“Sociology and Literature: Theories for Cultural Criticism” by Alice Templeton: Summary and Critique

Cultural Criticism and Its Expansion Beyond Literary Studies

Templeton highlights the increasing role of cultural criticism in literary studies, where literature is no longer viewed in isolation but within its broader social and ideological contexts (Templeton, 1992, p. 19). She emphasizes that this shift challenges traditional pedagogical approaches and forces educators to reconsider how they connect social critique with social transformation. However, many teachers struggle with making this shift meaningful, as their practice may still resemble traditional sociological themes rather than active cultural critique (Templeton, 1992, p. 20).

Key Characteristics of Cultural Criticism

According to Templeton, cultural criticism has three defining qualities:

1. Interdisciplinary Approach – Cultural criticism integrates insights from sociology, history, psychology, and anthropology to create a holistic understanding of literature’s social functions (Templeton, 1992, p. 21).
2. Rejection of High vs. Low Culture – Cultural critics do not distinguish between “high” literature and “popular” culture. Instead, they recognize that all texts both reinforce and challenge dominant ideologies, depending on how they are received by audiences (Nehring, 1990, p. 236).
3. Political Engagement – Cultural criticism is deeply tied to power structures and social transformation, seeking to expose and challenge injustices related to race, class, and gender (Templeton, 1992, p. 22).

Challenges in Teaching Cultural Criticism

Templeton argues that while teachers aim to foster critical thinking and liberation from social norms, they often encounter obstacles. A key issue is the perceived inevitability of cultural injustices such as racism, sexism, and classism, which are so prevalent in literature that they may appear natural rather than constructed (Templeton, 1992, p. 23). This can lead to deterministic readings that fail to empower students to envision alternatives.

The Three Models of Sociology and Literature

Templeton categorizes traditional approaches to the relationship between sociology and literature into three distinct models:

1. Sociology Through Literature
   • This approach uses literary works to illustrate sociological concepts such as alienation, social stratification, and gender roles (Templeton, 1992, p. 24).
   • However, it often reduces literature to a mere reflection of society, stripping it of its critical and aesthetic power (Templeton, 1992, p. 25).
   • Textbooks promoting this approach, such as Sociology Through Literature: An Introductory Reader, assume literature is transparent social evidence (Coser, 1972, p. xv).
   • The risk of this model is that it can lead to static, ahistorical interpretations that fail to recognize the shifting nature of meaning and ideology (Templeton, 1992, p. 26).
2. The Sociology of Literature
   • This approach considers how literature is produced and received within a historical and social context (Templeton, 1992, p. 27).
   • Raymond Williams emphasizes that literature can bring readers to an awareness of the structures shaping society (Williams, 1980, p. 24).
   • Terry Eagleton expands on this by arguing that literature does not merely reflect ideology but actively participates in its formation, offering contradictions and gaps that can be critically examined (Eagleton, 1978, p. 89).
   • While more nuanced than “sociology through literature,” this model can still fall into determinism, treating culture as historically determined rather than allowing room for individual interpretation and agency (Templeton, 1992, p. 28).
3. Sociology and Literature as Linguistic and Interpretive Practices
   • This approach is rooted in poststructuralist and hermeneutic theory, emphasizing language as the foundation of both literary meaning and social reality (Templeton, 1992, p. 29).
   • Hans-Georg Gadamer and Anthony Giddens argue that social reality itself is linguistically constructed, making literary interpretation analogous to social meaning-making (Gadamer, 1976, p. 35; Giddens, 1976, p. 155).
   • Jacques Derrida and feminist theorists argue that language masks ideology, making critical interpretation necessary for exposing power structures (Derrida, 1978, p. 278).
   • This perspective allows literature to function as an open site of resistance and reinterpretation, offering new possibilities for social critique and change (Templeton, 1992, p. 30).

The Role of the Reader in Cultural Criticism

Templeton highlights the importance of active readership in resisting deterministic interpretations. She draws on Judith Fetterley’s idea of the resisting reader, who critically engages with texts rather than passively accepting their ideological messages (Fetterley, 1978, p. 9). Similarly, Pierre Macherey and Fredric Jameson emphasize the need to interrogate what the text does not say, exposing ideological silences (Macherey, 1978, p. 124; Jameson, 1971, p. 12).

Conclusion: Literature as a Cultural Force

Templeton concludes that cultural criticism must go beyond merely describing literature’s social function; it must encourage readers to see literature as an active cultural force (Templeton, 1992, p. 30). By focusing on how texts are used, rather than merely what they say, cultural critics can empower readers to challenge dominant ideologies and imagine alternative social possibilities. This makes cultural criticism a political act—one that fosters liberation rather than reinforcing deterministic worldviews (Templeton, 1992, p. 30).

1. Cultural Criticism and Interdisciplinary Literary Studies

• Expands Literary Criticism Beyond Traditional Boundaries
  Templeton aligns with cultural criticism by arguing that literature must be studied within its social, ideological, and political contexts rather than as an isolated aesthetic object (Templeton, 1992, p. 19).
• Literature as a Cultural Practice
  She reinforces the idea that literature is not merely a reflection of reality but an active cultural force that both shapes and is shaped by society (Templeton, 1992, p. 21).
• Rejecting Hierarchical Divisions in Literature
  By rejecting distinctions between “high” and “low” literature, Templeton challenges elitist literary canons, echoing arguments from cultural studies theorists like Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall (Templeton, 1992, p. 22).
• Emphasizing Political Commitment in Literary Studies
  Following Richard Johnson and José David Saldívar, she asserts that cultural criticism must be politically engaged, advocating for literature’s role in challenging oppression based on race, class, and gender (Templeton, 1992, p. 22).

2. Sociology of Literature

• Critique of Sociology Through Literature
  Templeton critiques the approach of using literature as mere sociological evidence, as seen in textbooks like Sociology Through Literature by Lewis Coser (Templeton, 1992, p. 24). She argues that this approach oversimplifies literature’s role, reducing it to a passive reflection of society rather than an active site of meaning-making.
• Reinforcing the Sociology of Literature’s Historical Contextualization
  She builds on Raymond Williams’ claim that literature reveals the historical development of social structures and ideology, emphasizing that texts cannot be understood in isolation from their historical moments (Templeton, 1992, p. 27).
• Acknowledging Literature’s Role in Ideological Production
  Drawing from Terry Eagleton, Templeton emphasizes that literature is not just an ideological product but a site of ideological struggle, where dominant and oppositional discourses interact (Templeton, 1992, p. 27-28).

3. Poststructuralism and Literary Theory

• Language as a Social Construct
  Templeton supports poststructuralist critiques of representation, arguing that meaning in literature is not fixed but constructed through language and interpretation (Templeton, 1992, p. 29). She cites Jacques Derrida’s idea that language is always unstable, making literature a contested ideological space.
• The Role of the Reader in Meaning-Making
  Templeton aligns with reader-response criticism, particularly Judith Fetterley’s resisting reader, by emphasizing that readers actively shape textual meaning rather than passively absorb it (Templeton, 1992, p. 30).
• Interpreting Silences and Ideological Gaps
  Drawing from Pierre Macherey, she highlights the importance of analyzing what is left unsaid in texts, as these gaps reveal the limitations of ideology (Templeton, 1992, p. 30).
• Metacommentary and Ideological Critique
  She incorporates Fredric Jameson’s metacommentary, which suggests that even the absence of interpretation within a text is itself an ideological act that should be critically examined (Templeton, 1992, p. 30).

4. Hermeneutics and Critical Pedagogy

• Hermeneutics of Suspicion
  Templeton draws on Hans-Georg Gadamer and Anthony Giddens to argue that meaning is not inherent in texts but shaped by social and linguistic structures, aligning her work with hermeneutic theory (Templeton, 1992, p. 29).
• Teaching Literature as a Political Act
  She argues that literature professors should teach students how to critically read texts, making them aware of how literature constructs and challenges power relations (Templeton, 1992, p. 30).
• Engaging Students in Critical Inquiry
  Templeton suggests that literature should be taught as a cultural force rather than as a deterministic reflection of the past, echoing Paulo Freire’s notion of critical consciousness (Templeton, 1992, p. 30).

Conclusion: Templeton’s Theoretical Influence

Alice Templeton’s “Sociology and Literature: Theories for Cultural Criticism” is a foundational work in cultural literary studies, bridging sociology, literary theory, and poststructuralism. Her contributions reinforce:

• Cultural criticism’s interdisciplinary nature
• The sociology of literature’s emphasis on historical and ideological analysis
• Poststructuralism’s rejection of fixed meanings in texts
• The hermeneutic approach to interpretation and pedagogy

1. Overemphasis on Ideology at the Expense of Aesthetic Value

• Templeton’s approach places heavy emphasis on literature as an ideological product, often sidelining its aesthetic and artistic qualities.
• This aligns with Terry Eagleton’s view that literary meaning is shaped by ideology, but critics argue that reducing literature to political messaging ignores its formal, stylistic, and emotional impact.

2. Tendency Toward Determinism

• Although Templeton criticizes deterministic readings in sociology through literature, her focus on literature as a cultural force tied to ideology risks reinforcing determinism (Templeton, 1992, p. 28).
• Critics argue that reader agency and individual interpretation are sometimes downplayed in favor of structural forces shaping meaning.

3. Overgeneralization of Cultural Criticism’s Political Role

• Templeton aligns with cultural studies scholars like Richard Johnson and José David Saldívar, arguing that literature should actively challenge oppression (Templeton, 1992, p. 22).
• However, some scholars argue that not all literature serves a political function, and forcing texts into ideological frameworks may oversimplify their interpretative possibilities.

4. Rejection of Canonical Hierarchies Without Nuanced Evaluation

• Templeton rejects distinctions between “high” and “low” literature, arguing that popular culture can be just as ideologically significant as canonical works (Templeton, 1992, p. 22).
• Critics argue that while this is a valuable perspective, it risks ignoring the literary merits and historical importance of canonical texts in favor of an entirely ideological reading.

5. Reliance on Poststructuralism Without Addressing Its Limits

• Templeton adopts poststructuralist critiques of language, arguing that meaning is constructed through interpretation (Templeton, 1992, p. 29).
• However, critics argue that poststructuralism’s rejection of stable meaning can lead to relativism, making it difficult to assert literature’s transformative power if all meanings are equally valid.

6. Insufficient Engagement with Reader-Response Theory

• While Templeton acknowledges the role of the reader, she focuses more on institutionalized ideology and historical context.
• Critics argue that reader-response theory (e.g., Stanley Fish’s interpretive communities) could have been more integrated to balance structural and individual interpretations.