idea that realism simply depicts material conditions.
• Instead, they show that social reality is constructed through ideology and discourse.
• Marx famously wrote that “the social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future” (p. 468).
• This suggests that both revolutionary movements and reactionary regimes are constructed through historical narratives rather than purely economic conditions.

10. Literature and History as Interwoven Forms of Representation

• Petrey concludes that Balzac and Marx both challenge simplistic notions of reality and representation.
• Colonel Chabert and The Eighteenth Brumaire illustrate that ideology does not merely distort reality—it creates it (p. 468).
• Recognition and legitimacy are not inherent but socially constructed, determining who is acknowledged as a subject or class.
• Both texts demonstrate that history is not simply determined by economic forces but is actively shaped by ideological struggles and representations.

1. Marxist Literary Theory

• Challenges Economism:
  • Petrey critiques the idea that economic structures alone determine social and ideological forms, arguing that ideology has its own material force. “Colonel Chabert and The Eighteenth Brumaire undermine the armature of economism, the hierarchical superiority of material reality over ideological concepts” (p. 449).
• Ideology as Material Force:
  • Instead of viewing ideology as a mere reflection of economic conditions, Petrey shows that both Balzac and Marx depict ideology as actively shaping reality. “Because both texts represent ideology as a material reality in its own right, they make every hierarchy based on the opposition between matter and ideology untenable” (p. 450).
• Reevaluates Class Struggle:
  • The Eighteenth Brumaire suggests that class struggle is not always politically visible, undermining the traditional Marxist notion that economic conditions alone drive historical change. “The proletariat may be the subject-object of history, but the history analyzed in The Eighteenth Brumaire takes place with neither workers nor the ‘revolutionary interests of their class’ affecting it” (p. 457).
• Political Power as Performance:
  • Napoleon III’s legitimacy is derived not from material class struggle but from historical myth and representation. “Napoleon III consolidated his position by making other names change the world despite their ridiculous inability to describe it” (p. 456).

2. Structuralism and Semiotics

• Crisis of Representation:
  • Petrey highlights how both Balzac and Marx depict the instability of representation, where signs (names, identities, political positions) fail to correspond to reality. “Colonel Chabert enacts the same dissociation of representation and reality, sign and referent, through continuous depiction of a living individual unsuccessfully seeking the name of a man declared dead” (p. 452).
• Language Constructs Reality:
  • The article aligns with Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralism by showing that representation is arbitrary but powerful. “The peasantry’s class being and Chabert’s death are ideal instances of the reality produced by what Austin named performative speech” (p. 464).
• Names and Identity:
  • The case of Chabert losing his identity shows that language does not reflect reality but actively shapes it. “Chabert is therefore the most impertinent of challenges to the philosopheme of representation, a referent separated from its sign” (p. 453).

3. Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

• Destabilization of Meaning:
  • Petrey engages in a deconstructive reading by showing that meaning in Marx and Balzac is always shifting. “Are we a class or are we a sack of potatoes? The French peasants might well ask Marx. In neither case is the answer definitive” (p. 459).
• Rejection of Fixed Reality:
  • Petrey suggests that neither Balzac nor Marx believes in a stable, fixed reality that can be simply represented. “What was ‘concrete’ has become ‘abstract.’ The referent prior to ideology is now the imaginary derivative of ideological production” (p. 466).

4. Performative Theory (J.L. Austin, Judith Butler)

• Performativity in Politics:
  • The article suggests that Napoleon III’s legitimacy is established through performative speech rather than material reality. “The adventurer, who took the comedy as plain comedy, was bound to win” (p. 464).
• Social Construction of Identity:
  • Chabert is legally dead despite being alive, proving that identity is socially constructed through legal and ideological discourse. “Because Chabert is said, conceived, and narrated as dead, his real life-process ceases to be a matter of practical consequence” (p. 454).

5. New Historicism

• Interplay Between Literature and History:
  • Petrey treats Colonel Chabert and The Eighteenth Brumaire as historical texts that both shape and are shaped by their socio-political contexts. “Balzac’s painful descriptions of Chabert’s physical deterioration do not reverse a hierarchy so much as undo the opposition on which it is based” (p. 455).
• Historical Representation as Fictional:
  • The Eighteenth Brumaire shows that history itself is constructed through representation. “Historical tradition gave rise to the belief of the French peasants in the miracle that a man named Napoleon would bring all their glory back to them” (p. 464).

6. Postmodernism

• Reality as a Construct of Narrative:
  • The article suggests that reality is not objectively given but constructed through historical and ideological narratives. “Poetry from the future and dramatis personae from the past are equally false to the present and equally crucial to historical change” (p. 468).
• Blurring of Fact and Fiction:
  • Both Marx and Balzac depict political and social identities as theatrical performances rather than material truths. “Fictions are not that which Marxism must refuse but that which it must incorporate” (p. 468).

Summary of Contributions

Sandy Petrey’s “The Reality of Representation: Between Marx and Balzac” makes significant contributions to Marxist Literary Theory, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, Performative Theory, New Historicism, and Postmodernism by showing:

• Representation is not a mere reflection of reality but an active force in shaping it.
• Ideology has material effects, challenging the base-superstructure model.
• Identity and history are performative acts rather than fixed entities.
• Both Marx and Balzac depict history as theatrical and constructed through discourse.

🔹 Critical Race Theory and Structural Racism in Education

• The study examines how teacher attitudes towards race and White privilege reflect and reinforce structural racism in two urban school districts.
• Critical Race Theory (CRT) is used as the framework, emphasizing that racism is pervasive, systemic, and must be actively challenged (Bell, 1992; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
• CRT challenges the idea of “colorblindness” and insists that race is a fundamental structure shaping institutions, including schools (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).

🔹 The Concept of “Whiteness as Property”

• The authors apply Cheryl Harris’ (1993) concept of “Whiteness as property” to analyze teacher attitudes.
• White identity is socially constructed as a property interest that provides unearned advantages, such as the ability to determine social meanings and maintain power.
• Teachers’ responses to anti-bias training reflect this property interest, as they redefine racial discussions in ways that protect White privilege.

🔹 Teachers’ Resistance to White Privilege

• Many White teachers in the study rejected or minimized the idea of White privilege, arguing that they were not responsible for systemic racial inequities.
• Some White teachers equated White privilege with personal guilt rather than a systemic advantage (McIntosh, 1988).
• Others dismissed White privilege entirely, claiming it only exists in predominantly White spaces and not in schools where White teachers were the numerical minority.
• Teachers frequently expressed defensive reactions, such as:
  • “I don’t feel like I’m racist.”
  • “Just because I’m White doesn’t mean I benefited from slavery.”
  • “White privilege doesn’t exist in my school because most of my students are Black.”

🔹 The Individualization of Racism

• Many White teachers reduced racism to personal acts of prejudice, ignoring its structural and institutional nature (Crenshaw, 1995).
• The focus on cultural awareness over systemic inequity allowed racism to persist unchallenged in schools.
• Teachers struggled to acknowledge how their racial position granted them institutional advantages, even when they had “good intentions.”

🔹 Anti-Bias Training and Its Limitations

• The school districts implemented anti-bias training to address racial disparities in student achievement.
• However, these trainings focused primarily on raising awareness rather than changing systemic policies or practices.
• White teachers often reacted defensively, perceiving the training as a personal attack rather than an opportunity for systemic change.
• The authors argue that without structural transformation, awareness alone is insufficient to challenge racism in education.

🔹 The Role of Cultural Awareness vs. Structural Change

• Schools often framed racial disparities as cultural misunderstandings rather than issues of power and inequality.
• Teachers were encouraged to learn about “diverse cultures” through “culture grams” and “culture capsules” rather than critically examining how race and power shape school policies.
• This cultural framework enabled White teachers to avoid discussions of racial power and privilege.

🔹 Backlash and Racialized Resentment

• Some White teachers expressed resentment toward the focus on racial equity, feeling that they were being unfairly blamed.
• One teacher stated: “Because I look Aryan, I’m treated like a racist when I don’t think I am.”
• This reaction highlights how White teachers saw discussions of racism as an attack on their individuality, rather than an examination of systemic power structures.

🔹 The Need for Structural Change

• The authors argue that racial equity in education requires systemic transformation, not just individual reflection.
• Distributive justice (Harris, 1993) is proposed as a model to shift power dynamics and redistribute educational resources equitably.
• Schools must move beyond diversity training to actively challenge racial inequities in funding, curriculum, hiring, and discipline policies.

Conclusion: The Persistence of Structural Racism in Schools

• White teachers’ resistance to anti-racism training reflects broader structural barriers to racial equity in education.
• Without systemic changes to school policies and power structures, teacher training alone will not close racial achievement gaps.
• The study calls for a shift from individual awareness to collective accountability in dismantling racial inequities in education.

1. Overemphasis on Structural Determinism

• The article frames racism as an inescapable structural force, potentially diminishing individual agency and personal responsibility in challenging racism.
• Some scholars argue that CRT’s emphasis on systemic racism can lead to fatalism, implying that no real change is possible within existing institutions (Vaught & Castagno, p. 99-100).

2. Lack of Attention to Nuances in White Teacher Reactions

• The study categorizes many White teachers as defensive or resistant without fully exploring how some may genuinely engage with anti-racist learning.
• Teachers who attempt to change but struggle with new racial frameworks are sometimes lumped in with outright deniers of White privilege (p. 108-109).

3. Limited Discussion on Alternative Approaches to Anti-Racist Education

• While the article critiques teacher trainings as insufficient, it does not fully explore other models of effective anti-racist professional development.
• More discussion on practical policy solutions within educational institutions could strengthen the study’s applicability (p. 111-112).

4. Reliance on Whiteness as Property Without Alternative Theoretical Considerations

• The study relies heavily on Cheryl Harris’ (1993) concept of “Whiteness as Property”, potentially neglecting other theoretical frameworks that could add depth.
• Concepts from intersectionality, class analysis, or decoloniality could provide a more multidimensional analysis of race, privilege, and power in schools (p. 102-103).

5. Generalization of White Teacher Perspectives

• The analysis risks overgeneralizing White teachers as resistant to change, without fully considering how some teachers of color may also struggle with internalized racism or neoliberal multiculturalism.
• The argument that White teachers uniformly fail to recognize structural racism (p. 100-101) might not account for regional, personal, and institutional differences in anti-racist attitudes.

6. Absence of Student Voices and Perspectives

• The study primarily focuses on teacher and administrator responses, but lacks input from students, particularly students of color who experience racism in schools.
• Understanding how students interpret teachers’ racial attitudes could add another layer of critical insight (p. 107).

7. Potentially Polarizing Framing of White Teachers

• Some critics may argue that the framing of White teachers in the study positions them as inherently complicit in systemic racism, which could alienate potential allies in anti-racist education.
• Encouraging a collaborative rather than confrontational approach to teacher training might yield more productive long-term outcomes (p. 110-111).

8. Insufficient Engagement with Historical Changes in Education Policy

• While the article critiques current anti-bias training models, it does not provide much historical context on how educational institutions have evolved in their treatment of race.
• Comparing past and present racial equity efforts might highlight progress and limitations more effectively (p. 104).

9. Limited Discussion of Non-White Teacher Perspectives on Racism

• The study focuses on White teacher attitudes but does not deeply engage with how teachers of color navigate structural racism within schools.
• A broader racialized teacher perspective could provide a more complete understanding of how racism operates in educational settings (p. 106).

·  Sociology of Literature as a Legitimate Field of Study

• Pincott argues against the perception that sociology of literature is a dilettantist endeavor, stating that literature provides as much insight into a society as traditional sociological inquiries (Pincott, 177).
• He criticizes the idea that literature is beyond sociological analysis due to the supposed spontaneity of the creative act, calling this an “extreme” and unproductive argument (Pincott, 177-178).

·  Goldmann’s Dialectical Materialist Approach

• Pincott references Goldmann’s idea that literature should not be analyzed in isolation but as part of a broader social and ideological context:
  • “The ideas and work of an author cannot be understood as long as we remain on the level of what he wrote… Ideas are only a partial aspect of a less abstract reality: that of the whole, living man” (Goldmann, 7; cited in Pincott, 177).
• This perspective frames literature as a reflection of the ideology of social groups rather than just individual authors.

·  The Presence of Ideology in Literature

• Literature inherently contains ideological elements, even if subconsciously expressed. These elements link texts to the social structures of their time (Pincott, 178).
• However, Pincott notes that identifying these ideological elements is often difficult, especially in historical works where authors did not explicitly write with ideological intentions (Pincott, 178-179).

·  Criticism of Arbitrary Literary Analysis

• Pincott critiques content analysis methods that impose subjective interpretations onto texts. He distinguishes between subjective and objective meanings:
  • “What the author meant by a work—the subjective meaning—is less important than what it ‘really means’—the objective meaning” (Goldmann, 759; cited in Pincott, 179).
• This raises the issue of arbitrariness in literary interpretation, as critics might impose meanings that are not explicitly present in the text.

·  Use of Literature as Social Data

• He discusses how literature has been used as historical evidence, giving an example from Matthew Arnold about an agricultural implement mentioned in 18th-century literature that helped settle a historical debate (Pincott, 179-180).
• However, he warns that using literature as historical or sociological evidence is risky because fiction is not always an accurate representation of reality (Pincott, 180).

·  Raymond Williams and the Myth of Organic Society

• Williams criticizes historical commentators who idealize the past as a time of social harmony and argues that literature actually reflects oppression and conflict (Pincott, 180-181).
• However, Pincott questions Williams’ method, noting that literature can misrepresent reality for artistic purposes, making his argument vulnerable to accusations of bias (Pincott, 181).

·  Leavis and the Rejection of Sociological Approaches

• F. R. Leavis argues that literature should be studied purely from a literary perspective, dismissing sociological approaches:
  • “No sociology of literature… will yield much profit unless controlled and informed by a real and intelligent interest… in literature” (Leavis, 198; cited in Pincott, 182).
• Pincott criticizes this stance, arguing that ignoring social context limits our understanding of literature (Pincott, 182).

·  Marxist Interpretations of the Novel

• He examines Marxist theories linking the development of the novel to the rise of the bourgeoisie, referencing Ian Watt’s argument that the novel reflects entrepreneurial individualism (Pincott, 183).
• He also discusses George Huaco’s research on Mexican literature, showing how rapid industrialization affected literary forms, shifting from revolutionary novels to modernist styles (Pincott, 183-184).

·  Lukács and Goldmann on Dialectical Literary Analysis

• Pincott explores Lukács’ and Goldmann’s claims that literary forms and styles reflect worldviews (Weltanschauung).
• He notes the challenge of empirically testing these theories and argues that overly rigid frameworks risk being reductionist (Pincott, 185-186).

·  Comparing Goldmann’s Framework to Greek Tragedy

• Pincott draws a parallel between Goldmann’s analysis of 17th-century Jansenist thought and the ideology of 5th-century Athens.
• He compares Pascal’s dialectical approach to Cartesian rationalism with Aeschylus’ treatment of free will and determinism (Pincott, 187-188).

·  Limitations of Structuralist Approaches

• He critiques structuralist methods (e.g., Levi-Strauss) for their inability to analyze complex literary texts beyond mythology (Pincott, 189-191).
• He concludes that while structuralism provides a scientific framework, it has yet to offer a comprehensive methodology for studying literature (Pincott, 191).

·  Aeschylus’ Political Position

• In an appendix, Pincott discusses the political leanings of Aeschylus, debating whether his plays support democratic or conservative ideologies.
• He argues that Aeschylus’ portrayal of the Areopagus in The Eumenides suggests a conservative defense of aristocratic institutions (Pincott, 192-194).

1. Marxist Literary Theory & Ideology in Literature

• Pincott discusses how literature reflects the ideological structures of society and how it is influenced by economic and class dynamics.
• Reference: “In that case, the sociology of literature will be a sub-heading of the investigation of ideology and the testing of the Marxist hypothesis about superstructural attributes of social groups.” (Pincott, p. 178)

2. Goldmann’s Dialectical Materialism & Structuralism

• The book incorporates Lucien Goldmann’s idea that literature must be analyzed within the broader framework of social structures and collective consciousness.
• Reference: “Ideas are only a partial aspect of a less abstract reality: that of the whole, living man. And in his turn, this man is only an element in a whole made up of the social group to which he belongs.” (Goldmann, quoted in Pincott, p. 177)

3. Sociological Content Analysis in Literary Criticism

• Pincott critiques traditional literary content analysis for being arbitrary and argues for a more structured sociological approach.
• Reference: “The main drawback to this style of analysis is the accusation that what the critic says ‘just isn’t in the text’.” (Pincott, p. 178)

4. Historicism and Literature as a Source of Social History

• Literature can serve as empirical evidence for historical and social conditions, supporting historicist interpretations.
• Reference: “People are constantly using literature as an empirical base from which to extrapolate facts about periods in history.” (Pincott, p. 179)

5. The Role of Class in Literary Production

• The book examines how literary forms and themes evolve based on the class structures in a given historical period.
• Reference: “It often happens that the mode of behaviour which enables us to understand a particular work is not that of the author himself, but that of a whole social group; and, when the work with which we are concerned is of particular importance, this behaviour is that of a whole social class.” (Pincott, p. 177)

6. The Novel as a Bourgeois Form

• Pincott references Ian Watt’s work on the rise of the novel as a product of capitalist and bourgeois values.
• Reference: “A connection has been postulated between the bourgeoisie and the novel, from Hegel and Marx through to Goldmann.” (Pincott, p. 181)

7. The Crisis of Meaning in Literature

• The text explores how different literary forms and themes emerge in response to social crises and ideological shifts.
• Reference: “The tragedy of the 17th and 18th centuries does, like other forms of tragic creation and awareness, express a crisis in human relationship between certain groups of men and the cosmic and social world.” (Goldmann, quoted in Pincott, p. 190)

8. Structuralism and Semiotics in Literary Theory

• Pincott engages with structuralist methods, suggesting that literary meaning is shaped by underlying structures rather than individual interpretation.
• Reference: “Structuralism, as embodied in the area mapped out by Saussure as semiology, starting from structural linguistics, seems to embody great advantage: it rests on the scientific basis of linguistics.” (Pincott, p. 190)

1. Literature as a Product and Influence of Social Interaction

• Merrill argues that literature is both “a product of social interaction” and “an influence upon social interaction” (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).
• It reflects cultural values and past societal interactions while shaping readers’ perceptions and behaviors in the present and future.

2. Symbolic Nature of Literary Interaction

• Social interaction in literature is symbolic, as human beings “interpret or ‘define’ each other’s actions instead of merely reacting” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• The process of writing and reading literature involves symbolic exchanges, making it a legitimate subject of sociological inquiry.

3. Literature as a Reflection of Society

• Merrill references earlier critics like de Bonald, Taine, and Sainte-Beuve, who viewed literature as an “expression of society” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• Three key sociological perspectives on literature:
  1. Literature reflects society.
  2. Literature influences or shapes society.
  3. Literature functions as a means of “social control” to stabilize and justify societal norms (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

4. The Role of the Author and Limitations in Representation

• The relationship between an author’s work and social context is complex: “The author is, by definition, a sensitive person, and his vision of society is not necessarily the same as that of his contemporaries” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• Even comprehensive novelists like Balzac could not encompass all aspects of society.

5. Literature as Social Interaction in Imagination

• Merrill suggests that literature should be viewed as “social interaction in imagination, whereby the possibilities of human behavior are explored in depth” (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).
• Novels allow for role-taking, where readers engage with characters and experience different social realities through fiction.

6. Operational Analysis and Literary Experimentation

• Merrill parallels literature with operational analysis in science, where “analyzing the world in terms of doings or happenings” helps understand human behavior (Merrill, 1967, p. 652).
• The novel serves as a controlled experiment in which social dynamics are tested imaginatively.

7. The Novel as a Social Experiment

• Merrill draws from Emile Zola’s concept of the “experimental novel,” where literature is an “experiment in imagination” (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).
• Zola and Balzac structured their novels like scientific studies, placing characters in specific social settings to observe interactions.

8. Implications for Sociology and Literary Theory

• Merrill concludes that sociology can benefit from literature’s “experimentation in imagination,” as it provides insights into human behavior, social mobility, and institutional structures (Merrill, 1967, p. 659).
• Literature, while distinct from empirical sociology, offers a qualitative analysis of society that complements sociological studies.

1. Establishing Literature as a Sociological Subject

• Merrill asserts that literature is both a reflection and an influence on social interaction, making it a valid field of sociological inquiry (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).
• “Literature is a cultural product that reflects past interaction as interpreted by the author and influences subsequent interaction on the part of the reader” (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).

2. Strengthening the Sociological Approach to Literature

• Merrill builds on Robert Escarpit’s and Herbert Blumer’s ideas, arguing that literature and sociology are interconnected disciplines that study human interaction (Merrill, 1967, pp. 648-649).
• “Social interaction is a symbolic process” and literature, through symbols and metaphors, captures human behavior and societal patterns (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).

3. Literature as a Mirror and Shaper of Society

• Merrill references historical literary critics such as Taine and Sainte-Beuve to argue that literature does not merely “reflect” society but actively “shapes” it (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• “One hypothesis is that literature ‘reflects’ society; its supposed converse is that it influences or ‘shapes’ society” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

4. Influence on Reader-Response and Role-Taking Theories

• Merrill emphasizes how literature allows readers to “take the role of the protagonist,” engaging in social interaction through imagination (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).
• “The reader participates by taking the role(s) of the protagonists” (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).

5. Bridging Symbolic Interactionism and Literary Studies

• Merrill integrates Herbert Blumer’s concept of symbolic interactionism, explaining that literature functions as a space where human actions are interpreted rather than merely observed (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• “Human beings interpret or ‘define’ each other’s actions instead of merely reacting to each other’s actions” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).

6. Linking Literature to Social Control Theory

• Merrill connects literature to ideological critique, arguing that it serves to “maintain and stabilize, if not justify and sanctify, the social order” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• “Literature functions socially to maintain and stabilize, if not to justify and sanctify, the social order, which may be called the ‘social control’ theory” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

7. Conceptualizing Literature as a Social Experiment

• Merrill builds upon Zola’s Experimental Novel to propose that literature is a controlled sociological experiment where human interactions are tested in an imagined setting (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).
• “The novelist does, in a way, what the sociologist is unable to do—namely, present people in group situations where they can play a variety of roles” (Merrill, 1967, p. 654).

8. Advocating for Literature as a Qualitative Sociological Method

• Merrill suggests that literature offers “verifiable knowledge” about social structures, making it an important source of qualitative analysis for sociologists (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).
• “Literature becomes a form of ‘qualitative analysis’—that is, data which Lazarsfeld has characterized as more than illustration but less than definitive proof” (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).

1. Overemphasis on Social Reflection Theory

• Merrill largely focuses on literature as a reflection of society, but critics argue that this perspective neglects the autonomy of literature as an art form.
• Literature is not always a direct mirror of social reality; it can also be abstract, symbolic, or purely imaginative, challenging the deterministic link between literature and society (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

2. Limited Consideration of Reader Interpretation

• While Merrill acknowledges the role of the reader, his framework does not fully explore reader-response theory, which emphasizes how different audiences interpret texts in diverse ways.
• His approach assumes that readers engage with literature in a socially predetermined way, rather than considering subjective and individual experiences (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).

3. Reduction of Literature to Sociology

• Some literary theorists argue that Merrill reduces literature to a sociological case study, overlooking aesthetic, linguistic, and formalist aspects of literary texts.
• Literary meaning cannot be solely derived from its social context; structure, style, and narrative techniques also shape interpretation (Merrill, 1967, p. 659).

4. Neglect of Literary Autonomy and Artistic Value

• Merrill’s sociological approach tends to treat literature as a tool for analyzing society, minimizing its artistic and imaginative qualities.
• Formalist critics, such as those from the New Criticism school, would argue that literature should be analyzed on its own terms, independent of external sociological factors (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).

5. Oversimplification of Authorial Intent

• Merrill suggests that literature reflects the author’s social background and experiences, but poststructuralist critics challenge this, arguing that meaning is constructed by the text itself rather than being dictated by the author’s intent.
• The “death of the author” argument, later formulated by Roland Barthes, contradicts Merrill’s assumption that the author’s perspective is central to understanding literature (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

6. Inadequate Engagement with Postmodern and Postcolonial Criticism

• Merrill’s framework does not account for postmodern literary theories, which question grand narratives and emphasize fragmentation, irony, and intertextuality.
• His analysis also lacks a postcolonial perspective, failing to address how literature interacts with issues of colonialism, race, and identity in non-Western contexts (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

7. Questionable Application of Scientific Method to Literature

• Merrill draws parallels between literary analysis and scientific experimentation, particularly through Zola’s “experimental novel” concept. However, literature does not function as a controlled experiment, and human behavior in fiction cannot be measured like empirical data.
• Sociologists and literary theorists criticize this positivist approach for attempting to impose rigid scientific frameworks onto the inherently subjective and interpretive field of literature (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).

8. Underestimation of Literature’s Ability to Challenge Social Norms

• While Merrill acknowledges that literature can shape society, his argument leans more toward literature maintaining social control rather than subverting dominant ideologies.
• Marxist and critical theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci and Theodor Adorno, argue that literature often functions as a site of resistance against power structures, rather than merely reinforcing them (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

1. Contribution to Marxist Literary Criticism

• Witte engages with Karl Marx’s theory that literature is part of the superstructure, shaped by economic forces and class structures.
• He explains that “religion, political and ethical creeds, laws, art, and literature are… a ‘superstructure’ erected on the foundation of economic conditions” (p. 89).
• This reinforces the Marxist belief that literature cannot be separated from the material conditions of its time.

2. Contribution to Taine’s Deterministic Criticism

• Witte discusses Hippolyte Taine’s theory that literature is determined by “Race, Environment, and Moment” (p. 88).
• He critiques and extends this view by stating that while social and political factors shape literature, they do not entirely determine it.
• His discussion refines Taine’s deterministic approach by acknowledging individual creativity while still emphasizing the role of historical context.

3. Contribution to New Historicism

• Witte’s argument that literature cannot be analyzed in a “social vacuum” aligns with New Historicism, which emphasizes historical and cultural influences on texts.
• He states that “the society to which [a writer] belongs, even when he rebels against it, surrounds him and colours his view of the world” (p. 87).
• This perspective is foundational to New Historicist approaches that link literature to its historical and ideological context.

4. Contribution to Sociological Criticism

• Witte strengthens sociological literary criticism by illustrating how literature reflects and critiques social structures.
• He provides examples, such as:
  • Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde reflecting medieval social changes (p. 87).
  • Shakespeare’s Othello incorporating themes influenced by England’s maritime expansion (p. 88).
• His work reinforces the view that literature is shaped by and, in turn, influences social norms.

5. Contribution to Reader-Response Theory (Indirectly)

• Though not a direct advocate of Reader-Response Theory, Witte acknowledges that literary meaning is shaped by audience expectations.
• He states that “a strong and homogeneous society may impose its demands on a poet whose natural inclinations might otherwise have directed his art into different channels” (p. 92).
• This suggests that reader reception and cultural norms influence literary production, a key idea in Reader-Response Theory.

6. Contribution to Formalism and Aesthetic Theories (By Opposition)

• Witte critiques Formalism and Pure Aesthetics by arguing that literature should not be studied in isolation from its social and political context.
• He challenges the view that “all that really matters… is in the works themselves, and there is no need to look for it elsewhere” (p. 92).
• His work thus provides a counterpoint to Russian Formalism and New Criticism, advocating for a more contextual approach to literary study.

7. Contribution to Postcolonial Literary Criticism (Proto-Theory)

• Though written before Postcolonial Theory emerged, Witte’s analysis of national identity and literature foreshadows later arguments by postcolonial scholars.
• He notes that “national aspirations, reacting against foreign models and influences, may create an emotional climate that can be felt even in works not at all political in character” (p. 94).
• This aligns with later Postcolonial Studies, which explore how literature reflects and resists imperialist cultural influences.

Conclusion: Witte’s Lasting Impact on Literary Theories

• Witte’s work bridges historical materialism, sociological criticism, and New Historicism, providing a foundation for later interdisciplinary approaches.
• His emphasis on the interplay between literature and society continues to influence contemporary cultural studies and ideological literary analysis.

1. Overemphasis on Social Determinism

• Critics argue that Witte’s sociological approach reduces literature to a mere reflection of social and economic forces, neglecting the role of individual creativity.
• His discussion of Taine’s deterministic model (“Race, Environment, and Moment”) suggests that literature is rigidly shaped by external conditions (p. 88), which some critics see as an oversimplification of literary creation.

2. Undermining of Aesthetic and Artistic Value

• Formalists and New Critics reject Witte’s emphasis on social context, arguing that a work of literature should be analyzed on its own merits, independent of external influences.
• Witte acknowledges this opposing view but does not adequately counter it: “The followers of the method of pure aesthetics contend that the proper object of the study of literature is the actual works, not things that lie outside or behind them” (p. 92).

3. Difficulty in Establishing Direct Cause-and-Effect Relationships

• Critics question whether literature can be directly linked to social and economic conditions in the way Witte suggests.
• While he argues that “any cultural activity, such as literature, cannot be fruitfully studied apart from the economic, social, and political organization of the society that produced it” (p. 89), opponents contend that this relationship is often too complex and indirect to be definitively traced.

4. Neglect of Authorial Agency and Personal Expression

• The sociological approach, as Witte presents it, minimizes the role of the writer’s personal experiences and choices in shaping literature.
• He does mention biographical influences but ultimately subordinates them to societal forces, whereas scholars of historical-biographical criticism believe that a writer’s unique experiences shape their work in ways that cannot be reduced to broad societal trends (p. 91).

5. Limited Applicability to Certain Literary Genres

• The sociological method is more effective for analyzing realist and politically engaged literature but struggles to account for abstract, experimental, or purely imaginative works (e.g., surrealism, modernist poetry).
• Witte does not provide clear guidance on how sociological criticism should approach such texts, leading to methodological limitations.

6. Overlaps with Other Theories Without Clear Distinction

• Witte incorporates elements of Marxist criticism, New Historicism, and Cultural Studies, but he does not fully distinguish his approach from these related theories.
• This has led some scholars to argue that his sociological approach is not a distinct methodology but rather a synthesis of existing frameworks.

7. Risk of Anachronism in Literary Interpretation

• Applying sociological criticism retrospectively can lead to anachronistic interpretations, where modern social theories are imposed onto historical texts.
• For example, Witte’s analysis of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde in relation to shifting social norms (p. 87) may risk projecting modern ideas of social change onto medieval literature.

Main Ideas

1. Integration of Sociology and Literature
   • The course is designed to integrate two perspectives: the sociology of literature (which focuses on external structural aspects of literature) and sociology through literature (which uses fiction to teach sociological concepts).
   • “The skeleton of the course is that of the sociology of literature, which emphasizes an external structural approach to the systematic study of the production and consumption of literature in society” (Hegtvedt, 1991, p. 1).
2. Theoretical Foundations
   • The course acknowledges two dominant trends in sociological studies of literature:
     1. The systematic, scientific study of literature as a social process.
     2. The use of literature as a pedagogical tool to teach sociology.
   • “The former trend appeals to the sociologist’s use of deductive explanation in understanding the structure of social patterns underlying important cultural phenomena whereas the latter trend represents an inductive approach to understanding those patterns” (p. 1).
3. Sociology’s Relationship with Literature
   • Three perspectives on how literature interacts with society:
     1. Literature reflects society.
     2. Literature influences society.
     3. Literature serves as a tool for social control.
   • “A global characterization, encompassing the complementarity of the three notions, emphasizes the reciprocal interaction between literature and society” (p. 2).
4. External Structural Approach to Literature
   • The course follows an external structural approach to the sociology of literature, focusing on how literature is produced, distributed, and consumed in society.
   • “An underlying assumption of the structural approach is that literature is a type of social institution and thus can be studied in terms of general theories of social organization and behavior” (p. 3).
5. Influence of Literary Criticism on Sociology
   • Postmodern literary criticism is increasingly influential in sociological analysis.
   • “Developments in literary criticism highlight an often-overlooked aspect of the reciprocal relationship between literature and society: that literature influences sociology” (p. 5).
6. Teaching Literature to Illustrate Sociological Concepts
   • Five novels are used in the course to illustrate various sociological issues:

6. Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen) – social perception and gender roles.
7. Père Goriot (Honoré de Balzac) – social stratification and power.
8. Hard Times (Charles Dickens) – capitalism and industrialization.
9. The Jungle (Upton Sinclair) – social problems and reform.
10. White Noise (Don DeLillo) – modern life and media influence.
11. “Literary pieces for this course exemplify underlying circumstances and consequences of the social production and consumption of literature” (p. 6).
12. Consumption and Interpretation of Literature
    • Literature is consumed differently based on reader characteristics (e.g., gender, class, education).
    • “The sociohistorical context influences who reads, what is available to read, and what reading selections individuals make” (p. 7).
13. Testing Sociological Theories Through Writing Assignments
    • In-class writing assignments allow students to analyze sociological issues in literature, testing hypotheses about authors, critics, and readers.
    • “Content analysis of the assignments allows them to make crude ‘tests’ of existing empirical generalizations or to propose deductive hypotheses about issues of literary production and consumption” (p. 8).
14. Challenges in Teaching Sociology of Literature
    • The course faces logistical and pedagogical challenges, particularly in balancing the reading load and engaging students from different academic backgrounds.
    • “To ensure that all students will have some familiarity with general sociological concepts, those enrolling in this course should have completed an introductory course in sociology” (p. 9).
15. Interdisciplinary Benefits

• The integration of literature and sociology benefits both disciplines and facilitates interdisciplinary dialogue.
• “Such a characteristic is beneficial not only to sociology curricula but more generally as a means to facilitate communication between academic departments” (p. 10).

1. Sociology of Literature

• Hegtvedt synthesizes sociology of literature with sociology through literature, showing how both trends complement each other.
• Contribution: She bridges deductive (systematic study of literature in society) and inductive (using literature to illustrate sociological concepts) approaches.
• Reference:

“This paper describes a course designed to integrate two ways in which sociologists examine literature” (p. 1).
“The skeleton of the course is that of the sociology of literature, which emphasizes an external structural approach to the systematic study of the production and consumption of literature in society” (p. 1).

2. Reflection Theory (Literature as a Mirror of Society)

• Contribution: Hegtvedt supports the reflection hypothesis, which posits that literature mirrors societal values, norms, and structures.
• Reference:

“One approach to this interaction is to focus on how literature affects individuals as well as organizations and is affected by them” (p. 2).
“How does the sociohistorical context (defined by historical time, economic and political structure, social stratification, and cultural orientation) influence the style and content of the authors’ works?” (p. 3).

3. Reader-Response Theory

• Contribution: By examining how different readers interpret texts based on their background, she reinforces Reception Theory, particularly the role of social and cultural contexts in shaping meaning.
• Reference:

“Readers’ tastes, political or cultural orientations, and their background characteristics affect their reception and interpretation of fictional works” (p. 7).
“The analysis of this interaction illuminates several issues… These variations invite the use of the hermeneutic mode of literary criticism as a basis for explaining the emergence of different interpretations” (p. 8).

4. Hermeneutics (Interpretation & Meaning-Making)

• Contribution: Hegtvedt connects hermeneutic literary criticism to sociology, arguing that meaning arises from the dialogue between the reader’s horizon and the text.
• Reference:

“Meaning derives from the ‘dialogue’ between the horizons of the text and of the reader. From this dialogue, the reader may gain greater awareness of his or her own prejudices” (p. 8).

5. Postmodern Literary Criticism

• Contribution: She engages with postmodernism, particularly deconstruction and poststructuralism, to show how literature questions singular meanings and absolute truths.
• Reference:

“The postmodern perspectives which deny singular interpretations may ‘cast considerable doubt on the assumption that sociology itself is a literal representation of reality’” (p. 5).
“Deconstructionism involves demonstrating the internal instability and uncontrollability of language and meaning” (p. 5).

6. Structuralism and Semiotics

• Contribution: The structuralist approach to literature is evident in Hegtvedt’s discussion of semiotics and the role of language in shaping meaning.
• Reference:

“Structural approaches to literature emphasize the importance of language and culture as the source of literary meaning and deemphasize the role of the writer or the reader as such a source” (p. 4).
“A major component of structuralism is semiotics, the science of sign systems such as language” (p. 5).

7. Cultural Studies and Power in Literature

• Contribution: Hegtvedt discusses the power dynamics of literature, focusing on publishers, critics, and the canonization process, aligning with Cultural Studies and Bourdieu’s notion of Cultural Capital.
• Reference:

“The finished novel reveals little about the structure and the dynamics of the relationships among writers, publishers, and critics but the history and the form of its publication may illustrate these phenomena” (p. 7).
“For publishers, favorable popular reviews are likely to enhance book sales; favorable critical reviews are less likely to have such an effect” (p. 7).

8. Marxist Literary Criticism

• Contribution: Hegtvedt examines literature as a product of economic and social structures, consistent with Marxist Literary Criticism.
• Reference:

“The course begins with theoretical issues addressed by all of the chosen novels… the function of literature in society, the role of the author, the readers’ interaction with the text, and the development of meanings” (p. 9).
“Social problems approach may be useful in analyzing the impact of literature on society” (p. 7).

9. Canon Formation and Literary Institutions

• Contribution: She discusses the sociology of literary production, addressing how certain works gain prestige and enter the literary canon.
• Reference:

“With the exception of DeLillo, all have enjoyed various types of reception: market success, canonization in the form of acceptance by elite specialists, endurance over time among both elite and popular audiences” (p. 6).

1. Overemphasis on Structural Approach

• The article predominantly relies on an external structural analysis of literature, focusing on how literature is produced and consumed in society.
• This approach downplays the interpretative and subjective aspects of literary texts, which are central to many contemporary literary theories such as reader-response criticism or psychoanalysis.
• Example: The discussion on how readers “interact” with texts primarily serves to validate sociological hypotheses rather than explore the personal and emotional connections readers may form.

2. Limited Engagement with Postmodern and Contemporary Theories

• The discussion of poststructuralism and postmodernism (e.g., Derrida, Foucault, Barthes) is included, but not fully developed in relation to teaching sociology through literature.
• The article acknowledges that postmodern criticism challenges the objectivity of sociological analysis (p. 4) but does not integrate this critique into its own methodology.
• Example: Deconstruction is mentioned but not applied to the sociological study of literature, missing an opportunity to engage with how meaning is inherently unstable.

3. Canonical Bias in Literary Selection

• The selected novels (Pride and Prejudice, Père Goriot, Hard Times, The Jungle, and White Noise) primarily represent Western, male-dominated, and historically established literary traditions.
• The exclusion of non-Western, feminist, and minority literature limits the cultural diversity of the course.
• Example: The absence of literature from postcolonial, African American, or feminist perspectives means that the sociology of literature is not fully representative of global literary traditions.

4. Pedagogical Limitations and Accessibility Issues

• The integration of sociology and literature may be challenging for students without strong backgrounds in either discipline.
• Theoretical discussions (e.g., on semiotics, hermeneutics, and structuralism) might be too abstract for undergraduate students unfamiliar with these concepts.
• Example: The in-class writing exercises, while useful, may not sufficiently scaffold students’ understanding of complex sociological theories applied to literature.

5. Potentially Reductive View of Literature’s Role

• The article primarily views literature as a sociological artifact that reflects and reinforces social structures.
• This overlooks literature’s creative, aesthetic, and philosophical dimensions, reducing its purpose to a mirror of society rather than a transformative or experimental art form.
• Example: The role of literature in shaping emotions, existential inquiries, or psychological introspection is barely addressed.

6. Insufficient Consideration of Reader Agency

• Although the article acknowledges reader reception theory, it does not fully explore the agency of the reader in shaping textual meaning.
• The assumption that readers’ interpretations align with sociological hypotheses limits the discussion of individual interpretation, imagination, and subjective experience.
• Example: It assumes class background or social identity determines how a reader engages with a text, rather than allowing for multiple, unpredictable interpretations.

7. Neglect of Alternative Teaching Approaches

• The article focuses on integrating literature as a tool for sociological learning but does not explore alternative teaching methods such as:
  • Multimodal learning (e.g., film, digital media, visual arts).
  • Interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g., co-teaching with literature faculty).
  • Experiential and creative writing exercises beyond just sociological analysis.

1. Race as a Social Construct

• Race is not biologically real but socially constructed: Omi and Winant argue that “race is a way of making up people” (Omi & Winant, 2015, p. 105). They stress that race is an unstable and historically situated category.
• Racial categories shift over time and space: They explain how classifications imposed by the state are constantly challenged and redefined by individuals and groups (p. 106).
• Race-making is a form of “othering”: The act of racial classification is tied to broader systems of social inequality, such as gender, class, and nationality (p. 106).

2. Race as a Master Category

• Race has uniquely shaped U.S. history: The authors assert that race is a master category in American society, influencing politics, economics, and culture (p. 107).
• Intersections with class and gender: Race is deeply entangled with other forms of oppression, such as class-based exploitation and gender discrimination (p. 108).
• Origins in slavery and indigenous genocide: The conquest of indigenous lands and African enslavement formed the template for racial hierarchy in the U.S. (p. 109).

3. Racial Formation Theory

• Definition: “The sociohistorical process by which racial identities are created, lived out, transformed, and destroyed” (p. 110).
• Race is simultaneously an idea and a structure: It is both a system of classification and a set of material relationships that organize society (p. 110).
• Racialization: The process by which human bodies and social practices become racially signified (p. 111).

4. The Evolution of Racial Consciousness

• Religious to scientific racism: In the early colonial period, race was justified through religious doctrine, but later, “scientific racism” emerged to rationalize racial hierarchies (p. 113).
• From conquest to racial rule: The conquest of the Americas and the enslavement of Africans established the first large-scale racial formation projects (p. 114).
• Scientific racism persists today: Even after the decline of blatant racial pseudoscience, modern genetics, medicine, and law enforcement continue to deploy racial classifications (p. 116).

5. Racial Projects

• Definition: “A racial project is simultaneously an interpretation, representation, or explanation of racial identities and meanings, and an effort to organize and distribute resources (economic, political, cultural) along particular racial lines” (p. 125).
• Racial projects operate at all levels: They occur in government policies, media representation, and everyday interactions (p. 126).
• Competing racial projects: Racial formations are constantly contested, with some projects reinforcing racial inequality and others seeking to dismantle it (p. 127).

6. Racism as Structural Power

• Racism is more than individual prejudice: It is a system that “creates or reproduces structures of domination based on racial significations and identities” (p. 128).
• From explicit racism to “colorblindness”: The old forms of overt racism have shifted toward more subtle, institutionalized forms of racial inequality (p. 130).
• Anti-racist projects exist: Just as racist projects shape society, movements and policies can challenge racial domination (p. 130).

7. Racial Politics and Hegemony

• From racial despotism to racial democracy: The U.S. has historically functioned as a racial despotism, where whiteness defined national identity (p. 131).
• Hegemony and colorblind ideology: In the post-civil rights era, race remains a key organizing principle, but its expressions have become more coded and implicit (p. 133).
• Continued resistance: Despite shifts in racial politics, racial inequalities persist, requiring continued political engagement (p. 134).

Key Quotations with In-Text Citations

1. On race as a social construct: “Race is a concept that signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests by referring to different types of human bodies” (Omi & Winant, 2015, p. 111).
2. On the flexibility of racial categories: “No social category rises to the level of being understood as a fixed, objective, social fact” (p. 106).
3. On racial projects: “A vast web of racial projects mediates between the discursive or representational means in which race is identified and signified on the one hand, and the institutional and organizational forms in which it is routinized and standardized on the other” (p. 127).
4. On racism and power: “A racial project can be defined as racist if it creates or reproduces structures of domination based on racial significations and identities” (p. 128).
5. On the persistence of racial inequality: “The transition from racial despotism to racial democracy has been a slow, painful, and contentious one; it remains far from complete” (p. 132).

1. Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

• Destabilization of Race as a Fixed Category → Omi and Winant argue that race is not a fixed or essential identity but a constantly shifting social construct. This aligns with poststructuralist critiques of stable meaning.
  • “Race is an unstable and ‘decentered’ complex of social meanings constantly being transformed by political struggle” (p. 111).
• Race as a Signifier → Their argument that race operates as a system of signification echoes Derrida’s concept of différance, where meanings are constantly deferred.
  • “Race is a concept that signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests by referring to different types of human bodies” (p. 110).

2. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Race as a Master Narrative → Omi and Winant’s concept of racial formation supports CRT’s assertion that race structures all aspects of society, including literature.
  • “In the United States, race is a master category— a fundamental concept that has profoundly shaped, and continues to shape, the history, polity, economic structure, and culture” (p. 107).
• Racial Hegemony and Law → Their analysis of race-based legal frameworks mirrors CRT’s focus on how law perpetuates racial inequality.
  • “The ideological hegemony of colorblindness, however, is extremely contradictory and shallow. It confronts widespread resistance” (p. 130).

3. Postcolonial Theory

• Colonial Roots of Racialization → Omi and Winant’s genealogy of racialization aligns with postcolonial critiques of imperialist discourses.
  • “It was only when European explorers reached the Western Hemisphere … that the distinctions and categorizations fundamental to a racialized social structure began to appear” (p. 113).
• Hybridity and Panethnicity → Their discussion of mixed-race identities resonates with Homi Bhabha’s concept of hybridity.
  • “Perhaps at the core of intersectionality practice, as well as theory, is the ‘mixed-race’ category” (p. 108).

4. Feminist and Intersectionality Theories

• Race, Gender, and Class as Interlocking Systems → Their framework aligns with intersectionality by emphasizing how race, gender, and class shape identities.
  • “It is not possible to understand the (il)logic of any form of social stratification … without appreciating the deep, complex, comingling, interpenetration of race, class, gender, and sexuality” (p. 107).
• Racialization of Gender → Their discussion of how race shaped gender oppression mirrors feminist critiques of patriarchy’s racial dimensions.
  • “Repression of women’s autonomy, intellect, and bodily integrity was obsessive and often violent” (p. 108).

5. New Historicism

• Race as Historically Contingent → Their emphasis on the historical contingency of racial categories echoes New Historicist approaches to literature.
  • “No social category rises to the level of being understood as a fixed, objective, social fact” (p. 105).
• Race and the Archive → Their analysis of race’s legal and social codification supports New Historicism’s focus on historical texts shaping ideology.
  • “The conquest, therefore, was the first— and given the dramatic nature of the case, perhaps the greatest— racial formation project” (p. 114).

6. Cultural Studies and Media Theory

• Race as a Mediated Social Reality → Omi and Winant’s argument that race is continually reproduced through media and cultural institutions connects with cultural studies.
  • “The whole gamut of racial stereotypes testifies to the way a racialized social structure shapes racial experience and socializes racial meanings” (p. 126).
• Race and Representation → Their discussion of racial imagery aligns with Stuart Hall’s theory of encoding/decoding.
  • “Racial projects link signification and structure not only to shape policy or exercise political influence but also to organize our understandings of race as everyday ‘common sense’” (p. 127).

7. Marxist Literary Theory

• Race and Class as Intertwined → Their argument that racial formation intersects with economic structures complements Marxist analyses of class struggle.
  • “Class stratification in the United States has been profoundly affected by race and racism, and the reproduction of class inequalities is inextricably linked to the maintenance of white supremacy” (p. 107).
• Race as Ideology → Their discussion of racial hegemony aligns with Althusser’s concept of ideological state apparatuses.
  • “Race does ideological and political work” (p. 111).

8. Affect Theory and Embodiment

• Race as Lived Experience → Their focus on the corporeal and emotional dimensions of race connects with affect theory’s emphasis on embodiment.
  • “Race is often seen as a social category that is either objective or illusory … we cannot dismiss race as a legitimate category of social analysis” (p. 110).
• Implicit Bias and Racial Perception → Their discussion of implicit bias aligns with affect theory’s interest in subconscious structures of feeling.
  • “Notions of race do not only inform our conscious understanding of the social world; they also permeate our unconscious minds— shaping our perceptions and attitudes, and influencing our actions” (p. 119).

1. Overemphasis on Social Constructionism

• Critics argue that while race is socially constructed, The Theory of Racial Formation may downplay the lived realities and material consequences of race.
• Some scholars believe economic and class structures play a greater role in shaping racial hierarchies than Omi and Winant acknowledge.

2. Insufficient Engagement with Global and Transnational Perspectives

• The theory is largely U.S.-centric, focusing on American racial formation while neglecting international perspectives on race.
• Global capitalism, colonialism, and migration patterns that influence racialization are not deeply integrated into the framework.

3. Ambiguity in Defining “Racial Projects”

• The term “racial projects” is sometimes seen as too broad, making it difficult to clearly distinguish racist projects from anti-racist ones.
• The definition does not account for internal contradictions within racial projects, where movements can simultaneously reinforce and resist racial oppression.

4. Limited Intersectionality Analysis

• While Omi and Winant discuss intersectionality, some critics argue that the framework does not fully integrate gender, sexuality, and disability into racial formation.
• The interplay between race and class, particularly in capitalist structures, is not as deeply theorized as in Marxist or materialist approaches.

5. Overgeneralization of “Race as a Master Category”

• The claim that race is a “master category” shaping all aspects of U.S. society may overlook the equal or greater influence of class, gender, and capitalism in certain contexts.
• Critics question whether race is always the dominant force in oppression, rather than one of several intersecting hierarchies.

6. Lack of a Clear Political or Activist Framework

• The theory describes racial formation but does not provide strong guidance for racial justice activism or policy reform.
• Critics argue that it does not sufficiently address how power structures can be dismantled beyond recognizing them.

7. The “Colorblindness” Critique and Its Limitations

• While Omi and Winant critique colorblindness as a racial ideology, they do not fully engage with how colorblind rhetoric is institutionally enforced in policy and law.
• Some scholars suggest their analysis of post-civil rights racial politics does not adequately account for neoliberalism’s role in sustaining racial inequality.

8. Inadequate Addressing of White Supremacy as a System

• While the theory discusses white dominance in racial projects, some critics argue that it does not fully theorize white supremacy as a structured system rather than just a historical trajectory.
• Scholars in critical race theory (e.g., Derrick Bell, Charles Mills) argue that racial formation theory does not sufficiently acknowledge the permanence of white supremacy.

9. Under-theorization of Agency in Marginalized Communities

• The emphasis on racial projects as top-down (state and elite-driven) may neglect the grassroots agency of racialized communities in shaping their own racial identities.
• Omi and Winant’s approach may make it seem like racial categories are only contested within the limits set by dominant institutions, rather than through radical or transformative movements.