“The Sociological Approach to Literature” by W. Witte: Summary and Critique

1. Contribution to Marxist Literary Criticism

• Witte engages with Karl Marx’s theory that literature is part of the superstructure, shaped by economic forces and class structures.
• He explains that “religion, political and ethical creeds, laws, art, and literature are… a ‘superstructure’ erected on the foundation of economic conditions” (p. 89).
• This reinforces the Marxist belief that literature cannot be separated from the material conditions of its time.

2. Contribution to Taine’s Deterministic Criticism

• Witte discusses Hippolyte Taine’s theory that literature is determined by “Race, Environment, and Moment” (p. 88).
• He critiques and extends this view by stating that while social and political factors shape literature, they do not entirely determine it.
• His discussion refines Taine’s deterministic approach by acknowledging individual creativity while still emphasizing the role of historical context.

3. Contribution to New Historicism

• Witte’s argument that literature cannot be analyzed in a “social vacuum” aligns with New Historicism, which emphasizes historical and cultural influences on texts.
• He states that “the society to which [a writer] belongs, even when he rebels against it, surrounds him and colours his view of the world” (p. 87).
• This perspective is foundational to New Historicist approaches that link literature to its historical and ideological context.

4. Contribution to Sociological Criticism

• Witte strengthens sociological literary criticism by illustrating how literature reflects and critiques social structures.
• He provides examples, such as:
  • Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde reflecting medieval social changes (p. 87).
  • Shakespeare’s Othello incorporating themes influenced by England’s maritime expansion (p. 88).
• His work reinforces the view that literature is shaped by and, in turn, influences social norms.

5. Contribution to Reader-Response Theory (Indirectly)

• Though not a direct advocate of Reader-Response Theory, Witte acknowledges that literary meaning is shaped by audience expectations.
• He states that “a strong and homogeneous society may impose its demands on a poet whose natural inclinations might otherwise have directed his art into different channels” (p. 92).
• This suggests that reader reception and cultural norms influence literary production, a key idea in Reader-Response Theory.

6. Contribution to Formalism and Aesthetic Theories (By Opposition)

• Witte critiques Formalism and Pure Aesthetics by arguing that literature should not be studied in isolation from its social and political context.
• He challenges the view that “all that really matters… is in the works themselves, and there is no need to look for it elsewhere” (p. 92).
• His work thus provides a counterpoint to Russian Formalism and New Criticism, advocating for a more contextual approach to literary study.

7. Contribution to Postcolonial Literary Criticism (Proto-Theory)

• Though written before Postcolonial Theory emerged, Witte’s analysis of national identity and literature foreshadows later arguments by postcolonial scholars.
• He notes that “national aspirations, reacting against foreign models and influences, may create an emotional climate that can be felt even in works not at all political in character” (p. 94).
• This aligns with later Postcolonial Studies, which explore how literature reflects and resists imperialist cultural influences.

Conclusion: Witte’s Lasting Impact on Literary Theories

• Witte’s work bridges historical materialism, sociological criticism, and New Historicism, providing a foundation for later interdisciplinary approaches.
• His emphasis on the interplay between literature and society continues to influence contemporary cultural studies and ideological literary analysis.

1. Overemphasis on Social Determinism

• Critics argue that Witte’s sociological approach reduces literature to a mere reflection of social and economic forces, neglecting the role of individual creativity.
• His discussion of Taine’s deterministic model (“Race, Environment, and Moment”) suggests that literature is rigidly shaped by external conditions (p. 88), which some critics see as an oversimplification of literary creation.

2. Undermining of Aesthetic and Artistic Value

• Formalists and New Critics reject Witte’s emphasis on social context, arguing that a work of literature should be analyzed on its own merits, independent of external influences.
• Witte acknowledges this opposing view but does not adequately counter it: “The followers of the method of pure aesthetics contend that the proper object of the study of literature is the actual works, not things that lie outside or behind them” (p. 92).

3. Difficulty in Establishing Direct Cause-and-Effect Relationships

• Critics question whether literature can be directly linked to social and economic conditions in the way Witte suggests.
• While he argues that “any cultural activity, such as literature, cannot be fruitfully studied apart from the economic, social, and political organization of the society that produced it” (p. 89), opponents contend that this relationship is often too complex and indirect to be definitively traced.

4. Neglect of Authorial Agency and Personal Expression

• The sociological approach, as Witte presents it, minimizes the role of the writer’s personal experiences and choices in shaping literature.
• He does mention biographical influences but ultimately subordinates them to societal forces, whereas scholars of historical-biographical criticism believe that a writer’s unique experiences shape their work in ways that cannot be reduced to broad societal trends (p. 91).

5. Limited Applicability to Certain Literary Genres

• The sociological method is more effective for analyzing realist and politically engaged literature but struggles to account for abstract, experimental, or purely imaginative works (e.g., surrealism, modernist poetry).
• Witte does not provide clear guidance on how sociological criticism should approach such texts, leading to methodological limitations.

6. Overlaps with Other Theories Without Clear Distinction

• Witte incorporates elements of Marxist criticism, New Historicism, and Cultural Studies, but he does not fully distinguish his approach from these related theories.
• This has led some scholars to argue that his sociological approach is not a distinct methodology but rather a synthesis of existing frameworks.

7. Risk of Anachronism in Literary Interpretation

• Applying sociological criticism retrospectively can lead to anachronistic interpretations, where modern social theories are imposed onto historical texts.
• For example, Witte’s analysis of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde in relation to shifting social norms (p. 87) may risk projecting modern ideas of social change onto medieval literature.