“The Sociology of Literature” by Roger Pincott: Summary and Critique

·  Sociology of Literature as a Legitimate Field of Study

• Pincott argues against the perception that sociology of literature is a dilettantist endeavor, stating that literature provides as much insight into a society as traditional sociological inquiries (Pincott, 177).
• He criticizes the idea that literature is beyond sociological analysis due to the supposed spontaneity of the creative act, calling this an “extreme” and unproductive argument (Pincott, 177-178).

·  Goldmann’s Dialectical Materialist Approach

• Pincott references Goldmann’s idea that literature should not be analyzed in isolation but as part of a broader social and ideological context:
  • “The ideas and work of an author cannot be understood as long as we remain on the level of what he wrote… Ideas are only a partial aspect of a less abstract reality: that of the whole, living man” (Goldmann, 7; cited in Pincott, 177).
• This perspective frames literature as a reflection of the ideology of social groups rather than just individual authors.

·  The Presence of Ideology in Literature

• Literature inherently contains ideological elements, even if subconsciously expressed. These elements link texts to the social structures of their time (Pincott, 178).
• However, Pincott notes that identifying these ideological elements is often difficult, especially in historical works where authors did not explicitly write with ideological intentions (Pincott, 178-179).

·  Criticism of Arbitrary Literary Analysis

• Pincott critiques content analysis methods that impose subjective interpretations onto texts. He distinguishes between subjective and objective meanings:
  • “What the author meant by a work—the subjective meaning—is less important than what it ‘really means’—the objective meaning” (Goldmann, 759; cited in Pincott, 179).
• This raises the issue of arbitrariness in literary interpretation, as critics might impose meanings that are not explicitly present in the text.

·  Use of Literature as Social Data

• He discusses how literature has been used as historical evidence, giving an example from Matthew Arnold about an agricultural implement mentioned in 18th-century literature that helped settle a historical debate (Pincott, 179-180).
• However, he warns that using literature as historical or sociological evidence is risky because fiction is not always an accurate representation of reality (Pincott, 180).

·  Raymond Williams and the Myth of Organic Society

• Williams criticizes historical commentators who idealize the past as a time of social harmony and argues that literature actually reflects oppression and conflict (Pincott, 180-181).
• However, Pincott questions Williams’ method, noting that literature can misrepresent reality for artistic purposes, making his argument vulnerable to accusations of bias (Pincott, 181).

·  Leavis and the Rejection of Sociological Approaches

• F. R. Leavis argues that literature should be studied purely from a literary perspective, dismissing sociological approaches:
  • “No sociology of literature… will yield much profit unless controlled and informed by a real and intelligent interest… in literature” (Leavis, 198; cited in Pincott, 182).
• Pincott criticizes this stance, arguing that ignoring social context limits our understanding of literature (Pincott, 182).

·  Marxist Interpretations of the Novel

• He examines Marxist theories linking the development of the novel to the rise of the bourgeoisie, referencing Ian Watt’s argument that the novel reflects entrepreneurial individualism (Pincott, 183).
• He also discusses George Huaco’s research on Mexican literature, showing how rapid industrialization affected literary forms, shifting from revolutionary novels to modernist styles (Pincott, 183-184).

·  Lukács and Goldmann on Dialectical Literary Analysis

• Pincott explores Lukács’ and Goldmann’s claims that literary forms and styles reflect worldviews (Weltanschauung).
• He notes the challenge of empirically testing these theories and argues that overly rigid frameworks risk being reductionist (Pincott, 185-186).

·  Comparing Goldmann’s Framework to Greek Tragedy

• Pincott draws a parallel between Goldmann’s analysis of 17th-century Jansenist thought and the ideology of 5th-century Athens.
• He compares Pascal’s dialectical approach to Cartesian rationalism with Aeschylus’ treatment of free will and determinism (Pincott, 187-188).

·  Limitations of Structuralist Approaches

• He critiques structuralist methods (e.g., Levi-Strauss) for their inability to analyze complex literary texts beyond mythology (Pincott, 189-191).
• He concludes that while structuralism provides a scientific framework, it has yet to offer a comprehensive methodology for studying literature (Pincott, 191).

·  Aeschylus’ Political Position

• In an appendix, Pincott discusses the political leanings of Aeschylus, debating whether his plays support democratic or conservative ideologies.
• He argues that Aeschylus’ portrayal of the Areopagus in The Eumenides suggests a conservative defense of aristocratic institutions (Pincott, 192-194).

1. Marxist Literary Theory & Ideology in Literature

• Pincott discusses how literature reflects the ideological structures of society and how it is influenced by economic and class dynamics.
• Reference: “In that case, the sociology of literature will be a sub-heading of the investigation of ideology and the testing of the Marxist hypothesis about superstructural attributes of social groups.” (Pincott, p. 178)

2. Goldmann’s Dialectical Materialism & Structuralism

• The book incorporates Lucien Goldmann’s idea that literature must be analyzed within the broader framework of social structures and collective consciousness.
• Reference: “Ideas are only a partial aspect of a less abstract reality: that of the whole, living man. And in his turn, this man is only an element in a whole made up of the social group to which he belongs.” (Goldmann, quoted in Pincott, p. 177)

3. Sociological Content Analysis in Literary Criticism

• Pincott critiques traditional literary content analysis for being arbitrary and argues for a more structured sociological approach.
• Reference: “The main drawback to this style of analysis is the accusation that what the critic says ‘just isn’t in the text’.” (Pincott, p. 178)

4. Historicism and Literature as a Source of Social History

• Literature can serve as empirical evidence for historical and social conditions, supporting historicist interpretations.
• Reference: “People are constantly using literature as an empirical base from which to extrapolate facts about periods in history.” (Pincott, p. 179)

5. The Role of Class in Literary Production

• The book examines how literary forms and themes evolve based on the class structures in a given historical period.
• Reference: “It often happens that the mode of behaviour which enables us to understand a particular work is not that of the author himself, but that of a whole social group; and, when the work with which we are concerned is of particular importance, this behaviour is that of a whole social class.” (Pincott, p. 177)

6. The Novel as a Bourgeois Form

• Pincott references Ian Watt’s work on the rise of the novel as a product of capitalist and bourgeois values.
• Reference: “A connection has been postulated between the bourgeoisie and the novel, from Hegel and Marx through to Goldmann.” (Pincott, p. 181)

7. The Crisis of Meaning in Literature

• The text explores how different literary forms and themes emerge in response to social crises and ideological shifts.
• Reference: “The tragedy of the 17th and 18th centuries does, like other forms of tragic creation and awareness, express a crisis in human relationship between certain groups of men and the cosmic and social world.” (Goldmann, quoted in Pincott, p. 190)

8. Structuralism and Semiotics in Literary Theory

• Pincott engages with structuralist methods, suggesting that literary meaning is shaped by underlying structures rather than individual interpretation.
• Reference: “Structuralism, as embodied in the area mapped out by Saussure as semiology, starting from structural linguistics, seems to embody great advantage: it rests on the scientific basis of linguistics.” (Pincott, p. 190)