This website is dedicated to English Literature, Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, English Language and its teaching and learning.
“The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer: Summary and Critique
“The Sociology of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer first appeared in Studies in the Novel, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring 1979), published by the University of North Texas.
Introduction: “The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer
“The Sociology of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer first appeared in Studies in the Novel, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring 1979), published by the University of North Texas. In this critical essay, Widmer explores the relationship between literature and sociology, questioning the feasibility of a distinct “sociology of literature” while acknowledging the social dimensions inherent in literary works. He argues that while literature undeniably exists within and often reflects societal structures, a formalized sociological approach to literature is frequently marred by overgeneralized theories, jargon-laden discourse, and ideological dogma, particularly Marxist interpretations. Widmer critiques the positivist tendencies of sociology, which he sees as an attempt to professionalize and contain free intellectual inquiry, while also pointing out the superficiality and commercial nature of much literary criticism. Drawing from major figures in both sociology and literary criticism—including Marx, Freud, Durkheim, and Weber—he underscores how sociological thought has influenced literary analysis, yet warns against reducing literature to a mere reflection of socio-economic forces. Through discussions of figures like Lukács, Marcuse, and Berger, he highlights the competing frameworks within sociological literary criticism, contrasting rigid class-based readings with more fluid and humanistic perspectives. Ultimately, Widmer advocates for a more nuanced engagement with social philosophy rather than a prescriptive “sociology of literature,” suggesting that literature should be appreciated for its complex aesthetic, historical, and ideological interplay rather than confined within rigid theoretical models. His critique remains an important contribution to debates on the interdisciplinary intersections of literature and social thought. (Widmer, 1979, pp. 99-105).
Summary of “The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer
Literature and Society: An Inherent Connection
Literature is deeply embedded in society, with modern novels often revolving around social complexities.
“Much of literature—and especially the modern novel—centers in social perplexities” (Widmer, 1979, p. 99).
However, acknowledging literature’s social concerns is not equivalent to establishing a sociology of literature, which often seeks grand, overarching theories about literature’s social functions.
Critique of the Sociology of Literature as a Discipline
The field of literary sociology is frequently bogged down by “obfuscating jargon and scientistic pretenses” (Widmer, 1979, p. 99).
While foundational sociologists like Marx, Freud, Durkheim, and Weber have intellectual relevance, modern sociology has become bureaucratic and institutionalized, stifling intellectual freedom.
Sociology’s approach often reduces literature to rigid theoretical models, losing its artistic and philosophical nuances.
The Overwhelming Influence of Marxist Criticism
Marxist approaches have dominated the sociology of literature, imposing ideological interpretations on literary works.
“The sociological approach to literature has for some time carried the additional burdens of preemption by Marxist theologians” (Widmer, 1979, p. 100).
While figures like Trotsky and Lucien Goldmann have made insightful contributions, Marxist criticism often reduces literature to political dogma, particularly in its advocacy for “socialist realism.”
Flaws in Social Science Approaches to Literature
Social scientists often assume that novels and sociology explore the same reality but from different perspectives.
This assumption is problematic, as demonstrated by Morroe Berger’s belief that novels contribute to “a knowledge of the same landscape upon which social science has focused, but through a different lens” (Widmer, 1979, p. 101).
Widmer criticizes Berger’s analysis for being shallow, replacing English department jargon with generic sociological terms while failing to provide meaningful insights.
Alternative Sociologies of Literature: The Case for Tragic Realism
Some scholars, like John Orr in Tragic Realism: Studies in the Sociology of the Modern Novel, provide more nuanced sociological approaches to literature.
Orr argues that tragic realism reflects the alienation of heroes from bourgeois society, particularly in works by Stendhal, Dostoyevsky, and Tolstoy (Widmer, 1979, p. 102).
However, Widmer critiques Orr’s overemphasis on tragic realism as the dominant literary mode, noting that it ignores postmodernist aesthetics and broader literary developments.
The Call for Literary Sociology Instead of a Rigid Sociology of Literature
Widmer proposes a shift from a rigid sociology of literature toward a more fluid and humanistic literary sociology.
“For our literary dialectics, we may less need ‘sociology of literature’ than simply more social awareness and responsiveness, including some social philosophy” (Widmer, 1979, p. 105).
This approach acknowledges literature’s social dimensions without reducing it to a narrow theoretical framework.
Conclusion: Advocating for a More Humanistic Literary Criticism
Widmer critiques the institutionalization of both literary studies and sociology, arguing that both disciplines have become bureaucratized.
Instead of formalizing a sociology of literature, scholars should engage with literature’s social, historical, and philosophical dimensions in a more organic and critical way.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer
Theoretical Term/Concept
Definition/Explanation
Reference (Widmer, 1979)
Sociology of Literature
The study of literature’s social functions, often involving historical and ideological analysis. Widmer critiques it for being overly theoretical and jargon-laden.
p. 99
Literary Sociology
A more flexible and humanistic approach that integrates social awareness into literary criticism rather than imposing rigid sociological models.
p. 105
Marxist Criticism
A dominant approach in literary sociology that interprets literature in terms of class struggle, ideology, and economic determinism. Widmer criticizes its reductionist tendencies.
p. 100
Social Realism
A literary movement that aims to depict social conditions and class struggles, often aligned with Marxist aesthetics. Widmer is critical of its ideological constraints.
p. 100
Positivism in Sociology
The attempt to apply scientific methods to social sciences, leading to overly formalized and bureaucratic intellectual disciplines.
p. 100
Tragic Realism
A genre in modern literature characterized by alienation from bourgeois society, as seen in works by Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. John Orr emphasizes this, but Widmer finds his view too limited.
p. 102
Social Philosophy
A broader, more interpretive approach to understanding literature’s social dimensions, associated with thinkers like Tocqueville, Ortega, and Sartre.
p. 99
Bureaucratic Social Scientism
The institutionalization of sociology as a rationalizing force that restricts intellectual freedom and critical inquiry.
p. 100
Agitprop (Agitation Propaganda)
Literature used explicitly for political activism, particularly in Marxist traditions. Widmer critiques leftist militants for demanding this approach.
A theoretical approach focusing on deep structures in literature and society. Widmer critiques it as an “empty academic fad.”
p. 102
Social Documentary in Literature
The blending of fictional and sociological elements, as seen in some “realist” literary works. Widmer argues that some sociologists inadvertently create literary works.
The theme of individuals being disconnected from their social environment, a key feature of tragic realism.
p. 102
Bourgeois Society in Literature
The middle-class world that many modernist and tragic-realist novels critique or resist.
p. 102
Postmodernist Aesthetics
A literary trend that challenges traditional realism and social critique; Widmer argues that literary sociology often ignores postmodernism.
p. 102
Cognitive Aesthetics
The idea that irony, metaphor, and literary forms can enrich sociological analysis, as proposed by Richard Brown.
p. 105
Contribution of “The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer to Literary Theory/Theories
Critique of Marxist Literary Theory
Widmer challenges the dominance of Marxist interpretations in literary sociology, arguing that they often impose rigid ideological readings.
He criticizes “the reductive demands by leftist militants for crass literature as ‘agitprop'” and the “denaturing of novels as ‘socialist realism'” (Widmer, 1979, p. 100).
While acknowledging insights from thinkers like Trotsky and Lucien Goldmann, he warns that most Marxist literary theory “reifies political dogma mostly pertinent only to the pious” (p. 100).
Widmer argues that literary criticism should incorporate social awareness without succumbing to rigid sociological models.
He proposes a more nuanced engagement with social philosophy, stating, “The literary should allow for the possible intellectual pertinence of the founding fathers of modern sociology” (Widmer, 1979, p. 99).
Alternative to Formalist and Structuralist Theories
He critiques structuralism as an “academic fad” that promotes an artificial systematization of literature while ignoring historical and social realities (Widmer, 1979, p. 102).
Instead of rigid textual analysis, he supports a more dialectical approach that considers both form and content in a socially aware manner.
Development of Literary Sociology as an Alternative Approach
Instead of a rigid “sociology of literature,” Widmer advocates for literary sociology, which integrates social awareness into literary criticism without reducing literature to sociological formulas.
“For our literary dialectics, we may less need ‘sociology of literature’ than simply more social awareness and responsiveness, including some social philosophy” (Widmer, 1979, p. 105).
Contribution to Tragic Realism Theory
He engages with John Orr’s argument that tragic realism is the dominant mode of modern literature, where protagonists are alienated from bourgeois society.
While acknowledging this view, Widmer warns that it is too restrictive, stating that the tragic-realism model “overinsists that the tragic-realist political novel should be recognized as the dominant genre of modern literature” (Widmer, 1979, p. 102).
Influence on Postmodern Literary Theory
Widmer highlights the failure of traditional literary sociology to engage with postmodernism, suggesting that sociological readings remain stuck in outdated realist paradigms.
He criticizes Orr’s lack of awareness of “postmodernist aesthetics and the peculiar conditions of technocracy” (Widmer, 1979, p. 102).
Critique of the Institutionalization of Literary Studies
He argues that both literary studies and sociology have become overly bureaucratic, limiting free intellectual inquiry.
“Much of the social sciences may be understood as rationalizing institutions in a society which over-professionalizes free intellectual activity” (Widmer, 1979, p. 100).
Examples of Critiques Through “The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer
Literary Work
Critique by Widmer
Reference (Widmer, 1979)
Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick
Critiques Marxist literary interpretations (e.g., Bruce Franklin’s reading), which impose ideological frameworks on Melville’s work. Widmer argues that such readings “fatuously impose dogma on inappropriate literary works” (p. 100), reducing Moby-Dick to a simplistic political allegory.
p. 100
Dostoyevsky’s The Possessed
Highlights the novel’s “prophetic political demonology,” emphasizing its complexity and ideological contradictions. He critiques John Orr’s interpretation, which focuses on tragic realism but overlooks Dostoyevsky’s paradoxical and obsessional politics (p. 103).
p. 103
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four
Criticizes Orr’s claim that Nineteen Eighty-Four is “a parable about the destruction of the novel” rather than a political critique. Widmer argues that Orwell was more of an essayist and social-documentary writer than a novelist, and that Nineteen Eighty-Four should not be confined within tragic realism (p. 103).
p. 103
Joseph Conrad’s Nostromo
Challenges John Orr’s interpretation of Conrad’s ideological stance, stating that Conrad’s conservative anarchism led to a deeply repressed radical awareness. He critiques Conrad’s “mishandled heroines” and argues that his politics of suicide is often contradictory (p. 103-104).
p. 103-104
Criticism Against “The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer
Dismissal of Marxist Criticism Without Nuanced Engagement
While Widmer critiques the rigidity of Marxist literary theory, he does not fully engage with its more sophisticated interpretations.
He rejects class-based readings as “circular reifications of political dogma” (Widmer, 1979, p. 100) but does not acknowledge the depth of Marxist theorists like Raymond Williams or Fredric Jameson.
Overgeneralization of Sociology as a Discipline
Widmer argues that sociology is plagued by “pretentious positivism” and “obscurantist triviality” (Widmer, 1979, p. 100), but this critique is broad and does not differentiate between various sociological approaches.
His sweeping rejection of sociology overlooks nuanced perspectives that successfully integrate social analysis with literary studies.
Failure to Offer a Concrete Alternative to Literary Sociology
While he promotes literary sociology, he does not clearly define its methodological approach or how it differs in practice from the sociology of literature.
His assertion that literary criticism needs “more social awareness and responsiveness, including some social philosophy” (Widmer, 1979, p. 105) remains vague.
Limited Engagement with Postmodernism
Widmer critiques Orr for failing to recognize “postmodernist aesthetics and the peculiar conditions of technocracy” (Widmer, 1979, p. 102), but he does not elaborate on how postmodernism should be integrated into literary sociology.
His discussion lacks reference to major postmodern theorists, making his critique appear incomplete.
Critique of Bureaucratic Institutions Without Self-Reflection
While he argues that both sociology and literary studies have become overly bureaucratic, his own field of literary criticism is not exempt from these issues.
His criticism of literary academia as a “fashion factory” (Widmer, 1979, p. 100) lacks a self-reflective analysis of how his own work fits within academic structures.
Rejection of Structuralism Without Strong Justification
He dismisses structuralism as an “academic fad” (Widmer, 1979, p. 102) but does not substantiate why its focus on linguistic and narrative structures is incompatible with literary sociology.
His critique overlooks the contributions of thinkers like Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault, whose works bridge structuralism and social critique.
Selective Literary Examples
His focus on tragic realism and modernist novels results in a limited range of literary examples, largely ignoring other genres like poetry, drama, or non-Western literature.
He critiques John Orr’s narrow focus on tragic realism but does not provide a broader literary framework himself.
Representative Quotations from “The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer with Explanation
“Much of literature—and especially the modern novel—centers in social perplexities.”
Widmer acknowledges that literature is deeply embedded in social contexts, but he warns against reducing literature to a mere sociological function. This sets up his critique of literary sociology.
p. 99
“That is not the same as a ‘sociology of literature,’ which usually seems to be a rather grand theory of the social functions of literature in historical and ideological ways.”
He distinguishes between recognizing literature’s social functions and the rigid theoretical models of literary sociology, which he critiques for being overly abstract.
p. 99
“The sociological approach to literature has for some time carried the additional burdens of preemption by Marxist theologians.”
Widmer critiques Marxist literary criticism, arguing that it imposes rigid ideological interpretations and reduces literature to political propaganda.
p. 100
“To note that the larger part of sociology is pretentious positivism, obscurantist and trivial, and even in its ambitions more inflatedly truistic than humanely critical, would be simply to make proper sociological observation on sociology.”
He critiques sociology as a discipline, arguing that it often relies on jargon and detached positivism rather than meaningful intellectual inquiry.
p. 100
“While especially fashionable in Continental literary politics, we also have a number of Anglo-American examples which have become recurrent.”
He critiques the influence of Marxist literary theory on Anglo-American literary criticism, particularly its ideological rigidity.
p. 100
“Morroe Berger, in Real and Imagined Worlds, gives his purpose as ‘to show how the novel contributed to a knowledge of the same landscape upon which social science has focused, but through a different lens.'”
Widmer challenges this claim, arguing that literature and sociology do not always share the same landscape and that novels cannot be reduced to social scientific analysis.
p. 101
“John Orr’s Tragic Realism may be a sophisticated and suggestive argument, but it overinsists that the tragic-realist political novel should be recognized as the dominant genre of modern literature.”
He critiques Orr’s focus on tragic realism, arguing that it is too narrow and ignores other literary forms and movements like postmodernism.
p. 102
“We enter an age when nothing is easier for the best European writers than to proclaim the virtues of tragic humanism yet fail to write any tragic literature at all.”
Widmer critiques the modern literary scene, suggesting that contemporary writers fail to produce literature with genuine tragic or humanist depth.
p. 102
“For our literary dialectics, we may less need ‘sociology of literature’ than simply more social awareness and responsiveness, including some social philosophy.”
He proposes literary sociology as an alternative, advocating for a more humanistic and flexible approach to understanding literature’s social dimensions.
p. 105
“While I have been discussing sociology running into literature, some reverse flow should at least be acknowledged.”
He admits that sociology and literature can influence each other but warns against reducing one to the methods and frameworks of the other.
p. 105
Suggested Readings: “The Sociology Of Literature?” by Kingsley Widmer
Widmer, Kingsley. “The Sociology of Literature?.” Studies in the Novel 11.1 (1979): 99-105.
Angenot, Marc. “A Select Bibliography of the Sociology of Literature.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, 1977, pp. 295–308. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239140. Accessed 9 Mar. 2025.
Noble, Trevor. “Sociology and Literature.” The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 27, no. 2, 1976, pp. 211–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/590028. Accessed 9 Mar. 2025.
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.
