Anda di halaman 1dari 9

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow

Vol. 1 No. 7

Society-Literature Nexus: Some Theoretical Reflections


Dr. M. Sreedevi Xavier, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, M. S. University of Baroda

Abstract
This paper aims at describing the development of Sociology of Literature by focusing on some of the important theories about literature-society nexus and its historical genesis. An attempt has been made to study the relation between literature and society; and the place of literature in human activity. To study the relation of literature and society is to see how one of the most important products of human mind has been molded by social conditions, and has it helped to mould those conditions. This paper attempts to develop the conceptual framework and the strategy of the inquiry with an over-all review of the state of art in the domain of sociology of literature. It also suggests some operational guidelines to understand the relation between society and literature and to emphasize it as an 'inter-discipline', rather than a specialized field within a single discipline. Keywords: Sociology of Literature, Marxian Approach, Literary Criticism, Dialectics

1. Introduction
Today sociologies of religion, education, politics, social change, ideology and science are well developed areas of study. Comparatively sociological study of literature is a fairly late arrival. Sociology is a systematic study of man in society, study of social institutions and social processes. For a literary critic, literature is largely self enclosed and self sustaining enterprise. Modern literary critic is primarily concerned with the intrinsic qualities of literature like imagery, metaphor, rhythm, and dynamics of plot and so on. For him, the study of letters and the study of society undoubtedly imply totally different methods and orientations. He feels any bridge between these two worlds of imagination and science is clearly untenable. ISSN: 2277-6168 September|2012 www.ijsst.com Page | 1

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow

Vol. 1 No. 7

However, liter ature is also concerned with mans social world, his adaptation to it and his desire to change it. For example, a drama or a novel can be seen as a faithful attempt to recreate the social world of mans relation with his family, with politics, etc., the conflicts and tensions between groups and social classes. Literature, like art, transcends mere description and objective scientific analysis, penetrating the surface of social life, showing the ways in which men and women experience society. Without the full literary witness the student of society will be blind to the fullness of a society (Hoggart, R., 1966). In order to understand the relation between literature and society we need a general framework of relevant concepts on the one hand, and a strategy for identifying the relevant materials, and processing it through the interpretative sieve on the other hand. The two are intimately interlinked. The appropriate framework for the study had been developed on the basis of(a) An extended critique of the available variants of the broad frame grounded in the Marxist Sociology of Literature by focusing on: (i) Orthodox Marxist theorists in the domain from Plekhanov to successors in the then U.S.S.R. (ii) Seminal minds of the Marxist intellectual affiliation. (b) It is supplemented by a similar critique of the dominant frames from the domain of literary criticism, poetics and aesthetics. From this double critique, a frame emerges, in which culture; language and literature are seen as moments within the creative practice of society. Literature is a form of discourse, distinct but closely linked with other forms of social discourse, including the scientific discourse. The complexity of the cultural-social processes which constitute the context as well as the material of the literary discourse is then seen as modes of metaphor, which communicates structured feelings, yielding a sui-genesis experience called rasa in Indian poetics, which is a unique fusion of cognition, enjoyment, and fullness. Participants in this discourse are enhanced and therefore, better equipped to participate in formative and transformative processes of their human-social world. Finally, the multi-strained fabric of the literature is sought to be analyzed in terms of innovated forms and genres on the one hand, and the persistence of literary modes and aesthetic categories, deeply embedded in the peoples psyche, on the other hand.

2. Sociology & Literature

In Latin as well as in 18th century English or French, the word literature means the distinctive culture of those who belonged to the social stratum of the literati- well-read people. The Germans found literature as the art of expressing ones thoughts in writing on the one hand and as the whole of the works thus produced and published in a definite community, on the other. They never separated the literary phenomena from its social environment in time and space. The relation between literature and society, and the place of literature in human activity are determined by the social conditions in which the writer lives. To study the relations of literature and society is to see how one of the most important products of human mind has been molded by social conditions, and has it helped to mould those conditions. Currently, there are two broad approaches to sociology of literature(i) the most popular perspective adopts the documentary aspects of literature arguing that it provides a mirror to the age. This mirror image approach has a long and distinguished history. The French philosopher Louis de Bonald (1754-1840), one of the first writers, argued that through a careful reading of any nations literature one could feel what this people had been. On this view, literature is a direct reflection of various facets of social structure, family relationships, class conflicts, and possibly divorce trends and population composition (Albrecht, cf. M.C. 1958 425-36). As one of the most distinguished writers in the sociology of literature has well expressed, it is the task of the writers imaginary characters and has to transform the private equation of themes and stylistic means into social equation (Lowenthal, L., 1957:.x). We will again come to this approach in detail after discussing the second approach. (ii) The second approach to a literary sociology moves away from the emphasis on the work of literature itself to the production side and especially to the social situation of the writer. A leading authority in this field, the French sociologist Robert Escarpit (1969), has tended to concentrate exclusively on this aspect. Here, patronage and the costs of production replace the literary text as the centre of discussion. Thus the writers relationship with his patron often oblique and unsavory is traced in some detail, from the patronage of the medieval courts to that of the 18th century aristocracy. With the rise of cheap publishing and a mass market the patronage system gives way to the autocracy of the publisher and booksellers. The growth, too of a specifically middle class audience in the late 18th century helped to shift the writers position from one of dependence to one ISSN: 2277-6168 September|2012 www.ijsst.com Page | 2

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow

Vol. 1 No. 7

of profession (Laurenson & Swingewood, 1971: 18). The writers position in a mass society is extremely important as a contrast to his earlier social situation, and clearly likely to affect his creative potential in many ways; the links between this historical background and development of literature constitute a key area in any literary sociology. It must be noted, however, that although this approach is essential for any thorough understanding of literature, as crucial support for textual analysis, great care has to be exercised in order to avoid crude forms of reductionism so obviously inherent in it. The work of literature must never become a mere epiphenomenon of its surrounding environment.

3. Theories of Literature-Society Nexus: Historical Genesis

Let us focus on some of the important theories about literature-society nexus and its historical genesis. The seventeenth century materialists envisaged that literature was simply the outgrowth of climate, soil and national spirit. During the beginning of the eighteenth century, both Ferguson and Smith suggested that as society becomes increasingly commercial and industrial, man and arts are unintentionally torn away from a living organic relation with society itself. Thus, during the later part of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, two approaches gradually developed in the social study of literature. The first one known as positivism relied on casual connections between facts such as climate, geography, race and literature. The second approach is based on the argument that literature is indeed a complex reflection of a society as a whole.

3. 1Positivism- Hippolyte Taine


The first really systematic treatment of the relationship between literature and society belongs to the French philosopher, historian, politician and essayist Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893). He is generally regarded as the founder father of sociology of literature. Taines work, although mostly specious, does contain an awareness of the basic and perennial problems, which trouble any literary sociologist. In the introduction to his study of English literature Taine wrote (Taine, H., 1906, Vol. I : 1) that a literary work was no more individual play of imagination, the isolated caprice of an existed brain, but a transcript of contemporary manners, a manifestation of a certain ascertainable facts and emotions. Taine categorizes the novel, in terms similar to Stendhal, as a portable mirror which can be conveyed everywhere and which is most convenient for reflecting all aspects of life and nature (Levin, H., 1966:19). Literary works, he argues, furnish documents because they are monuments. Different historical periods succeed in producing a harmonic relationship between genius and the age, the more deeply an artist penetrates into the genius of his age and race, while the mediocre artist, although his work might have been equally valid a social document, is both in expressing and unrepresentative. Only the really great artist is capable of fully expressing his time, and by representing that mode of being of a whole nation and whole age, a writer rallies round him the sympathies of an entire age and an entire nation. The problem for Taine is to determine the cause behind the emergence of great art and literature, In the history of the sociology of literature, Taines is the first real theory, far more systematic than a collection of haphazard and random insights. The question is how successful was he in applying the theory? Taine had developed a theory, but no method of applying it systematically. (Laurenson & Swingewood., 1971:39-40).

4. Marxian Approach: Development of Orthodoxy


4.1 Marx & Engels
In 1848 two young German revolutionaries, Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Frederic Engels (1820-1895), published a document which was to make a lasting impression on the history of mankind. The Communist Manifesto (1955), in many ways a summation of previous materialism argued that the social history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle, that history possessed a discernible pattern defined as stages of development, antiquity, feudalism, and capitalism, with socialism to follow, each one characterized by a particular mode of production and class structure. As far as literature was concerned this implied the impossibility of national one-sidedness since capitalism develops the numerous national and local literatures into a world literature. Marx and Engels, although couching their analysis of literature equally in terms of its material foundations, were more concerned with purely economic factors and the important role played by social class. They provided no systematic account of a theory of literature and it was left to their followers to create a specifically Marxist sociology of literature. They argued that, it was only under definite historical conditions in specific social contexts that the ideological reflexes developed (Marx, K. & Engels, F., 1964. Part I). ISSN: 2277-6168 September|2012 www.ijsst.com Page | 3

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow

Vol. 1 No. 7

Engels treated literature as a mirror reflection of social processes. He argues that any novelist who is striving for realism must aim to create in his works representative figures since the notions of realism implies besides truth of detail, the truthful reproduction of typical characters under typical circumstances (Laurenson, D. & Swingewood, A., 1971:50).

4.2 George Plekhanov


The Russian worker, George Plekhanov (1953), did devote a considerable part of his talent to literature. In his work, one finds both Engels notion of social mirror and the concept of type (hailed as father of Marxist Orthodoxy in this domain). According to Plekhanov, fairly straightforward correlations exit between the strong social and political positions of the French aristocracy and monarchy and the revival of classical tragedy and between the middle classes and the decline of classical drama. He says that the theatre is the direct expression of the class struggle. Plekhanovs study of literature emphasized the weaknesses of early Marxist literary sociology. He naturally stated the explicit sociological foundations of art and literature, but in doing so tented to lapse into crude mechanical correlations. He tended, too, to dismiss most literature written after 1950 as a form of bourgeois apologetic (Laurenson & Swingewood, 1971:50-51). From Marx (1978) he derived the social function of art. Art begins when the human being recalls within himself feelings and ideas that he has had under the influence of the reality surrounding him and gives them a certain figurative expression (Plekhanov, G., 1953:20). Not satisfied with it, he goes further than Taine in striving to break out of a too rigid materialist explanation by introducing the notion of an inborn sense of beauty. Man, he argues, has the capacity to judge good from bad; he has an aesthetic sense which Plekhanov derived from the aesthetic writings of Kant (Plekhanov, G., 1953:4). A Marxist literary sociology comes to enshrine Plekhanovs simple thrust that all literature is class -bound and great literature is incompatible with bourgeois dominance.

5. Marxian Approach: The Critical Temper


5.1 George Lukacs
George Lukacs (1962) heralds the critical temper in the Marxian approach to the issues of literature and aesthetics. He accepts Plekhanovs argument that literature reflects class struggle: The historical novel in its origin, development, rise and decline follows inevitably upon the great social transformations of modern times. Lukacss basic theme, one which runs through all his Marxist writings on literature, is the decline of great bourgeois realism, critical realism, in the latter half of the 19 th century, and its replacement by a specious technical literature. Like Plekhanov, Lukacs accepts a mechanical correlation between creative literature and the class structure, after 1848 it is impossible to write novels without rejecting or accepting a socialist perspective; writers who ally themselves with the bourgeois will merely reflect that classs historical decline. His attacks on modernism clearly embody a dogmatic orthodoxy which had served. All literature, Lukacs argues, is written from the point of view of a class, a world view and thus implies a perspective (Lukacs, G., 1962:17). His criticism of modern literature is that it denies perspective: there cannot be any distinction between the significant and superficial features of reality, only an unselective reportage which indiscriminately lumps together the trivial and the important. Like Plekanov, Lukacs makes fidelity to socialism the touchstone of artistic creativity- the writer who rejects socialism closes his eyes to the future, gives up any chance of assessing the present correctly, and loses the ability to create other than purely static works of arts (Plekhanov, G., 1963:60). The collapse of a bourgeois literature is aimed to depict man as a whole into a form, which portrays man as fragmented and partial. For Lukacs, as for Engels, great writers are those who, in their work, creating human types, the real criterion of literary achievement (Lukacs, G., 1963:56-57). Lukacs argues that the type conveys the innermost essence of past epochs and it is only through the creation of comprehensive types that the greatest values of the past have remained immortal.

5.2 Lucien Goldmann


Structuralism has many meanings, but in its most general sense it employs the crucial concept of system, whether it is linguistic, literary, or social, in which the element under analysis forms numerous dynamic relations with other elements, with the other parts of the system, and where every element has a meaning only in relation to the other parts. Fundamentally it is holistic and integrative implying a fluid relationship between the parts and the whole. But there is an important difference between the proponents of historical and non-historical structuralism. ISSN: 2277-6168 September|2012 www.ijsst.com Page | 4

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow

Vol. 1 No. 7

Goldmann's approach to the sociology of literature is highly idiosyncratic, fusing structural analysis with historical and dialectical materialism (Goldmann, L., 1956, 1967, 1972, 1975). It is important to note that while Goldmann develops a specifically Marxist theory, many of his key concepts and much of his inspiration derive from the early pre-Marxist writings of Lukacs (Lukacs, G. 1968). His most important concept, one which Goldmann has carried over into his sociology is that of totality, a concept which likes those of alienation and reification had been ignored by orthodox Marxism. From Lukacs, too, Goldmann derives his concept of the 'world vision', which, he argues, all great philosophical and literary work embodies investing them with internal 'coherence' and external 'validity'. A 'world vision is defined as a 'significant global structure'; a total comprehension of the world which attempts to grasp its meaning in all its complexity and wholeness (Goldmann, L. 1956:17). In the absence of a fully worked out typology of world visions, Goldmann suggests as examples empiricism, rationalism and the tragic vision- total complexes of thought in which reality is grasped as a 'whole; moreover, world visions are forms of consciousness closely bound up with social classes- a world vision always a vision of a social class. Thus a world vision is therefore an abstraction; it achieves its concrete form in certain literary and philosophical texts. World visions are not 'facts', have no objective existence of their own but merely exist as theoretical expressions of the real conditions and interests of determinate social strata. Goldmann, in fact calls world vision a form of 'collective group consciousness', which function as a kind of cement, binding individuals together as a group, giving them a collective identity. World visions are, moreover, not only the expressions of a social group but of social class also. Goldmann argues the most important social group to "which a writer can belong is a social class, since it is through a class that he is linked with major social and political change. Social and political change is for the Marxist, the expression of class antagonism and clearly impinges on classconsciousness. No articulate member of a social class can be ignorant of, or indifferent to, major social and political changes. His class affiliations sharpen his consciousness of the world and drive him to express, however obliquely, the significant social tendencies of his period in a literary or philosophical medium. World visions are thus the theoretical expressions of social classes at particular historical moments and the writer, philosopher, or artist articulates this consciousness. A 'world vision', he writes, 'will enable the researcher to separate the accidental from the essential features of a work and to focus on the text as a significant whole'. This latter point leads him to make the usual distinction between them, 'great' and the 'inferior' writers, urging that only a great writer's work will have an internal coherence constituting a significant whole. This distinction is based on internal criteria and not on external factors as in Taine and Plekhanov, for what Goldmann is arguing here is that the internal coherence of a particular literary work depends exclusively on the world vision held by the writer. Thus, what Goldmann seems to be saying is that only good sociological-cum- philosophical literature is worth studying, since it is only within these texts that a world vision is expressed, based on the human condition and an exceptional awareness of major social trends. It is important to see the manner of application in concrete research. His method, which he calls, 'generalized genetic structuralism' (historical materialism) seeks firstly to relate them to concrete historical and social conditions, to a social group and social class associated with the writer and to the world vision of that class. The emphasis throughout is on the text itself as a whole and on history as a process. In essence the method is a continual oscillation between texts and social structure and the model between abstractions and the concrete (Goldmann, L. 1964, chapter.5). For Goldmann, the highest aesthetic criterion is that of coherence and unity, not literary realism, as argued through several studies by Lukacs. These aspects of his thought are suggestive as well as relevant for the non-European context today and tomorrow; as such, they deserve to be highlighted. The fundamental insight is one articulated in the "Hidden God" passage: "Almost no human actions are performed by isolated individuals for the subject performing the action is a group, a 'we', and not an I even though by the phenomenon of reification, the present structure of society tends to hide the 'We' and transforms it into a collection of different individuals isolated from one another" (Goldmann, L. 1964:16). Goldmann postulates, 'a great writer cannot write a valid work at any time or in any place. In the first place, he can write only in an overall perspective, which he has not invented and which must exist in society so that he can subsequently transpose it in a coherent imaginary universe. Secondly, this imaginary universe will constitute a valid work only insofar as it centers on the essential aspects of the social reality which has helped to elaborate the categories structuring it'. The forgoing portrait of the approach of the founding fathers of sociology of literature carries within it an implicit frame laden with insights and leads for further inquiry in the domain. However, it should be obvious ISSN: 2277-6168 September|2012 www.ijsst.com Page | 5

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow

Vol. 1 No. 7

that there can be no question of 'applying' Lukacs or Goldmann, in the style of vulgar Marxism and/or vulgar sociology. Between them, Lukacs and Goldmann do, however, provide a meaningful point of departure.

5.3 D. P. Mukherji
To bridge the gap between this Euro-centric theorizing and the non-European historical specificity of Indian society and literature, it would be necessary to ground ourselves in our own context, on the basis of endogenously developed articulation of the dynamic, rapidly changing sequence of development. For this task, we turn to Professor (late) D. P. Mukherji (1958), who is justly regarded as the founding father of sociology of culture/literature in this part of the world. It is interesting to note, in this context of issues raised by Goldmann and Lukacs, regarding the subject of social action- 'We' vs I, the position developed by Prof. Mukherji. His initial propositions are unambiguous: "I have a feeling that the frame of reference which is the first requisite of a theory, is not the 'actor-situation' as Parsons would have it, or the I of Goldmann's first phase of 'literal capitalism', for the simple reason that the unit of the Indian social system is not 'the individual as actor, as an entity' which has the basic characteristics of striving toward the attainment of "goals", of "reacting" emotionally or effectively towards objectives and events and off to a greater or less degree, cognitively knowing or understanding his situation, his goals and himself. Action for the Indian is not individualistic in that sense; it is 'inherently structured on a normative, teleological' but not on a 'voluntaristic system of coordinates or axes,' with the result that the failure to attain it does not lead to 'frustration'. The Indian has no such fear of loneliness. We too have our axes in Purushartha, but the operational system seldom permits any 'voluntarism' on the ground of individual desires. But the common Indian 'individual's pattern of desires is more or less rigidly fixed by his socio-cultural group-pattern, and he hardly deviates from it except under severe economic duress. India's religion is the traditional way of living; so is her culture. Hence her social system is basically a normative orientation of group, sect, or caste-action, but not of 'voluntaristic' individual action. So there is no escape from traditions if you are an Indian, and additionally, an Indian sociologist. It makes little difference between the Hindu and the Muslim, the Christian and the Buddhist in this matter (Mukherji, D. P., 1958:233-234). Mukherji points out: "It will be said that if the group is still the unit of action, aspiration and orientation, normative, affective and cognitive alike, then the Indian social life is the life of bees and beavers, regimented, totalitarian, in fact, almost communistic". He argues-"we are a much regimented people, who respect 'individual values', 'freedom', 'cultural freedom', like parrots, or who have become morbid by their very un-Indianness, the majority of us do not feel regimented. In fact, quite a number of honest and true men have felt free, and they are not fellow travelers either. They are men like Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna, and Dayanand, not to go further back. And not all Indian women either politicians put it, 'oppressed, suppressed, repressed and depressed'" (Mukherji, D. P., 1958:235). Here, usually, the dynamic element of traditions stops for most Indians. But if the social symbols, which are really and truly 'presences', hiding and seeking, revealing by concealing and concealing by revealing both the spiritual and the social reality, render these rituals active and they do it for many Indians- then the dynamics may proceed. Now begins the creative aspect of symbols. Symbols are neither signs, nor expressions, nor appearances of certain things. They are the things themselves. Symbols have no syntax; they have no subject, object, predicates, and no preposition. "Of course, there are symbols and symbols some of them social and others not so social: Social symbols are inadequate expressions of the spiritual realm adapted to concrete social situations, to typical social structures, and to definite collective mentalities, in which different aspects of the spirit realize themselves and by which it is grasped. Social symbols are thus simultaneously conditioned by social reality and the spirit, which realizes itself therein: they vary in function to this spirit. That is why symbols are at one and the same time the principle object of the sociology of the human spirit (Mukherji, D. P., 1958:239-240). The foregoing extracts from Mukherji, taken in their underlying logic, thus constitute the foundational formulation for any inquiry into the domain of 'sociology of literature'. If so, we are in better position to appreciate his blue print for 'sociology of Indian literature'. We share his basic assumption: "Literary traditions and experiments, which form the subject matter of both literary history and literature, are an expression and a very effective means of communication of cultural traditions and experiments, which in their turn, affect and are affected by the social process. Their relations are mutual transactions; but for the sake of convenience they may be understood either from the point of view of singular structure or total development" (Mukherji, D. P., 1958:298-321). His most significant formulation relates to the issue of 'literary beliefs', particularly as they emerged in the thirties and forties. He must be heard in his own words: "We may now come to the corresponding literary beliefs. These are to be construed from creative practices and critical standards, but chiefly from the latter. Indian literary criticism in the early period of British contact was essentially didactic. The stress was mostly on ISSN: 2277-6168 September|2012 www.ijsst.com Page | 6

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow

Vol. 1 No. 7

moral values. It was double morality, however. While non-morality in western literature was pardonable, it was inexcusable in the Indian. The erotic and highly sensual elements in Sanskrit or Vaishnava literature were conveniently forgotten or explained away in terms of religious symbolism. Very little of formal criticism was indulged in. Yet a few critics held a high position by virtue of their learning and dignity. 'Later on, even these critical standards went overboard and new literary beliefs were formulated. The central one was art for art's sake. The popular dogma of the 'naughty nineties' appeared in India after the usual time-lag. Art was considered distinct from craftsmanship. It was unrelated to living, society and morality; hence it was the fruit of leisure and 'culture'. Direction came from the study of Marxism, which was initiated by the Russian revolution and helped by its chain reactions throughout the colonial world where anti-imperialism took the form of socialistic nationalism. The content was partly indigenous. By that time Indian capitalism had risen and the proletariat could be spotted. The trade-union movement was also growing. Young writers recognized these social forces and their conflict. Others separated themselves to live in what was called the ivory tower. This time the 'progressive went to the masses, the exploited class of the peasants, workers and petty bourgeoisie, with better historical understanding. But their form, being derivative, was loose and did not always fit the content. In this search the significance of folk-literature was discovered. More or less similar things happened in Europe. So the Indian literary movement of this period can also be described as a part of the wider movement. The world was convulsed and the convulsion was transmitted to India; and India was not wholly unready. Unconscious and conscious transmission of culture was at last possible, because now there were a few common grounds of social acceptance. The corresponding literary attitudes have since then been clearer. Few now question the thesis that the function of literature is social, though critics have not yet analyzed how the social processes enter into literary creation and what they do there or is done to them. There is also a general agreement that it must voice the aspirations of the downtrodden, like women, children and the scheduled castes, the poor peasantry, the industrial laborer and the white-collared clerics. Propaganda is often defended as purposive and creative in the long run than disinterested pursuit of art for art's sake. And yet sharper articulation is found in the belief that literature must bring about social change instead of registering it as the naturalists of the twenties held, by understanding, focusing attention on, and thus, exposing, the social contradictions. In any case, the social function and influence of literature are recognized to be wider and deeper today than ever before. The connection of modern Indian literature with the deeper significance of humanism on the plane of living is the secret which young Indian literatures are grouping to secure and are not likely to miss or sell once they know and understand India (Mukherji, D. P., 1958:313-316). Implicit throughout Prof. Mukherji's writing on the theme is a theme, which must be stated openly. The creative, the cultural, the literary, the aesthetic, is a dimension that cannot, and must not, be 'reduced' to any deep structure (economical/material), for it has its distinctive autonomy of function pertaining to our very 'human' nature. Literature is in this respect, sui-genesis, represents a resource of society, which can perform its social function, through its own 'truth'. In this regard then, it is no 'false' superstructure. It has its social uses, undoubtedly, both in reproducing a social formation, and in 'trans-forming' it. But these functions can be performed only to the degree in which it has realized and articulated itself as 'literature'. And found its circulation in social being, cutting across castes, classes and striking the people with its 'lightening'. And, finally, the approach implicitly postulates that even the lowest of the lowly in the social hierarchy has both the capacity for creativity, and its correlative capacity, of 'responding' to creativity, in the mode of tasting (Mohan, G. B., 1968).

6. Operational Guidelines
It is time to draw certain operational conclusions for the sociological analysis of literature as basic guidelines: While disclosing the dialectical linkage of literature and society, 'literature must not be reduced to something other than itself, nor eliminated altogether. If the social formation is hierarchical, top-heavy, explorative and repressive, literature and other forms of cultural 'creativity' are necessarily co-opted by the dominant power structure, in so far as it requires support for its production and circulation in society, whatever the level of the requisite technological infrastructure. The oppressed, the exploited, the deprived, however, sustain themselves through their own symbolic creative articulations, usually designated 'folk' culture/literature. This creativity is not simply an 'escape' or 'amusement', but a major resource of the people, representing their counter-railing 'power' against the accumulated 'symbolic capital' (Bourdieu, P., 1977) of the dominant sections.

ISSN: 2277-6168

September|2012

www.ijsst.com

Page | 7

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow

Vol. 1 No. 7

If then, one is trying to comprehend peasant's movement, directed against the dominant structure; one must pay the closest attention to their own articulations, as also the articulations inducted into the domain by non-peasants espousing their cause. All forms of folk articulation, therefore, must be accorded centrality, when one is looking for 'material' for a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon. And this material should be allowed to 'speak' for itself, as far as possible. The mutual inter-penetration, determination and resultant confluence of the 'people's' literature and 'high' literature must be delineated, by the same rule of presentation. The material must 'speak' for itself as far as possible. Theories of 'literature', and of 'revolution', are necessarily 'secondary' in this perspective, especially when spun by academics and ideologues. They are often performing 'masking' functions, despite their proclaimed goal of 'clarification'. Greater reliance, correspondingly, can be placed on the 'thoughts', 'reflections', 'intentions', and 'blue-prints' of the active participants-mainly, the creative minds and activists jointly engaged in the struggle in which the symbolic resource is a major weapon, though not the final weapon. All interpretations and formulations, based on the above-mentioned resources and guidelines, are necessarily tentative and exploratory. They are 'preliminary sketches', as Karl Marx once described his lifework to his Russian friend. The temptation to 'prove' theories in circulation, or generate theories for future circulation must be resisted. Accordingly, furthermore, our sociological analysis eschews 'sophisticated' interpretations imposed from outside or above. The main aim is to permit the 'form' permeating the 'content' exhibit itself cumulatively, with all its inner tensions, conflicts, contradictions and discontinuities. For it is from 'the mine of contradictions' as Hegel put it, that literature emerges. So does revolution and/or social transformation.

7. Concluding Remarks
To conclude, as sociologists, we can say 'yes, it is possible to propose a 'Reading' of any literature, which will simultaneously yield an 'understanding' of the 'social realities' such as has not been yielded by the available 'scientific' literature produced by the social scientists. In reading of literature, the impli cation is that the centrality, the authentic reality and relative autonomy of literature is sought to be preserved, emphasized and enhanced. Clearly, all forms of inquiry are to be eschewed, thus saving ourselves from all forms of crude socialism and crude determinism. The purpose governing the enquiry is understanding. The implication is clearly to eschew forms of reductive or simplistic explanations on the one hand; but, equally, to go beyond all those exercises which enclose understanding within a dissociated, reified realm of culture. The social realities in question encompass not only the forms of social life and social consciousness, but also all forms of social transformations in which history-making individuals and groups are the participants and active agents. It is thus assumed that there is no Chinese wall separating the cultural, the social, the economic, and the political domains, despite the analytic differentiations in terms of which the relevant academic disciplines seek to build their exclusive domains of enquiry. This is only to emphasize the central characteristic of 'sociology of literature' as an 'inter-discipline', rather than a specialized field within a single discipline.
Dr. M. Sreedevi Xavier Associate Professor Department of Sociology Faculty of Arts, The M. S. University of Baroda

Referrences
Albrecht, cf. M.C. (1958). The Relationship of Literature and Society , American Journal of Sociology, Vol.159 Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of Theory and Practice, Cambridge Uni. Press Escarpit, R (1969). The Sociology of Literature, In International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences Goldmann, L. (1956, 1964). The Hidden God, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Goldmann, L. (1967). Sociology of Literature: Status and Problems of Method , International Social Sciences Journal, Vol. XIX, No.4 Goldmann, L. (1972). Genetic Structuralist Method in History of Literature in 'Marxism and Art' Lang, B. and Williams, F. (ed.), N.Y: David McKay Co Goldmann, L (1975). Towards a Sociology of Novel, London: Tavistock Hoggart, R. (1966). Literature and Society in A Guide to the Social Sciences, ed. Mackenzie, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson Laurenson, D. & Swingewood, A. (1971). The Sociology of Literature, London: Mac Gibbon & Kee Levin, H. (1966). Towards the Sociology of the Novel, N.Y: Oxford Uni. Press LowenthaL, L (1957). Literature and the Image of Man, Boston: Beacon Press Lukacs, G. (1962). The Historical Novel, London: Merlin Press Lukacs, G. (197S). The Ontology of Social Being, London: Merlin Press Lukacs, G. (1968). The Theory of Novel, Paris: Gonthier

ISSN: 2277-6168

September|2012

www.ijsst.com

Page | 8

International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow


Vol. 1 No. 7

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1955). The Communist Manifesto, Moscow: Progress Publishers Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1964). The German Ideology, Moscow: Progress Publishers Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1978). On Art and literature, Moscow: Progress Publishers Mukherji, D.P. (1958). Sociology of Indian Literature in Diversities, New Delhi: People's Publishing House Mukherji, D.P. (1958). Social Changes and Intellectual Interest in Diversities, New Delhi:People's Publishing House Plekhanov, G. (1953). Art and Social Life, London: Lawrence and Wishart Plekhanov, G. (1963). The Meaning of Contemporary Realism, London: Merlin press Taine, H. (1906). History of English Literature, London: Chatto & Wondus

ISSN: 2277-6168

September|2012

www.ijsst.com

Page | 9

Anda mungkin juga menyukai