社会学理论萌芽时期的文学:正在讲述的故事

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews Pub Date : 2023-08-24 DOI:10.1177/00943061231191421x
A. Singer
{"title":"社会学理论萌芽时期的文学:正在讲述的故事","authors":"A. Singer","doi":"10.1177/00943061231191421x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Literature in the Dawn of Sociological Theory: Stories That Are Telling is a challenging book to classify sociologically: its sociological details and observations have largely been excavated through literary analysis. Focusing on novels and novelists from the early 1800s to the early 1900s, and more specifically on the connections they make to the insights of what the author refers to as ‘‘the ‘classical’ canon of sociological theory’’ (p. 1), Sarah Louise MacMillen’s work engages deeply with the literary and aesthetic frameworks of György Lukács, Raymond Williams, and Lucien Goldmann (among others), while the book’s main chapters discuss the fiction of Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, Joseph Conrad, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Virginia Woolf, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. With this monograph, MacMillen intends to surface sociological observations contained within novels published around the period during which much of classical sociological theory emerged. According to MacMillen, this time period anticipated an important and transitional moment within literary aesthetics, and so she brings multiple analytical lenses to bear on the novels and stories she understands as ‘‘telling.’’ By mining a selection of particular novels for sociological insights, MacMillen argues that such literature ‘‘creates the possibility for an early stage of critical sociology, and a nascent analysis of social problems as they carry into the 21 century’’ (p. 2, italics original). MacMillen argues that these ideas are full of potential for developing a deeper understanding of how sociological questions can be seen within and across literary landscapes. MacMillen’s analysis of the novels she selected demonstrates an impressive knowledge of both literary and aesthetic frameworks, and it is exciting to see sociological theories brought into conversations with novels of the same period of time. It is clear that a great deal of care and effort has been taken in the conceptualization of this manuscript and in the analysis of its literary data. As a sociological reader of this work, however, my disciplinary training leaves me with lingering questions. The author is doing interdisciplinary work in pursuit of her research question and so, from a methodological perspective, this book—at times strategically—stands apart from other sociological analyses of literature. MacMillen does not, however, discuss her sampling process or procedures, noting only that she has selected particular novels to analyze and describing how the monograph approaches their analysis in an organized fashion. Further, she does not seem to have selected these novels at random: my sense is that each was purposefully selected to represent an idea or a particular theoretical or literary conversation. The author, however, holds such methodological cards close to her vest. Sociologists of literature and culture would likely point out that the successful, influential authors she has included in her sample represent a particular (racialized and gendered) perspective on their social world and shared access to a particular (racialized and gendered) system of literary production. As a result, it begins to feel challenging to make sociological sense of this work of literary analysis, given that it does not engage seriously with methodological questions about sampling and its analytical consequences. Relatedly, the author shares little about her approach to analyzing the novels she has selected. Again, reading as a sociologist, I would have liked to learn about her approach to these particular sources of literary data, to find out whether or how she developed purposeful coding strategies, for example. In addition, she does not engage as much as she could with the small but mighty existing sociological literature on novels and their production, which tends to be grounded in the theoretical and empirical worlds of cultural sociology. While it is certainly possible—and sometimes productive—to stand apart from ongoing scholarly discussions in pursuit of one’s 460 Reviews","PeriodicalId":46889,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews","volume":"52 1","pages":"460 - 461"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Literature in the Dawn of Sociological Theory: Stories That Are Telling\",\"authors\":\"A. Singer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00943061231191421x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Literature in the Dawn of Sociological Theory: Stories That Are Telling is a challenging book to classify sociologically: its sociological details and observations have largely been excavated through literary analysis. Focusing on novels and novelists from the early 1800s to the early 1900s, and more specifically on the connections they make to the insights of what the author refers to as ‘‘the ‘classical’ canon of sociological theory’’ (p. 1), Sarah Louise MacMillen’s work engages deeply with the literary and aesthetic frameworks of György Lukács, Raymond Williams, and Lucien Goldmann (among others), while the book’s main chapters discuss the fiction of Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, Joseph Conrad, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Virginia Woolf, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. With this monograph, MacMillen intends to surface sociological observations contained within novels published around the period during which much of classical sociological theory emerged. According to MacMillen, this time period anticipated an important and transitional moment within literary aesthetics, and so she brings multiple analytical lenses to bear on the novels and stories she understands as ‘‘telling.’’ By mining a selection of particular novels for sociological insights, MacMillen argues that such literature ‘‘creates the possibility for an early stage of critical sociology, and a nascent analysis of social problems as they carry into the 21 century’’ (p. 2, italics original). MacMillen argues that these ideas are full of potential for developing a deeper understanding of how sociological questions can be seen within and across literary landscapes. MacMillen’s analysis of the novels she selected demonstrates an impressive knowledge of both literary and aesthetic frameworks, and it is exciting to see sociological theories brought into conversations with novels of the same period of time. It is clear that a great deal of care and effort has been taken in the conceptualization of this manuscript and in the analysis of its literary data. As a sociological reader of this work, however, my disciplinary training leaves me with lingering questions. The author is doing interdisciplinary work in pursuit of her research question and so, from a methodological perspective, this book—at times strategically—stands apart from other sociological analyses of literature. MacMillen does not, however, discuss her sampling process or procedures, noting only that she has selected particular novels to analyze and describing how the monograph approaches their analysis in an organized fashion. Further, she does not seem to have selected these novels at random: my sense is that each was purposefully selected to represent an idea or a particular theoretical or literary conversation. The author, however, holds such methodological cards close to her vest. Sociologists of literature and culture would likely point out that the successful, influential authors she has included in her sample represent a particular (racialized and gendered) perspective on their social world and shared access to a particular (racialized and gendered) system of literary production. As a result, it begins to feel challenging to make sociological sense of this work of literary analysis, given that it does not engage seriously with methodological questions about sampling and its analytical consequences. Relatedly, the author shares little about her approach to analyzing the novels she has selected. Again, reading as a sociologist, I would have liked to learn about her approach to these particular sources of literary data, to find out whether or how she developed purposeful coding strategies, for example. In addition, she does not engage as much as she could with the small but mighty existing sociological literature on novels and their production, which tends to be grounded in the theoretical and empirical worlds of cultural sociology. While it is certainly possible—and sometimes productive—to stand apart from ongoing scholarly discussions in pursuit of one’s 460 Reviews\",\"PeriodicalId\":46889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"460 - 461\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00943061231191421x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00943061231191421x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《社会学理论黎明中的文学:正在讲述的故事》是一本具有挑战性的社会学分类书:其社会学细节和观察在很大程度上是通过文学分析挖掘出来的。Sarah Louise MacMillen的作品聚焦于19世纪初至20世纪初的小说和小说家,更具体地说,他们与作者所称的“社会学理论的经典”的见解之间的联系(第1页),她与György Lukács、Raymond Williams、,和Lucien Goldmann(以及其他人),而本书的主要章节讨论了纳撒尼尔·霍桑、赫尔曼·梅尔维尔、约瑟夫·康拉德、夏洛特·帕金斯·吉尔曼、弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫和费奥多尔·陀思妥耶夫斯基的小说。通过这本专著,麦克米伦打算揭示在古典社会学理论出现前后出版的小说中所包含的社会学观察。根据麦克米伦的说法,这一时期预示着文学美学的一个重要而过渡的时刻,因此她将多个分析视角带到了她所理解的“销售”的小说和故事中通过挖掘一些特定的小说以获得社会学见解,麦克米伦认为,这些文学“为批判性社会学的早期阶段创造了可能性,并在社会问题进入21世纪时对其进行了初步分析”(第2页,斜体原文)。麦克米伦认为,这些想法充满了发展对如何在文学景观中和文学景观中看待社会学问题的更深入理解的潜力。麦克米伦对她所选小说的分析表明,她对文学和美学框架都有着令人印象深刻的了解,看到社会学理论与同一时期的小说对话令人兴奋。很明显,在构思这份手稿和分析其文学数据时,我们付出了大量的心血。然而,作为这部作品的社会学读者,我的学科训练给我留下了挥之不去的问题。作者正在进行跨学科的工作,以寻求她的研究问题,因此,从方法论的角度来看,这本书——有时是战略性的——与其他文学社会学分析不同。然而,麦克米伦没有讨论她的抽样过程或程序,只指出她选择了特定的小说进行分析,并描述了专著如何以有组织的方式进行分析。此外,她似乎并不是随机选择这些小说的:我的感觉是,每一部小说都是有目的地选择来代表一个想法、一个特定的理论或文学对话。然而,提交人把这种方法论的卡片紧紧地放在背心上。文学和文化社会学家可能会指出,她在样本中收录的成功、有影响力的作家代表了对他们的社会世界的一种特殊(种族化和性别化)视角,并共同接触到一种特定(种族化或性别化)的文学生产体系。因此,鉴于这部文学分析作品没有认真处理有关抽样及其分析后果的方法论问题,因此,对其进行社会学理解开始感到具有挑战性。与此相关的是,作者很少分享她分析所选小说的方法。同样,作为一名社会学家,我想了解她处理这些特定文学数据来源的方法,例如,了解她是否或如何制定有目的的编码策略。此外,她没有尽可能多地参与现有的关于小说及其制作的小而强大的社会学文献,这些文献往往以文化社会学的理论和经验世界为基础。虽然为了追求460篇评论而脱离正在进行的学术讨论当然是可能的,有时也是富有成效的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Literature in the Dawn of Sociological Theory: Stories That Are Telling
Literature in the Dawn of Sociological Theory: Stories That Are Telling is a challenging book to classify sociologically: its sociological details and observations have largely been excavated through literary analysis. Focusing on novels and novelists from the early 1800s to the early 1900s, and more specifically on the connections they make to the insights of what the author refers to as ‘‘the ‘classical’ canon of sociological theory’’ (p. 1), Sarah Louise MacMillen’s work engages deeply with the literary and aesthetic frameworks of György Lukács, Raymond Williams, and Lucien Goldmann (among others), while the book’s main chapters discuss the fiction of Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, Joseph Conrad, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Virginia Woolf, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. With this monograph, MacMillen intends to surface sociological observations contained within novels published around the period during which much of classical sociological theory emerged. According to MacMillen, this time period anticipated an important and transitional moment within literary aesthetics, and so she brings multiple analytical lenses to bear on the novels and stories she understands as ‘‘telling.’’ By mining a selection of particular novels for sociological insights, MacMillen argues that such literature ‘‘creates the possibility for an early stage of critical sociology, and a nascent analysis of social problems as they carry into the 21 century’’ (p. 2, italics original). MacMillen argues that these ideas are full of potential for developing a deeper understanding of how sociological questions can be seen within and across literary landscapes. MacMillen’s analysis of the novels she selected demonstrates an impressive knowledge of both literary and aesthetic frameworks, and it is exciting to see sociological theories brought into conversations with novels of the same period of time. It is clear that a great deal of care and effort has been taken in the conceptualization of this manuscript and in the analysis of its literary data. As a sociological reader of this work, however, my disciplinary training leaves me with lingering questions. The author is doing interdisciplinary work in pursuit of her research question and so, from a methodological perspective, this book—at times strategically—stands apart from other sociological analyses of literature. MacMillen does not, however, discuss her sampling process or procedures, noting only that she has selected particular novels to analyze and describing how the monograph approaches their analysis in an organized fashion. Further, she does not seem to have selected these novels at random: my sense is that each was purposefully selected to represent an idea or a particular theoretical or literary conversation. The author, however, holds such methodological cards close to her vest. Sociologists of literature and culture would likely point out that the successful, influential authors she has included in her sample represent a particular (racialized and gendered) perspective on their social world and shared access to a particular (racialized and gendered) system of literary production. As a result, it begins to feel challenging to make sociological sense of this work of literary analysis, given that it does not engage seriously with methodological questions about sampling and its analytical consequences. Relatedly, the author shares little about her approach to analyzing the novels she has selected. Again, reading as a sociologist, I would have liked to learn about her approach to these particular sources of literary data, to find out whether or how she developed purposeful coding strategies, for example. In addition, she does not engage as much as she could with the small but mighty existing sociological literature on novels and their production, which tends to be grounded in the theoretical and empirical worlds of cultural sociology. While it is certainly possible—and sometimes productive—to stand apart from ongoing scholarly discussions in pursuit of one’s 460 Reviews
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
202
期刊最新文献
How the Clinic Made Gender: The Medical History of a Transformative Idea Prisons of Debt: The Afterlives of Incarcerated Fathers Working-Class Kids Photographing Childhood: Valuing Care, Reciprocity, Sociality, and Dignity Literature in the Dawn of Sociological Theory: Stories That Are Telling On Expertise: Cultivating Character, Goodwill, and Practical Wisdom
×
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