“Sociology of Knowledge and the Sociology of Literature” by John C. Tulloch: Summary and Critique

1. The Sociology of Literature and its Development

Tulloch (1976) begins by addressing the underdeveloped state of the sociology of literature, despite Lucien Goldmann’s significant contributions. He notes that while Goldmann’s Le Dieu Caché laid an empirical foundation for this field, it has not been widely extended or tested through major case studies. Recent contributions, he argues, have largely ignored the potential of Goldmann’s theories, dismissing them as reductionist and overly general (Tulloch, 1976, p. 198).

“It is surely premature for sociologists of literature to forget [Goldmann]. There is little doubt that the ‘worldview’ approach has itself been unnecessarily reductionist, particularly in its neglect of artistic conventions” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 198).

Despite criticism, Tulloch sees value in Goldmann’s dialectical approach, which links literature to broader social structures, and argues that greater sophistication is needed rather than outright dismissal.

2. The Relationship Between the Sociology of Knowledge and Literature

Tulloch connects the sociology of literature to the sociology of knowledge, particularly the work of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. He argues that literary production should be understood within a broader framework of how social reality is constructed.

“The point of relevance of all this for a sociology of literature is, of course, obvious; if ‘all societies are constructions in the face of chaos,’ this gives the myth-maker a highly prestigious role” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 199).

Berger and Luckmann’s concept of reification—the process by which social structures are seen as objective realities rather than human constructions—is particularly useful in analyzing literature’s role in shaping and challenging worldviews.

3. The Role of Intellectuals and Literature as Counter-Expertise

Tulloch builds on Berger and Luckmann’s idea that intellectuals are often “experts whose expertise is not wanted by the society at large” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 200). Writers, he argues, often serve as counter-experts, questioning dominant ideologies and offering alternative realities.

“Intellectuals, as Berger and Luckmann define them, are the ‘experts whose expertise is not wanted by the society at large,’ counter-experts ‘in the business of defining reality'” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 200).

This argument positions literature as a form of counter-knowledge that can challenge dominant ideological frameworks and introduce de-reification—where established norms and beliefs are questioned.

4. The Importance of Social Marginality in Literary Innovation

A key concept in the sociology of literature is social marginality. Tulloch argues that many significant literary works emerge from socially marginal groups who are in the process of losing their previously privileged status.

“Social marginality and consequent restructuring of concepts of reality is central to Goldmann’s analysis of a displaced privilege group, the noblesse de robe, and the tragic vision of Pascal and Racine in seventeenth-century France” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 201).

Drawing on Goldmann and others, he illustrates how displacement and marginalization create the conditions for innovative literary production.

5. The Interplay of Primary and Secondary Socialization in Literary Production

Tulloch highlights how writers are shaped by both primary (family and early life) and secondary (institutional) socialization. He uses Anton Chekhov as an example, showing how his background as a doctor influenced his literary themes.

“For Chekhov as a writer, however, no such plausibility structure existed. I have analyzed in some detail Chekhov’s constant search for a literary reference group” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 204).

Chekhov’s struggle to find a reference group led to a literary approach that continually questioned dominant norms, producing works that reflected tensions between personal identity and social structures.

6. The Problem of Artistic Authenticity

Tulloch extends Goldmann’s insights by discussing artistic authenticity. He contrasts doctors in Chekhov’s stories—who are depicted as either authentic reformers or inauthentic conformists—with writers, who struggle with authenticity.

“Whereas doctors who make clearly inauthentic choices… are usually portrayed extremely unsympathetically, artists who seek authenticity and yet make the wrong choice… are generally portrayed less dogmatically” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 206).

This highlights the unique pressures faced by writers, who operate without stable institutional backing, making their quest for authenticity more precarious.

7. The Role of Death and Existential Themes in Literature

Tulloch discusses how Chekhov’s portrayal of death reflects deeper existential concerns, linking this to Goldmann’s idea that great literature organizes antagonistic elements into a coherent whole.

“It is no coincidence that Chekhov wrote his greatest portrayal of the inauthenticity of death, in the context of a wasted medical role, at precisely the time Nikolai died” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 205).

By showing how existential anxieties shape literary narratives, Tulloch underscores the deep connections between personal experience and artistic creation.

8. Literature as a Site of Ideological Struggle

Finally, Tulloch argues that literature plays a crucial role in ideological struggle. It can either reinforce dominant ideologies or serve as a space for critique and transformation.

“Only then can we examine more adequately another aspect of the dialectic—the institutionalization and transmission of literature” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 207).

By analyzing how literary works are produced, received, and reinterpreted, he suggests that sociology can offer important insights into cultural and ideological processes.

1. Worldview Theory (Lucien Goldmann)

• Tulloch extends and critiques Goldmann’s “worldview” approach, which argues that literature reflects the collective consciousness of a social group or class.
• He acknowledges that Goldmann’s work remains valuable but argues that it has been underdeveloped in empirical studies.
• Reference: “There is little doubt that the ‘worldview’ approach has itself been unnecessarily reductionist, particularly in its neglect of artistic conventions.” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 198)

2. Sociology of Knowledge and Literature (Berger & Luckmann)

• Tulloch applies Berger and Luckmann’s theory of the social construction of reality to literary studies, arguing that literature both reflects and constructs social reality.
• Literature functions as a symbolic universe that helps societies make sense of chaos.
• Reference: “If ‘all societies are constructions in the face of chaos,’ this gives the myth-maker a highly prestigious role.” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 199)

3. Reification and De-Reification (Marxist and Critical Theory)

• Literature as a tool for de-reification: Tulloch highlights how literature can challenge reified social structures by presenting alternative realities.
• He builds on Marxist theory, particularly in its focus on how literature mediates between individual consciousness and broader social structures.
• Reference: “The sociologist ignores the individually creative and historically specific aspect of things at the risk of reification.” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 199)

4. Institutional Theory of Literature

• Tulloch explores the role of institutions in shaping literature, including universities, publishers, and media.
• He critiques the institutionalization of literary criticism, arguing that literary meaning is shaped by professional ideologies and social structures.
• Reference: “Deviant and de-reifying views may be habitualized, defused, in their turn in a variety of ways by inadequate re-working of language conventions on the part of the author himself, by a re-working of the text in production according to a competing sub-system of values.” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 207)

5. Social Marginality and Literary Innovation (Sociological Approach to Literary Change)

• Tulloch emphasizes that literary innovation often arises from socially marginal groups, aligning with theories of cultural production.
• He applies this to Chekhov, showing how his social marginality as a doctor and writer shaped his literary themes.
• Reference: “Social marginality and consequent restructuring of concepts of reality is central to Goldmann’s analysis.” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 201)

6. Artistic Authenticity and Aesthetic Tension (Aesthetic and Literary Criticism)

• Tulloch builds on Goldmann’s concept of aesthetic coherence, showing how literature balances structure and disorder.
• He argues that literary authenticity is shaped by social and institutional constraints.
• Reference: “Goldmann suggested that it should be possible to bring to light the ‘antagonistic elements of the work which the structured vision must overcome and organize’.” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 205)

7. Role of Intellectuals in Literature (Bourdieu’s Field Theory & Counter-Experts)

• Tulloch’s concept of writers as “counter-experts” aligns with Bourdieu’s theory of the literary field, where intellectuals challenge dominant ideologies.
• Writers act as producers of counter-discourses against dominant social norms.
• Reference: “Intellectuals, as Berger and Luckmann define them, are the ‘experts whose expertise is not wanted by the society at large,’ counter-experts ‘in the business of defining reality’.” (Tulloch, 1976, p. 200)