Introduction: “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt
“Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt first appeared in Teaching Sociology in January 1991 (Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-12), published by the American Sociological Association. The article explores the integration of sociological theory and literary analysis in a course designed to examine the sociology of literature while using literary texts as a pedagogical tool. Hegtvedt outlines how literature both reflects and influences society, emphasizing two primary approaches: the sociology of literature, which studies literature as a social product, and sociology through literature, which uses fictional works to illustrate sociological theories and concepts. By incorporating novels such as Pride and Prejudice, Père Goriot, and The Jungle, the course engages students in analyzing literary texts through sociological lenses, focusing on themes like social stratification, power dynamics, and cultural production. Hegtvedt further demonstrates how literature’s consumption, critical reception, and market forces shape both literary meaning and social structures. The significance of the article lies in its interdisciplinary approach, which highlights the reciprocal relationship between literature and society, encouraging students to adopt both sociological and literary perspectives in their critical analysis. By integrating active learning methods, including in-class writing assignments and comparative textual analysis, Hegtvedt’s course fosters a deeper understanding of both literary theory and sociological inquiry.
Summary of “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt
Main Ideas
- 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).
- Theoretical Foundations
- The course acknowledges two dominant trends in sociological studies of literature:
- The systematic, scientific study of literature as a social process.
- 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).
- The course acknowledges two dominant trends in sociological studies of literature:
- Sociology’s Relationship with Literature
- Three perspectives on how literature interacts with society:
- Literature reflects society.
- Literature influences society.
- 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).
- Three perspectives on how literature interacts with society:
- 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).
- 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).
- Teaching Literature to Illustrate Sociological Concepts
- Five novels are used in the course to illustrate various sociological issues:
- Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen) – social perception and gender roles.
- Père Goriot (Honoré de Balzac) – social stratification and power.
- Hard Times (Charles Dickens) – capitalism and industrialization.
- The Jungle (Upton Sinclair) – social problems and reform.
- White Noise (Don DeLillo) – modern life and media influence.
- “Literary pieces for this course exemplify underlying circumstances and consequences of the social production and consumption of literature” (p. 6).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt
| Theoretical Concept/Term | Definition/Explanation | Quotation (In-Text Citation) |
| Sociology of Literature | The study of literature as a social institution, analyzing the production, distribution, and consumption of literature. | “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). |
| Sociology through Literature | The use of fictional works to teach sociological concepts and theories. | “The second trend, appropriately characterized as sociology through literature, pertains to the use of literature—fiction in particular—as a tool in teaching sociological theory and concepts” (p. 1). |
| Reflection Hypothesis | The idea that literature mirrors societal values, structures, and issues. | “One approach to this interaction is to focus on how literature affects individuals as well as organizations and is affected by them” (p. 2). |
| Influence Hypothesis | The idea that literature shapes and influences society by reinforcing or challenging social norms. | “Although consumption patterns reflect society, it is through consumption that literature is most likely to influence society and to exert social control” (p. 7). |
| Social Control Function of Literature | The perspective that literature maintains or justifies the social order, reinforcing cultural norms. | “Literature functions to maintain or justify the social order, and in effect exerts social control” (p. 2). |
| External Structural Approach | Analyzes literature by examining the broader sociohistorical context that influences its creation and distribution. | “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). |
| Postmodernism in Sociology & Literature | A perspective that questions objective meanings and emphasizes multiple interpretations of texts and social phenomena. | “The integration of trends in ‘postmodern’ literary criticism and sociological endeavors, however, is growing more evident” (p. 3). |
| Role Theory | The study of how individuals perform different roles in society, such as the role of authors, critics, and readers in the literary world. | “Concepts and principles of role theory are useful in analyzing the relationships among publishers, authors, and critics” (p. 4). |
| Cultural Capital & Social Stratification | The idea that literature is shaped by social hierarchies and that access to literary works and cultural knowledge is unequally distributed. | “Questions similar to those regarding the production of literary works arise with regard to consumption… the sociohistorical context influences who reads, what is available to read, and what reading selections individuals make” (p. 7). |
| Reception Theory | A perspective that emphasizes how readers interpret literature differently based on their own social backgrounds and experiences. | “Readers’ tastes, political or cultural orientations, and their background characteristics affect their reception and interpretation of fictional works” (p. 7). |
| Hermeneutics | A method of literary and sociological interpretation that considers historical and cultural contexts in understanding texts. | “This approach involves the analyses of differences between the ‘horizons’ of the reader and of the text” (p. 8). |
| Structuralism | A theoretical framework that examines literature as a system governed by linguistic and cultural structures. | “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” (p. 4). |
| Deconstructionism | A poststructuralist approach that reveals internal contradictions in texts, questioning fixed meanings. | “Deconstructionism involves demonstrating the internal instability and uncontrollability of language and meaning” (p. 5). |
| Canonization in Literature | The process by which certain literary works are granted elite status and deemed culturally significant. | “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). |
| Cultural Object Theory | A framework for analyzing cultural products (such as literature) in relation to the social conditions of their production and consumption. | “The growing body of work in the sociology of culture provides recognition of the uniqueness of a cultural object—its artistic element—while maintaining the generality of the literary processes and structures” (p. 3). |
| Gatekeeping in Publishing | The role of publishers and critics in determining which literary works reach an audience. | “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). |
Contribution of “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt to Literary Theory/Theories
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).
- 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).
Examples of Critiques Through “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt
| Literary Work | Sociological Critique | Literary Critique | Reference from Hegtvedt’s Article |
| Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen, 1813) | – Examines gender roles and how women’s social standing is dependent on marriage and class. – Explores social stratification in early 19th-century England. – Highlights the role of women as readers and consumers of literature in that era. | – Reflects realism with its focus on social manners and individual agency. – Characters serve as vehicles for social commentary on class and marriage. | > “Nineteenth-century female writers … Reading audiences … Social perception and developing meanings” (p. 9). |
| Père Goriot (Honoré de Balzac, 1835) | – Highlights economic mobility and power relations in 19th-century French society. – Examines role expectations in a capitalist structure where social success is prioritized. – Shows the impact of social change on individual morality. | – A realist novel depicting the brutal realities of Parisian life. – Demonstrates how literature reflects social and economic structures. | > “Power and dependence: Literary role relations” (p. 9). |
| Hard Times (Charles Dickens, 1854) | – Critiques capitalism and industrial society, showing class struggles and labor exploitation. – Explores the power of publishing and serialization in shaping public consciousness. – Examines utilitarianism’s effect on education and social values. | – Uses allegory and satire to criticize industrialism. – A realist critique of Victorian England, portraying economic inequalities. | > “Victorian publishing … Utilitarianism and literature … Capitalism and publishing” (p. 9). |
| The Jungle (Upton Sinclair, 1906) | – Examines capitalism, labor exploitation, and class struggle in industrial America. – Demonstrates how literature influences policy and social reform, as it contributed to labor laws. – Highlights the role of fiction in exposing social problems. | – A naturalist novel, emphasizing grim realism. – Functions as propaganda literature advocating for socialism. | > “Markets and hierarchies: Twentieth-century publishing … Social problems and fiction” (p. 9). |
Criticism Against “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt
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.
Representative Quotations from “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “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) | Hegtvedt describes her course framework, emphasizing a sociological lens focused on how literature is produced and consumed within society. This aligns with structuralist approaches in literary theory. |
| “Literature both reflects and influences society, and in effect exerts social control.” (p. 2) | This reflects Marxist literary theory, where literature is seen as both a product of social structures and an ideological tool that shapes societal norms. |
| “The integration of trends in ‘postmodern’ literary criticism and sociological endeavors, however, is growing more evident.” (p. 3) | She acknowledges the increasing intersection between postmodernism and sociology, particularly through figures like Baudrillard and Lyotard, who blur disciplinary boundaries. |
| “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. 4) | This aligns with structural-functionalism, viewing literature as part of a system that both reflects and reinforces social hierarchies. |
| “Scholarly consumption and interpretations of fictional works rely upon specific methodological tools and theoretical frameworks.” (p. 5) | She emphasizes how academic disciplines use methodologies like semiotics, hermeneutics, and deconstruction to analyze literature beyond simple textual readings. |
| “A reader’s horizon, stemming from his or her own sociocultural environment, defines the criteria used to judge a text.” (p. 6) | This reference to Gadamer’s hermeneutics suggests that interpretation is shaped by the reader’s background, reinforcing reader-response criticism. |
| “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. 7) | Hegtvedt outlines a key structuralist position (e.g., Saussure, Barthes) that meaning is shaped by cultural codes rather than individual intent. |
| “Poststructural perspectives emphasize the multiple meanings inherent in texts, thereby denying the possibility of a singular, objective, or universal reading of any text.” (p. 8) | This aligns with deconstruction (Derrida), which challenges stable meanings and embraces textual instability. |
| “The end result is a probing of the authors’ potential motives and of the constraints placed upon them in given sociohistorical conditions.” (p. 9) | She emphasizes historical materialism in literature, arguing that authors’ works are shaped by their sociopolitical contexts. |
| “The integration of deductive explanations of the social production and consumption of literature with an inductive approach that involves examples, images, and symbols of society as represented in fictional works.” (p. 10) | Hegtvedt argues for an interdisciplinary approach that blends sociological theory and literary analysis, bridging the two disciplines. |
Suggested Readings: “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature” by Karen A. Hegtvedt
- Hegtvedt, Karen A. “Teaching sociology of literature through literature.” Teaching sociology (1991): 1-12.
- Hegtvedt, Karen A. “Teaching Sociology of Literature through Literature.” Teaching Sociology, vol. 19, no. 1, 1991, pp. 1–12. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1317567. Accessed 9 Mar. 2025.
- Moran, Timothy Patrick. “Versifying Your Reading List: Using Poetry to Teach Inequality.” Teaching Sociology, vol. 27, no. 2, 1999, pp. 110–25. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1318698. Accessed 9 Mar. 2025.
- Castellano, Ursula, et al. “Cultivating a Sociological Perspective Using Nontraditional Texts.” Teaching Sociology, vol. 36, no. 3, 2008, pp. 240–53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20491242. Accessed 9 Mar. 2025.