Socio/Poetics

IF 0.8 2区 文学 0 LITERATURE New Literary History Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1353/nlh.2022.0019
Ingrid Becker
{"title":"Socio/Poetics","authors":"Ingrid Becker","doi":"10.1353/nlh.2022.0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The intersection of literature, literary studies, and sociology has long been a key site of experimentation. This article contributes to recent debates about applying sociological methods to literary objects and literary modes of interpretation to the objects of sociology through a historical approach. I introduce the term “sociopoetics” to demarcate the characteristics of what I suggest is a literary-historical category of hybrid works that ask to be read both as sociological studies and literary texts at once. Drawing on C. Wright Mills and Kenneth Burke, I define sociopoetics as what Burke has called a “strategy,” a rhetorical gesture that names recurrent yet incompletely articulated social situations. I then trace the development of sociopoetics as a strategy by reading two illustrative texts: Robert and Helen Lynd’s Middletown community studies (1929, 1937), the first best-selling American sociological monographs, and James Agee’s and Walker Evans’s documentary photo-essay Let Us Now Praise Famous Men (1941). I argue that these works grapple with situations of disciplinary impasse while addressing specific social problems that impact human welfare; in particular, they engage with the promise and inadequacy of representing “typical” individuals and social scenarios in the 1930s, a period of crystallization among the disciplines and widespread strife in the US.","PeriodicalId":19150,"journal":{"name":"New Literary History","volume":"53 1","pages":"415 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Literary History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2022.0019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:The intersection of literature, literary studies, and sociology has long been a key site of experimentation. This article contributes to recent debates about applying sociological methods to literary objects and literary modes of interpretation to the objects of sociology through a historical approach. I introduce the term “sociopoetics” to demarcate the characteristics of what I suggest is a literary-historical category of hybrid works that ask to be read both as sociological studies and literary texts at once. Drawing on C. Wright Mills and Kenneth Burke, I define sociopoetics as what Burke has called a “strategy,” a rhetorical gesture that names recurrent yet incompletely articulated social situations. I then trace the development of sociopoetics as a strategy by reading two illustrative texts: Robert and Helen Lynd’s Middletown community studies (1929, 1937), the first best-selling American sociological monographs, and James Agee’s and Walker Evans’s documentary photo-essay Let Us Now Praise Famous Men (1941). I argue that these works grapple with situations of disciplinary impasse while addressing specific social problems that impact human welfare; in particular, they engage with the promise and inadequacy of representing “typical” individuals and social scenarios in the 1930s, a period of crystallization among the disciplines and widespread strife in the US.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会/诗学
摘要:文学、文学研究和社会学的交叉一直是一个重要的实验场所。本文对最近关于社会学方法应用于文学对象和文学解释模式通过历史方法应用于社会学对象的争论做出了贡献。我引入“社会诗学”一词,是为了界定我所认为的混合作品的文学-历史类别的特征,这些作品要求同时作为社会学研究和文学文本来阅读。借鉴c·赖特·米尔斯和肯尼斯·伯克的观点,我将社会诗学定义为伯克所说的“策略”,一种为反复出现但尚未完全阐明的社会情境命名的修辞姿态。然后,我通过阅读两篇说明性的文章来追溯社会诗学作为一种策略的发展:罗伯特·林德和海伦·林德的《米德尔顿社区研究》(1929年、1937年),这是美国第一本畅销的社会学专著,以及詹姆斯·阿吉和沃克·埃文斯的纪实性摄影散文《让我们现在赞美名人》(1941年)。我认为,这些作品在解决影响人类福利的具体社会问题的同时,努力解决学科僵局的情况;特别是,他们致力于代表20世纪30年代“典型”个人和社会情景的希望和不足,这是一个学科结晶和美国广泛冲突的时期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
New Literary History
New Literary History LITERATURE-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: New Literary History focuses on questions of theory, method, interpretation, and literary history. Rather than espousing a single ideology or intellectual framework, it canvasses a wide range of scholarly concerns. By examining the bases of criticism, the journal provokes debate on the relations between literary and cultural texts and present needs. A major international forum for scholarly exchange, New Literary History has received six awards from the Council of Editors of Learned Journals.
期刊最新文献
"Let me look again": The Moral Philosophy and Literature Debate at 40 Aesthetic Affairs: Art, Architecture, and the Illusion of Detachment Medieval Futures and the Postwork Romance Idols of the Fragment: Barthes and Critique Metaphorical Figures for Moral Complexity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1