“The Sociology Of Literature” by Francis E. Merrill: Summary and Critique

1. Literature as a Product and Influence of Social Interaction

• Merrill argues that literature is both “a product of social interaction” and “an influence upon social interaction” (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).
• It reflects cultural values and past societal interactions while shaping readers’ perceptions and behaviors in the present and future.

2. Symbolic Nature of Literary Interaction

• Social interaction in literature is symbolic, as human beings “interpret or ‘define’ each other’s actions instead of merely reacting” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• The process of writing and reading literature involves symbolic exchanges, making it a legitimate subject of sociological inquiry.

3. Literature as a Reflection of Society

• Merrill references earlier critics like de Bonald, Taine, and Sainte-Beuve, who viewed literature as an “expression of society” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• Three key sociological perspectives on literature:
  1. Literature reflects society.
  2. Literature influences or shapes society.
  3. Literature functions as a means of “social control” to stabilize and justify societal norms (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

4. The Role of the Author and Limitations in Representation

• The relationship between an author’s work and social context is complex: “The author is, by definition, a sensitive person, and his vision of society is not necessarily the same as that of his contemporaries” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• Even comprehensive novelists like Balzac could not encompass all aspects of society.

5. Literature as Social Interaction in Imagination

• Merrill suggests that literature should be viewed as “social interaction in imagination, whereby the possibilities of human behavior are explored in depth” (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).
• Novels allow for role-taking, where readers engage with characters and experience different social realities through fiction.

6. Operational Analysis and Literary Experimentation

• Merrill parallels literature with operational analysis in science, where “analyzing the world in terms of doings or happenings” helps understand human behavior (Merrill, 1967, p. 652).
• The novel serves as a controlled experiment in which social dynamics are tested imaginatively.

7. The Novel as a Social Experiment

• Merrill draws from Emile Zola’s concept of the “experimental novel,” where literature is an “experiment in imagination” (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).
• Zola and Balzac structured their novels like scientific studies, placing characters in specific social settings to observe interactions.

8. Implications for Sociology and Literary Theory

• Merrill concludes that sociology can benefit from literature’s “experimentation in imagination,” as it provides insights into human behavior, social mobility, and institutional structures (Merrill, 1967, p. 659).
• Literature, while distinct from empirical sociology, offers a qualitative analysis of society that complements sociological studies.

1. Establishing Literature as a Sociological Subject

• Merrill asserts that literature is both a reflection and an influence on social interaction, making it a valid field of sociological inquiry (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).
• “Literature is a cultural product that reflects past interaction as interpreted by the author and influences subsequent interaction on the part of the reader” (Merrill, 1967, p. 648).

2. Strengthening the Sociological Approach to Literature

• Merrill builds on Robert Escarpit’s and Herbert Blumer’s ideas, arguing that literature and sociology are interconnected disciplines that study human interaction (Merrill, 1967, pp. 648-649).
• “Social interaction is a symbolic process” and literature, through symbols and metaphors, captures human behavior and societal patterns (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).

3. Literature as a Mirror and Shaper of Society

• Merrill references historical literary critics such as Taine and Sainte-Beuve to argue that literature does not merely “reflect” society but actively “shapes” it (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• “One hypothesis is that literature ‘reflects’ society; its supposed converse is that it influences or ‘shapes’ society” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

4. Influence on Reader-Response and Role-Taking Theories

• Merrill emphasizes how literature allows readers to “take the role of the protagonist,” engaging in social interaction through imagination (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).
• “The reader participates by taking the role(s) of the protagonists” (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).

5. Bridging Symbolic Interactionism and Literary Studies

• Merrill integrates Herbert Blumer’s concept of symbolic interactionism, explaining that literature functions as a space where human actions are interpreted rather than merely observed (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).
• “Human beings interpret or ‘define’ each other’s actions instead of merely reacting to each other’s actions” (Merrill, 1967, p. 649).

6. Linking Literature to Social Control Theory

• Merrill connects literature to ideological critique, arguing that it serves to “maintain and stabilize, if not justify and sanctify, the social order” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).
• “Literature functions socially to maintain and stabilize, if not to justify and sanctify, the social order, which may be called the ‘social control’ theory” (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

7. Conceptualizing Literature as a Social Experiment

• Merrill builds upon Zola’s Experimental Novel to propose that literature is a controlled sociological experiment where human interactions are tested in an imagined setting (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).
• “The novelist does, in a way, what the sociologist is unable to do—namely, present people in group situations where they can play a variety of roles” (Merrill, 1967, p. 654).

8. Advocating for Literature as a Qualitative Sociological Method

• Merrill suggests that literature offers “verifiable knowledge” about social structures, making it an important source of qualitative analysis for sociologists (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).
• “Literature becomes a form of ‘qualitative analysis’—that is, data which Lazarsfeld has characterized as more than illustration but less than definitive proof” (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).

1. Overemphasis on Social Reflection Theory

• Merrill largely focuses on literature as a reflection of society, but critics argue that this perspective neglects the autonomy of literature as an art form.
• Literature is not always a direct mirror of social reality; it can also be abstract, symbolic, or purely imaginative, challenging the deterministic link between literature and society (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

2. Limited Consideration of Reader Interpretation

• While Merrill acknowledges the role of the reader, his framework does not fully explore reader-response theory, which emphasizes how different audiences interpret texts in diverse ways.
• His approach assumes that readers engage with literature in a socially predetermined way, rather than considering subjective and individual experiences (Merrill, 1967, p. 651).

3. Reduction of Literature to Sociology

• Some literary theorists argue that Merrill reduces literature to a sociological case study, overlooking aesthetic, linguistic, and formalist aspects of literary texts.
• Literary meaning cannot be solely derived from its social context; structure, style, and narrative techniques also shape interpretation (Merrill, 1967, p. 659).

4. Neglect of Literary Autonomy and Artistic Value

• Merrill’s sociological approach tends to treat literature as a tool for analyzing society, minimizing its artistic and imaginative qualities.
• Formalist critics, such as those from the New Criticism school, would argue that literature should be analyzed on its own terms, independent of external sociological factors (Merrill, 1967, p. 657).

5. Oversimplification of Authorial Intent

• Merrill suggests that literature reflects the author’s social background and experiences, but poststructuralist critics challenge this, arguing that meaning is constructed by the text itself rather than being dictated by the author’s intent.
• The “death of the author” argument, later formulated by Roland Barthes, contradicts Merrill’s assumption that the author’s perspective is central to understanding literature (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

6. Inadequate Engagement with Postmodern and Postcolonial Criticism

• Merrill’s framework does not account for postmodern literary theories, which question grand narratives and emphasize fragmentation, irony, and intertextuality.
• His analysis also lacks a postcolonial perspective, failing to address how literature interacts with issues of colonialism, race, and identity in non-Western contexts (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).

7. Questionable Application of Scientific Method to Literature

• Merrill draws parallels between literary analysis and scientific experimentation, particularly through Zola’s “experimental novel” concept. However, literature does not function as a controlled experiment, and human behavior in fiction cannot be measured like empirical data.
• Sociologists and literary theorists criticize this positivist approach for attempting to impose rigid scientific frameworks onto the inherently subjective and interpretive field of literature (Merrill, 1967, p. 658).

8. Underestimation of Literature’s Ability to Challenge Social Norms

• While Merrill acknowledges that literature can shape society, his argument leans more toward literature maintaining social control rather than subverting dominant ideologies.
• Marxist and critical theorists, such as Antonio Gramsci and Theodor Adorno, argue that literature often functions as a site of resistance against power structures, rather than merely reinforcing them (Merrill, 1967, p. 650).