“Sociology and Literature” by Trevor Noble: Summary and Critique

1. Marxist Literary Theory

• Critique of Reflection Theory: Noble critiques the Marxist view that literature merely reflects economic and social structures, arguing that such a model is overly simplistic and mechanistic.
  • “The image of man as the mirror of society is persuasive but enigmatic. Reflection remains an image, it does not become a concept.” (Noble, 1976, p. 214)
• Dialectical Relationship Between Literature and Society: Noble suggests that literature does not merely mirror society but exists in a dialectical relationship with it, influencing and being influenced by historical and social forces.
  • “In the modern (capitalist) world literary work is no longer a reflection but exists in a dialectical relationship with the collective consciousness of the bourgeoisie.” (Noble, 1976, p. 217)
• Critique of Class Reductionism: He argues that Marxist approaches often fail to explain why authors from similar social classes produce different literary responses to the same historical conditions.
  • “The failure to explicate the connection between literary work and its social context in other than superficial terms is an important limitation of the Marxian perspective.” (Noble, 1976, p. 214)

2. Structuralist and Genetic Structuralist Theory

• Questioning Structural Homology: Noble critiques Lucien Goldmann’s idea that literature and social structures share an underlying homologous relationship, arguing that such an approach lacks methodological rigor.
  • “The notion of structural homology is an improvement on that of reflection only in being less obviously unhelpful.” (Noble, 1976, p. 214)
• Need for Empirical Verification: He asserts that genetic structuralist claims about literary form and social consciousness need systematic empirical validation rather than remaining speculative.
  • “Few of the extant theoretical discussions in the sociology of literature will stand up to this treatment… they are vague at crucial points.” (Noble, 1976, p. 212)

3. Reader-Response Theory

• Literary Interpretation as a Socially Constructed Process: Noble aligns with aspects of Reader-Response Theory by emphasizing that readers’ interpretations are shaped by their social backgrounds and preoccupations.
  • “Respondents’ idiosyncratic reaction to books shows the influence of fiction is not a question of a simple acceptance or rejection of the author’s views.” (Noble, 1976, p. 221)
• Reading as a Social Activity: He reinforces the view that reading is not a purely individual act but a communicative, social process influenced by collective experiences.
  • “Each and every literary fact presupposes a writer, a book, and a reader; or, in general terms, an author, a product, and a public.” (Noble, 1976, p. 213)

4. Critical Sociology of Literature

• Critique of Elitism in Literary Sociology: Noble challenges the tendency of literary sociologists to focus on high-culture or avant-garde literature while ignoring popular fiction and mass readership.
  • “Most of the sociological theories of literature currently available involve an aesthetic and (perhaps therefore) social stance which is at least elitist.” (Noble, 1976, p. 220)
• Call for a More Inclusive Approach: He argues that a sociological study of literature should incorporate diverse literary forms, including popular romance, thrillers, and mass media texts.
  • “The avant-garde is only to be understood sociologically in the context of the just milieu, of the popular romance, the thriller, and then perhaps in the twentieth century only in relation to the mass media too.” (Noble, 1976, p. 220)

5. Phenomenology and Literary Hermeneutics

• Critique of Idealist and Subjective Approaches: Noble challenges phenomenological readings of literature that focus solely on the personal experience of reading without considering the broader social structures that shape interpretation.
  • “Sociological approaches to literature are therefore likely to prove illuminating, other than by accident, only to the extent that they deal with its social aspects.” (Noble, 1976, p. 213)
• Literature as Role-Playing and Social Navigation: Drawing from Erving Goffman’s sociological theories, Noble suggests that reading fiction can be understood as a kind of role performance where readers rehearse social behaviors.
  • “The exploration of social formations at the level of role rehearsal and role performance should permit us to distinguish the structural contexts operative in a preference.” (Noble, 1976, p. 221)

6. Poststructuralist and Cultural Studies Approaches

• Rejection of Fixed Literary Meaning: Noble anticipates poststructuralist concerns about the instability of meaning by arguing that literature’s significance changes depending on the reader’s social context.
  • “Different people read or like different books and are likely to feel differently or even perceive different things in the same book.” (Noble, 1976, p. 220)
• Critique of Universalist Literary Theories: He warns against literary theories that claim universal applicability without accounting for the diversity of readers and literary traditions.
  • “We must locate our theoretical account at the nexus of individual experience and action and the structural circumstances which shape that experience.” (Noble, 1976, p. 220)

1. Lack of Concrete Empirical Research

• While Noble criticizes existing sociological approaches for lacking empirical validation, his own work remains largely theoretical.
  • “Few of the extant theoretical discussions in the sociology of literature will stand up to this treatment… they are vague at crucial points.” (Noble, 1976, p. 212)
• He calls for empirical testing but does not provide a structured methodology for conducting such research.

2. Overgeneralization in Critiques of Literary Theories

• Noble critiques Marxist, structuralist, and aesthetic approaches but does not fully acknowledge their contributions to understanding literature.
  • His dismissal of reflection theory as “mechanistic” (p. 214) overlooks nuanced interpretations that account for literature’s complex relationship with ideology.
• He tends to group multiple theorists together without deeply engaging with individual arguments (e.g., Lukács, Goldmann, and Zeraffa are treated broadly).

3. Ambiguity in His Proposed Alternative Approach

• Noble suggests a sociology of literature that integrates diverse works and empirical methods but does not outline a clear theoretical framework.
  • “A satisfactory model for the sociology of literature must accommodate theories which attempt not merely to discover but to explain the relation between the fictional and the mundane experience of its authors and readers.” (p. 221)
• His approach remains more of a critique of existing theories than a fully developed alternative.

4. Downplays the Role of Individual Creativity

• While advocating for a sociological approach, Noble does not sufficiently address the role of individual artistic creativity in shaping literature.
  • His emphasis on literature as a communicative process (p. 213) risks reducing artistic expression to a social function.
• This aligns him more with sociological determinism, potentially ignoring the subjective and psychological aspects of literary production.

5. Underestimates the Value of High Literature in Sociological Analysis

• Noble argues against an elitist focus on avant-garde literature (p. 220) but does not fully acknowledge why high literature has been a primary focus in literary sociology.
  • While inclusivity is important, the argument that mass-market literature should receive equal attention does not account for differences in cultural influence and literary innovation.

6. Lack of Engagement with Reader-Response Theory

• While Noble touches on the relationship between reader, text, and author (p. 213), he does not fully explore how literary meaning is co-constructed by readers.
  • His analysis could have benefited from engaging with reader-response theorists like Wolfgang Iser or Stanley Fish.