Introduction: “Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold
“Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold first appeared in Annual Review of Sociology in 1993 (Vol. 19, pp. 455–467). This article is a seminal work that maps the trajectory of the sociology of literature over the previous decade, examining shifts in literary studies, cultural reception, and the role of social systems in shaping literary meaning. Griswold argues that the field has evolved from a loosely connected set of insights into a more coherent discipline, emphasizing reader agency, institutional influences, and the interconnection between literature and broader social structures. She highlights the impact of Pierre Bourdieu’s theories on cultural capital and argues that contemporary studies focus not just on production but also on reception and classification. One of the key shifts she identifies is the redefinition of readers as active agents who construct meaning rather than passively consuming texts. Additionally, Griswold explores how literary institutions function as gatekeepers that either exclude or promote certain texts, shaping the literary canon and public reception. The article is significant in literary theory as it integrates sociological methodologies with literary studies, providing a framework for understanding literature as a dynamic social process. This work remains crucial for scholars interested in the intersections of literature, culture, and social structure, offering a comprehensive view of how literary production and interpretation function within broader societal networks.
Summary of “Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold
1. The Sociology of Literature as an Evolving Field
- Griswold describes the sociology of literature as an “amoeba”—a field without a firm structure, but one that has “flowed along in certain directions nevertheless” (Griswold, 1993, p. 455).
- The field has lacked central debates or clear organization, instead producing “impressive theoretical assertions” and “rich veins of research findings” (p. 455).
2. The Reader as an Active Agent
- One of the most significant shifts in literary sociology is the emphasis on the reader as a creative agent, rather than a passive recipient of texts (p. 457).
- Griswold builds on “reception aesthetics,” particularly the work of Jauss (1982), which argues that readers interpret texts through a “horizon of expectations” shaped by their experiences and backgrounds (p. 457).
- Studies show that readers’ interpretations are influenced by gender, class, and life experience (Howard & Allen, 1990), contradicting previous notions of uniform literary consumption (p. 458).
3. Literature, Cultural Capital, and Social Structure
- The study of literature has been significantly influenced by Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, which connects literary taste with social status (p. 456).
- Paul DiMaggio (1987) argues that “artistic classification” is shaped by status diversity and role structures in society, meaning that literature reflects the power dynamics of cultural systems (p. 456).
4. Institutional Influence on Literature
- Literature is shaped by institutions such as publishing houses, critics, and marketing systems, which serve as gatekeepers determining which works gain visibility (p. 461).
- Feminist scholars like Tuchman (1989) highlight how women writers were systematically excluded from literary recognition as publishers prioritized male authors for commercial gain (p. 462).
- Literary systems vary across cultures: for example, French literary culture honors public intellectuals, whereas in Nigeria, literature thrives due to the absence of state interference (Griswold, 1992, p. 463).
5. Network Analysis and Literary Systems
- Scholars use network analysis to study the connections between writers, critics, and readers (p. 464).
- Anheier & Gerhards (1991) find that literary elites function as “amorphous” groups—prominent but not cohesive, reinforcing the myth of the solitary genius (p. 464).
- Literary reviewers create a “frame of reference” for books, shaping public perception by choosing which authors to compare (Rosengren, 1983, p. 465).
6. Future Directions in the Sociology of Literature
- Identity and Literature: Griswold calls for research on how literature shapes national and ethnic identities, especially in times of political conflict (p. 465).
- Institutional and Reader-Response Integration: Studies should connect how institutions influence reading practices and interpretation (p. 465).
- Reintroducing the Author: Despite poststructuralist theories, sociologists should not ignore the role of authors in shaping literary meaning (p. 466).
- Literature vs. Other Media: Theorizing how literature differs from film, digital media, and popular culture in meaning-making is essential (p. 466).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Reference in the Article |
| Reception Aesthetics | A theory that views the reader as an active participant in creating meaning based on their experiences and expectations. | “The most significant new direction… has been the reconceptualization of readers as creative agents rather than passive recipients” (Griswold, 1993, p. 457). |
| Horizon of Expectations | Jauss’s concept that readers interpret texts based on their prior knowledge, cultural background, and experiences. | “Readers never come to a text as a blank slate but instead place it against what Jauss (1982) termed a ‘horizon of expectations'” (p. 457). |
| Implied Reader | Iser’s idea that authors shape texts with an intended audience in mind, but readers’ interpretations can differ. | “Authors will try to steer the process—every text has an ‘implied reader’ (Iser, 1974)—but cannot control it” (p. 457). |
| Cultural Capital | Bourdieu’s concept that literacy and cultural knowledge function as resources that create and maintain social distinctions. | “A sophisticated account of the uses of cultural capital to create or shore up economic capital” (p. 456). |
| Production of Culture | The approach that examines how organizational and market forces shape cultural products like literature. | “Analyzing collective production of culture may have reached its apogee in Becker’s Art Worlds (1982)” (p. 460). |
| Ritual Classification | The idea that genres and literary forms are classified based on their function in society rather than purely artistic criteria. | “DiMaggio (1987) argues that the system of artistic classification… should be understood as ‘ritual classification'” (p. 456). |
| Textual Classes | A classification system based on the reception of texts by different audiences rather than by literary merit. | “Instead of looking for the connections between social classes and literature, it makes sense to think in terms of ‘textual classes'” (p. 456). |
| Reader-Response Criticism | A literary theory that emphasizes the role of readers in interpreting texts, rather than authorial intent. | “Sociologists have embraced European ‘reception aesthetics’ as a way to understand the construction of literary meaning” (p. 457). |
| Network Analysis | A method for studying relationships among writers, critics, and literary institutions. | “Various forms of network analysis and clustering techniques have been used to map systems of literary production and reference” (p. 464). |
| Literary Gatekeeping | The process by which publishers, critics, and institutions control which works gain visibility and legitimacy. | “Tuchman (1989) studied how Victorian women writers were ‘edged out’ of their dominant authorship position” (p. 462). |
| Institutional Mediation | The role of institutions in shaping how literature is produced, circulated, and interpreted. | “Such institutions may be understood not simply as gatekeepers but as influences on the conventions through which… reading comprehension takes place” (p. 465). |
| Literary Culture | The broader societal values, practices, and institutions that shape how literature is produced and received. | “A literary culture is ‘a constellation… of mutually sustaining institutions, ideologies, symbols, and codes'” (Clark, 1987, cited on p. 463). |
| Amorphous Elite | The loosely connected yet dominant group of writers, critics, and intellectuals who influence literary production. | “At the center of the system is an elite in itself but not for itself, ‘not a group, but a set of individuals who tend to occupy unique structural positions'” (p. 464). |
| Globalization of Literature | The process by which literature increasingly interacts with other media and transcends national boundaries. | “The relationship between printed literature and other cultural forms and media… needs to be theorized and empirically examined” (p. 466). |
Contribution of “Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Reception Theory & Reader-Response Criticism
- Griswold challenges the traditional notion of passive reading and aligns with reception aesthetics, arguing that meaning is constructed by readers rather than dictated by the author.
- “The most significant new direction taken by work in the sociology of literature in the past decade has been the reconceptualization of readers as creative agents rather than passive recipients of what authors write” (Griswold, 1993, p. 457).
- Builds on Jauss’s concept of the “horizon of expectations”, which suggests that readers interpret texts based on prior knowledge and cultural background (p. 457).
- Engages with reader-response criticism by emphasizing how different audiences interact with texts based on their social positions and experiences (p. 457).
2. Cultural Capital and Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory of Literary Fields
- Extends Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital by linking literature to social stratification and status hierarchies.
- “Cultural studies made substantial advances during the 1970s and early 1980s… including a sophisticated account of the uses of cultural capital to create or shore up economic capital” (p. 456).
- Argues that literary classification (genres, canons) is a form of “ritual classification” shaped by social structures (p. 456).
- “A social system having high amounts of status diversity and complex role structures will tend to produce high degrees of generic differentiation” (p. 456).
3. Sociology of Literature & Institutional Literary Theory
- Advances the production-of-culture perspective, which focuses on how literature is shaped by economic, institutional, and market forces.
- “The sociological study of culture was permanently changed by the establishment of the production-of-culture approach, which emphasized the organizational and marketing exigencies to which any cultural product is subject” (p. 460).
- Examines the role of publishers, critics, and institutions as literary gatekeepers, determining which texts gain visibility and legitimacy (p. 461).
- Discusses gendered exclusion in literary production, citing how women writers were systematically edged out of literary recognition (p. 462).
4. Feminist Literary Criticism
- Supports feminist critiques of literary institutions, showing how female authors and readers challenge dominant literary traditions.
- “Feminist studies of women readers and women’s genres brought reception aesthetics and the new popular culture together most fruitfully” (p. 458).
- Highlights Janice Radway’s study on romance novels, which revealed how women actively engage with formulaic fiction for personal and political reasons (p. 458).
- “Women readers of formulaic romance novels, for example, whom academics formerly regarded as passive vessels… were reconfigured as agents, cultural actors making decisions and insisting on their rights” (p. 458).
5. Postmodernism and Genre Theory
- Challenges fixed genre classifications, proposing instead the idea of “textual classes”, where genres are defined by audiences rather than by literary merit (p. 456).
- “Instead of looking for the connections between social classes and literature, it makes sense to think in terms of ‘textual classes'” (p. 456).
- Supports postmodernist views on genre fluidity, where cultural texts mix and defy rigid classification (p. 456).
6. Theories of Literary Networks & Canon Formation
- Uses network analysis to understand literary influence and canon formation (p. 464).
- “Various forms of network analysis and clustering techniques have been used to map systems of literary production and reference” (p. 464).
- Supports Harold Bloom’s “anxiety of influence” theory, showing how literary elites operate in loosely connected but dominant networks (p. 464).
- “At the center of the system is an elite in itself but not for itself, ‘not a group, but a set of individuals who tend to occupy unique structural positions'” (p. 464).
7. Globalization and Media Studies
- Calls for research on the relationship between literature and other media in an increasingly globalized world (p. 466).
- “The relationship between printed literature and other cultural forms and media, especially in a context of cultural globalization, needs to be theorized and empirically examined” (p. 466).
- Suggests that literary theorists should study literature alongside digital and mass media, rather than treating it as an isolated cultural form (p. 466).
Conclusion
Griswold’s article bridges the gap between literary theory and sociology, offering insights into how literature is produced, received, and classified within broader social structures. Her work contributes to:
✔ Reception Theory & Reader-Response Criticism (reader agency, horizon of expectations)
✔ Bourdieu’s Theory of Cultural Capital (status hierarchies, ritual classification)
✔ Institutional Literary Theory (gatekeeping, market influence on literature)
✔ Feminist Literary Criticism (gendered reading practices, exclusion of female authors)
✔ Postmodernism & Genre Theory (fluid genre classifications, textual classes)
✔ Literary Networks & Canon Formation (elite networks, anxiety of influence)
✔ Globalization & Media Studies (literature’s interaction with mass media)
Examples of Critiques Through “Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold
| Literary Work | Critique Through Griswold’s Theories | Relevant Concept from Griswold (1993) |
| Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice | From a reader-response perspective, different audiences interpret Elizabeth Bennet’s defiance of gender norms based on their own cultural and social backgrounds. Feminist readers see her as an early example of agency, while traditionalists view her as ultimately conforming to marriage expectations. | Reception Aesthetics & Horizon of Expectations: “Readers never come to a text as a blank slate but instead place it against what Jauss (1982) termed a ‘horizon of expectations'” (Griswold, 1993, p. 457). |
| Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart | Examining this novel through the production-of-culture framework, its success can be linked to Western publishers seeking postcolonial African narratives to fit their canon. Achebe’s work is shaped by institutional mediation, determining its reception in both Africa and the West. | Institutional Gatekeeping: “Publishers, critics, and institutions serve as literary gatekeepers, determining which works gain visibility and legitimacy” (p. 461). |
| Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird | This novel can be analyzed through cultural capital theory, as its moral themes about race and justice make it a staple in U.S. educational systems, reinforcing social values while also reflecting racial tensions. The book’s canonization reflects its alignment with dominant ideological and educational structures. | Cultural Capital & Canon Formation: “A sophisticated account of the uses of cultural capital to create or shore up economic capital” (p. 456). |
| Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale | From a gendered reader-response perspective, feminist readers may interpret Offred’s experiences as a critique of patriarchal structures, while more conservative audiences might view it as dystopian exaggeration. The novel also reflects genre fluidity, blending speculative fiction, feminism, and political critique. | Feminist Literary Criticism & Textual Classes: “Women readers of formulaic romance novels, for example… were reconfigured as agents, cultural actors making decisions and insisting on their rights” (p. 458). |
Criticism Against “Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold
1. Lack of a Unified Theoretical Framework
- Griswold acknowledges that the sociology of literature lacks a firm structure, describing it as an “amoeba” (p. 455), but she does not offer a clear theoretical model to unify the disparate perspectives she discusses.
- Critics argue that while she reviews various approaches, she does not provide a cohesive framework for future studies.
2. Overemphasis on Reader-Response Criticism
- Although Griswold highlights the role of readers as active agents, some critics argue that she downplays the role of the text itself in shaping meaning.
- Reader-response criticism can lead to subjectivism, where any interpretation is equally valid, ignoring structural, linguistic, and formal elements of literature.
3. Limited Engagement with Poststructuralist and Deconstructionist Theories
- Griswold does not deeply engage with poststructuralist literary theory (e.g., Derrida, Foucault), which challenges the idea of stable meanings and emphasizes the fluidity of language.
- By reintroducing the author (p. 466), she contradicts poststructuralist perspectives that deconstruct the intentional fallacy, arguing that authorial intent is irrelevant.
4. Institutional Determinism in the Study of Literature
- The production-of-culture approach in Griswold’s analysis suggests that institutions (publishers, critics, educational systems) largely determine literary value and success (p. 461).
- Critics argue this approach underestimates the role of individual creativity, artistic innovation, and aesthetic merit in literature.
5. Lack of Consideration for Digital and Non-Western Literary Forms
- Although she calls for research on literature’s interaction with other media (p. 466), she does not anticipate the rise of digital literature, fan fiction, and online literary communities, which have since reshaped literary production and reception.
- Her focus remains largely on Western literary traditions, offering limited discussion on non-Western literary forms and oral traditions that do not fit her institutional models.
6. Overemphasis on Gender and Class While Neglecting Race and Intersectionality
- Griswold discusses the gendered nature of literary reception (p. 458) and how class shapes cultural capital (p. 456), but race and intersectionality receive less attention.
- Critics argue that the racial politics of literary production and canon formation (e.g., the marginalization of Black, Indigenous, and non-European writers) need more emphasis.
7. Minimal Consideration of Aesthetic and Formal Aspects of Literature
- Griswold primarily analyzes literature as a social and cultural product but does not deeply engage with narrative techniques, literary style, or poetic form.
- This approach reduces literature to a sociological artifact, potentially neglecting literary craftsmanship and artistic innovation.
Representative Quotations from “Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold with Explanation
| Quotation | Context | Explanation | Theoretical Perspective |
| “The most significant new direction taken by work in the sociology of literature in the past decade has been the reconceptualization of readers as creative agents rather than passive recipients of what authors write.” (p. 457) | Griswold discusses how recent research has focused on reader agency in meaning-making. | Challenges traditional literary criticism, which views meaning as embedded in the text, and aligns with reception aesthetics and reader-response criticism. | Reception Theory & Reader-Response Criticism |
| “Readers never come to a text as a blank slate but instead place it against what Jauss (1982) termed a ‘horizon of expectations.'” (p. 457) | Drawing on Hans Robert Jauss’s reception theory, Griswold emphasizes that readers interpret texts based on their prior knowledge, social background, and personal experiences. | Suggests that meaning is socially constructed and varies across audiences. This challenges formalist approaches that assume fixed interpretations. | Reception Aesthetics & Cultural Contexts |
| “Publishers, critics, and institutions serve as literary gatekeepers, determining which works gain visibility and legitimacy.” (p. 461) | Griswold discusses institutional influences on literature, including the role of publishers and critics in shaping literary value. | Aligns with Pierre Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory, highlighting how literary success is not just about artistic quality but also about power structures and market forces. | Institutional Literary Theory & Canon Formation |
| “A sophisticated account of the uses of cultural capital to create or shore up economic capital.” (p. 456) | Discussing Bourdieu’s cultural capital concept and its impact on literary consumption and social status. | Literature is not just aesthetic but a tool of social distinction. Access to literature (e.g., highbrow vs. lowbrow) reflects class hierarchies. | Bourdieu’s Theory of Cultural Capital |
| “Women readers of formulaic romance novels, for example… were reconfigured as agents, cultural actors making decisions and insisting on their rights.” (p. 458) | Referring to Janice Radway’s feminist literary study of women’s engagement with romance novels. | Challenges the elitist dismissal of popular literature. Women actively negotiate and subvert patriarchal narratives, rather than passively consuming them. | Feminist Literary Criticism & Reader Agency |
| “Instead of looking for the connections between social classes and literature, it makes sense to think in terms of ‘textual classes.'” (p. 456) | Griswold critiques traditional Marxist approaches that link literature strictly to social class. | Argues that literature should be analyzed based on audience reception and genre classification rather than just class struggle. | Genre Theory & Postmodernism |
| “Various forms of network analysis and clustering techniques have been used to map systems of literary production and reference.” (p. 464) | Discussing how sociologists use network analysis to study literary production. | Moves beyond individual author analysis and examines literary influence and canon formation as a social system. | Network Analysis in Literary Sociology |
| “The relationship between printed literature and other cultural forms and media, especially in a context of cultural globalization, needs to be theorized and empirically examined.” (p. 466) | Griswold calls for literary studies to engage with globalization and media studies. | Anticipates the rise of digital literature and interdisciplinary cultural studies, though she does not explore them deeply. | Globalization & Media Studies |
| “At the center of the system is an elite in itself but not for itself, ‘not a group, but a set of individuals who tend to occupy unique structural positions.'” (p. 464) | Discussing literary elite networks, drawing on Bourdieu’s field theory. | Suggests that the canon is shaped by a loose but powerful elite, rather than by collective artistic merit alone. | Canon Formation & Literary Elites |
| “Sociologists should rediscover that forgotten soul, the author, who has been deconstructed into oblivion.” (p. 466) | Griswold critiques poststructuralist approaches, particularly Barthes’ “death of the author”. | Calls for balanced attention to authors’ agency, rather than solely focusing on readers and institutions. | Authorial Intent & Literary Sociology |
Suggested Readings: “Recent Moves In The Sociology Of Literature” by Wendy Griswold
- Griswold, Wendy. “Recent moves in the sociology of literature.” Annual review of sociology 19.1 (1993): 455-467.
- Griswold, Wendy. “Recent Moves in the Sociology of Literature.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 19, 1993, pp. 455–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083396. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.
- Eastwood, Jonathan. “Bourdieu, Flaubert, and the Sociology of Literature.” Sociological Theory, vol. 25, no. 2, 2007, pp. 149–69. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20453073. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.
- Noble, Trevor. “Sociology and Literature.” The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 27, no. 2, 1976, pp. 211–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/590028. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.