University Delhi.entrance Examinations.march.1954.Relationship Literature and Society Passage 2.Question Papers.pdf

7/27/2019 University Delhi.entrance Examinations.march.1954.Relationship Literature and Society Passage 2.Question Paper

1/13

The Relationship of Literature and SocietyAuthor(s): Milton C. AlbrechtReviewed work(s):Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 59, No. 5 (Mar., 1954), pp. 425-436Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772244 .

Accessed: 16/02/2012 05:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2772244?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2772244?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/13

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LITERATURE AND SOCIETYMILTON C. ALBRECHT

ABSTRACTIn most heoriesftherelationshipf iteraturend societyeflection,nfluence,nd social ontrolreimplied. iteratures nterpreteds reflectingormsndvalues, s revealinghe thos f ulture,heproc-esses f lass truggle,nd ertainypes f ocial facts." Influence"snot trictlyhe eversef eflection,since ocial tabilitynd culturaldeals re nvolved.ocial ontrol,owever,rticulatesloselywith neversionfreflection,hough o a limitedxtentncomplex,ynamicocieties.As Mueller ointed utfifteenears go,'sociologistsn theUnitedStateshave paidlittle ttentiono literaturend art; they,likeother ocial cientists,ave focused ri-marily n the nstrumentalspects f ociallife.2 erhaps his sbecausepractical ocialproblemsavegrowno urgent-but,what-ever hereason,ome nterestnthe rtshaspersistedndin recent earshas increased,howeverporadically.' f iterarynd socialhistoriess well as of more imitednvesti-gations here re,of ourse,nuntoldnum-ber.Ourpurposenthispaper sto examinecriticallyomeof their haracteristiciew-points and theoretical ssumptions.Onehypothesissthat iteraturereflects"ocie-

ty; itssupposed onverses that iteratureinfluencesr "shapes" society.A third y-pothesiss that iteratureunctionsociallyto maintain nd stabilize,f not to justifyandsanctify,he ocialorder, hichmaybecalled the"social-control"heory.Theidea that iteratureeflectsocietys

at least as old as Plato's concept f mita-tion.4 ystematicpplication fthe dea didnotappear,however, ntil bout a centuryand a half go. The "beginning"might esaid to beMadamedeStae's De la litte'ratureconsidereeanssesrapportsvec es institu-tions ociales,6ublishedn 1800, n whichthe uthor fferedsocial andhistoricaln-terpretationf the iterature fseveralna-tions.Heroutlookwasromanticnd dealis-tic, xpressedn terms f ndividual ndso-cialperfectionism.pparently,he heory freflectionroseout ofthe pirit fnational-ism preadinghroughouturopeandfromthe environmentalismf seventeenth-ndeighteenth-centuryhinkers.6ngeneral,heidea is a manifestationfa change nman'sperspective,rystallized uring he nine-teenthenturynphilosophiesfhistory,ntheformulationfthetheory fevolution,and in the sociological onceptions f so-cietiesndtheirhangingharacterhroughsuccessiveges.7The essentialfunction f the reflectiontheorywas to "explain" n socialand his-torical rather than individualterms thequality nd greatnessf iterature,s wellas itscontent,tyle, ndforms.n effect,temphasized ocial andcultural eterminism

I J.H. Mueller, Is Artthe Productof ts Age?"Social Forces,XIII (March, 1935), 367-76; "TheFolkway of Art," AmericanJournalof Sociology,XLIV (September, 938), 222-38.2 KingsleyDavis, Human Society New York:MacmillanCo., 1949),p. 392.3 Bibliographiesmay be found n A. S. Tomars,Introductiono the Sociology f Art (Mexico City,1940),pp. 418-21; in H. E. Barnes and H. Becker,Contemporaryocial Theory New York: Appleton-CenturyCo., 1940),pp. 889-92; in JamesH. Bar-nett,Divorce nd theAmerican ivorceNovel, 858-1937 (Philadelphia,1939), pp. 146ff.; n BernardBerelsonand MorrisJanowitz, ublic OpinionandCommunicationGlencoe, ll.: Free Press,1950). Formanyother ources ee Hugh D. Duncan, "An An-notated Bibliography n the Sociologyof Litera-

ture" (University fChicagothesis, 947).

4 TheRepublic, n TheWorks fPlato,trans.B.Jowett 4 vols. in 1; New York: Dial Press,n.d.),II, 378ff.5 2 vols.; Paris, 1800. See also De l'Allemagne(Paris, 1813).6Max Lerner and Edwin Mims, Jr., "Litera-ture," in Encyclopedia ftheSocial Sciences NewYork: MacmillanCo., 1933), X, 538-39.7 Floyd N. House, TheDevelopmentfSociology

(New York: McGraw-HillBook Co., 1936).425


3/13

426 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGYinsteadofpersonal nspiration,nd it be-came thebroadorientationf nnumerableworksdealing withthe arts.To be sure,other hraseswere ften sed, uchas "ex-pression f society" r"mirrorf ife,"buttheirmeaning s practicallydenticalwith"reflection."hesephraseswere ppliedtonearly verythingocial nd cultural s wellas biological nd geographical. t onetimeor another iterature as been thought oreflectconomics, amily elationships,li-mate and landscapes,attitudes,morals,races, ocialclasses,political vents,wars,religion,ndmany thermoredetailed s-pectsofenvironmentnd social ife.8

This diversityesults, pparently, romthe fact that literature mbraces widevarietyf ubjectmatter,epresentingset-tings," ehavior atterns,ndideas ntheircomplexnterrelationships.t hasled some,like Mueller, o believethat thereflectiontheorys "tooall-embracing"o be useful.9Nevertheless,t has traditionallyeenap-plied na fewmajor orms,ometimestatedexplicitly ut oftenmerelymplied r as-sumed-byliteraryndsocialhistoriansswellas bysociologistsnd anthropologists.Probablythe commonest onceptionhasbeenthat iteratureeflectsredominantlythe ignificantalues nd normsf culture.As DeVotosays,"Literatures a record fsocial experience,n embodimentfsocialmytbsnd deals ndaims, nd anorganiza-tion f ocialbeliefsndsanctions."'0hese

"social beliefs nd sanctions" aveusuallyincludedreligious eliefs nd customs, smanifestednmyths nd other rt forms,both of primitiveocieties nd of earlierhistoricalperiodsof civilizations."Boasfinds, or xample,hat he onditionsf ifeina number f ndian ribesanbe abstract-edfromheir raditionalales: "Beliefs ndcustomsn ife nd intales re nfull gree-ment."'12 hether his is fully s true ncomplex ivilizationsuch s ourown eemsless clear, nd it is uncertainwhether hesituationssedas vehicles or llustratingremphasizing mportant ocial values arethose ctually ccurringn a society rtrulytypical.Onthese uestionshere eems essgeneral greement,uttheuse of iteratureas an index fsignificanteliefsnd valuesin a society as beenwidespread.'3In psychology recentvariant of thisconceptions thatstories, t least as pre-sentednmovies, eflect he stress atternsand emotional eeds of audiences, risingoutof shared ultural nd social ife.Wolf-ensteinnd Leites, ornstance, elieve hat"the common ay-dreamsf culturere npartthe ources,npart theproducts f tspopularmyths, tories, lays and films."''4As a consequence,heplotsofthedrama fa particular imeorperiod how distinc-tive configuration.ther nvestigatorss-sume hat kind f ollective nconsciouss

8Cf.Lerner ndMims, p. cit., . 524. FranzBoasmaintains GeneralAnthropologyNewYork: D. C.Heath & Co., 1938],p. 594) that "the contents fpoetry re as variedas the cultural nterests fthepeople." Henry Commager nsists (The AmericanMind [NewHaven: Yale University ress,1950],p.56) that imaginative iterature ould faithfullye-place thedocumentaryecordof the contemporaryscene.9"Is Art theProductof ts Age?" op.cit.,p. 373.10W.E. Lingelbach ed.),ApproachesoAmericanSocial History New York: Appleton-Centuryo.,1937), p. 54. Cf.David Daiches, Literature nd So-ciety London:VictorGollancz,1938); IrwinEdman,Artsand theMan (New York: New AmericanLi-brary,1949), pp. 122-29; Ruth Benedict,Chrysan-themumnd the word Boston: HoughtonMifflinCo., 1946), pp. 100-133; Hortense Powdermaker,

"An Anthropologistooks at theMovies," Annalsof theAmericanAcademy fPoliticaland Social Sci-ence,CCLIV (November,1947), 83-84.11 onsultE. Grosse,TheBeginnings fArt NewYork: Appleton, 897); Y. Hirn,The Origins f Art(London, 1900); Jane Harrison,AncientArt andRitual (New York: HenryHolt & Co., 1913); FranzBoas, PrimitiveArt (Oslo, 1927); Herbert Read,Artand SocietyNew York: MacmillanCo., 1937);Susanne K. Langer,Philosophyn a NewKey (NewYork: PenguinBooks, 1948).

12 GeneralAnthropology,. 600.13 See also studies fnationalcharacter,urveyedby OttoKlineberg,TensionsAffectingnternationalUnderstandingNew York: Social ScienceResearchCouncil,1950),pp. 49-58.14 Martha Wolfenstein and Nathan Leites,Movies: A Psychological tudy (Glencoe, ll.: FreePress, 1950), pp. 12-13.


4/13

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LITERATURE AND SOCIETY 427reflected,r, npsychoanalyticerms, hatliterature resents manifest nd latentcontent, s in dreams, oth derivedfromstressesnsociety,ndbothgiven ymbolicmeaning."5owever,s Fearing tates, hereis no indication s to howmakers f filmsgainaccess to the collective nconsciousfa population orwhom hey re intended,orwhetherilmsctually arry he ymbolicmeanings o a mass audience.'6Neverthe-less, iteraturer motion icturesmay pre-sent interpretiveramesof reference,sWolfensteinnd Leitessuggest, hich avetheir ounterpartn real-lifettitudes.Al-thoughherelationshipfmovie r iterarypatternso the argerulturescomplexndnotwellunderstood,t s assumed hat hesepatternseflectnsignificantndcharacter-isticwaysthe attitudes nd shared xperi-ences nsociety.'7By students f culture, iterature ndother rtshave beenused as reflectionsfthe fundamentaleality fa culture, ari-ously alled "culturementality,"Weltan-schauung," spiritual rinciple,"r "soul,"and of thedifferenttages n the develop-mentof a culture.i" hese conceptionsrederivedargely romHegel and otherhis-torical hilosophersftheearlynineteenthcentury s well as from he sociologists,Comte ndSpencer. aine,for xample,t-tempted o accountforthe characteristicsof English literature nd their historicalchanges y applying is famous riad: ace,environment,ndtime.Althoughegarding''mind rspirit" s themaster-ideanherent

in "race,"hewas enough f a positivistolook forward o the quantificationf hisformula or uccessful redictionf futureliteraryrends.'9Morerecent epresentativesfthis radi-tion,whoareconcerned ith heunity ndchange of civilizations,ncludeSpengler,Toynbee, ndSorokin. fthese, penglersthemostclosely dentified ithHegelianthought,oth ntheprinciples fspirit nddestiny nd nregarding istorys proceed-ing hroughhasesofgrowth, aturity,nddecay.20 therdifferencesn ideology ndmethod etweenhese epresentativesiebe-yond he cope ofthis rticle, utthere re

certaingeneralagreements.All of themidentifywomainphases n thehistoryfsocieties,alled 'culture" nd"civili7ation"bySpengler,2"yin"and "yang"by Toyn-bee,22ideational" nd "sensate"by Soro-kin,although helatteralso distinguishesseveralmixed orms,fwhich he"idealis-tic"is a special ype.23ach set ofterms e-fers ocontrastingypes f ocieties,heonestable ndslow ochange, heother ynam-ic andrapid nchange. ach societyschar-acterizedby a number f other ualities,which are reflectedn literature nd art.Toynbee indshat rt tylesmore ccurate-ly establish hetime pan of a civilization,itsgrowthnd dissolution,hananyothermethodfmeasurement.24orokin,owever,

15J.P. Mayer, Sociologyof the Film (London:Faber & Faber, 1946); SiegfriedKracauer, FromCaligari to Hitler Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1947); ParkerTyler, Magic and MythoftheMovies New York: HenryHolt & Co., 1947).16FranklinFearing, Influence ftheMovies onAttitudes nd Behavior," Annals of the AmericanAcademyof Political and Social Science, CCLIV(November,1947), 76-78.17Wolfensteinnd Leites, op. cit.,pp. 295, 306-7.18 Cf.RadhakamalMukerjee, The MeaningandEvolutionofArt n Society,"American ociological

Review, (August, 945),496: Artreveals the soulof a culture nd socialmilieu n a moresignificantmanner hanreligion,cience, nd philosophy."

19H. A. Taine,History fEnglishLiteratureNewYork:HenryHolt & Co., 1886),pp. 1-21. For com-ment see Albert Guerard,Literature nd Society(Boston:Lothrop,Lee & ShepardCo., 1935).20 Oswald Spengler,TheDecline oftheWest (2

vols.; New York: A. A. Knopf, 1926-28), Vol. I,Introduction.Cf. G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy fHistory New York: Collier& Son, 1900),pp. 61-99,115-34,300-302.21 op. cit., I, 31-35.22 ArnoldJ. Toynbee,A StudyofHistory Lon-don: OxfordUniversity ress, 1934-39), I, 201-4;III, 196ff., 90; IV, 33-34. DismissingSpengler'sorganicconcept of cultures,Toynbee accepts theidea ofdominant endencies r bent (III, 382-90).2aPitirimA. Sorokin,Social and CulturalDy-namics (4 vols.; New York: AmericanBook Co.,1937-41), , 55-102; IV, passim.He surveys arious"phase" concepts fculturesn IV, 389ff.24 Op. Cit., ITI, 378-79.


5/13

428 THE AMERICAN JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGYhas describedndelaboratedn these uali-ties probablymore systematicallyhaneither pengler r Toynbee.According ohim, n the iteraturend artwhich eflectideational ulturehe ubjects eal with er-sons nd events freligiousignificance,heattitudesreascetic, therworldly,he tyleis symbolic,ormal,nd conventional,ndthe echniquesre relativelyimple. ensateliterature,ntheother and, elects ecular,commonplace opicsand events, s sensa-tional nd erotic,ndividualisticnd skepti-cal; the tyle s sensual, ealistic,ndnatu-ralisticnd the echniquesreelaboratendcomplex.25omars, lthoughmore ociologi-cal than ulturaln orientationnd avoidingthe theories f changeof the above trio,comes to almostidenticalconclusions sthese xpressedy Sorokin.26This conception hat reflectionevealsthe ssential orld utlook f culturebvi-ously verlapshe deaexpressedarlierhatitrepresentsormsnd values ndthe tresspatterns,ut reflectionfethos mphasizesthe integrativeharacter f cultures ndtheir rganizationrounddominantctivi-ties or beliefs-the concept of culturalfocus ecognizednd developed ya numberof anthropologists,houghwithout thephilosophicovertones o conspicuous nSpengler.27t isquestionable hetheritera-ture nd thearts are alwaysas reliable n-dexes s usually ssumed. robably hey reonlyone indexamong many,whoserele-

vance ndsignificancearywith he ocietyor culture.28etween iteraturend otherculturalproducts here lso seemto existspecificnterrelationships,ithoutny sys-tematic ttempt eingmadetodesignate heprinciples overningheirnteraction.on-sequently,iteraturendother rtsmay bean index f ultural hange, ut they ppar-ently annot ccount or hiftsn"mentali-ty."29 heyare a symptom,ot cause.Assuch, they are passive, essentially taticagents-a conclusion hat hardly eems asinevitables thisformulationmplies.Anotherersion freflectionerives romthe dialecticalmaterialismfMarx andhisfollowers, hoselect the economic ystemrather han thos r soulas the ndependentvariable. Literature nd art, along withother ideologies,"redeterminedy "themodeof productionnmaterialife,"30ndby the deas oftheruling lass,which re nevery poch herulingdeas.3' ut n thedia-lectical process,manifestedn the classstruggle,art expresseshetendencies farising,nd thereforeevolutionarylass."32The relationshipfeconomic tructurendideological orms, owever,s notcausallydirect and mechanical, s Engels pointsout.33speciallysthis rue f rtistic reat-ness,whichMarxadmitshasnodirect ela-

25Sorokin, p. cit., , 679.26Op. cit.,pp. 300-306,392-95. See also Herbert

A. Bloch,"Towardsthe Development f a Sociologyof Literary nd ArtForms,"American ociologicalReview, III (June,1943),310-20. Blochpresentsclassification f literary atternsor themeswhichresultwhenartists ack a common ocial idiom.27 RuthBenedict, atterns fCultureNewYork:New American ibrary,1948); Ralph Linton (ed.),TheScienceofMan in theWorldCrisis (New York:ColumbiaUniversity ress,1945),pp. 164-68;A. L.Kroeber, onfigurationsfCulture rowthBerkeley:University f CaliforniaPress, 1944), pp. 820-23,826-28. Repudiating the idea of a master-plan,Kroeberuses thehypothesis hat any notable cul-

tural achievement resupposes dherenceto a cer-tainsetofpatternswhich re imited ndwhichmaydevelopand becomeexhausted.

28 Spengler egards he arts as "primephenome-na," whileSorokin ncludes othercultural aspects,all ofwhich show essentially he same trends. n1934 Elliottand Merrill egardediterature s prob-ably"the most ignificantndex"of ocialdisorgani-zation, but the latest edition of their textfails tomentioniterary ndexes Mabel Elliott and FrancisMerrill, ocial Disorganization 3d ed.; New York:Harper & Bros., 1950],pp. 45-48).29 Toynbee, op. cit., V, 52.30KarlMarxandFriedrich ngels,LiteraturendArt NewYork: International ublishersCo., 1947),p. 1. Cf. Louis Harap, Social RootsoftheArts NewYork: International ublishersCo., 1949), p. 16.31Karl Marx and Friedrich ngels, The GermanIdeology New York: International ublishersCo.,1939), p. 39. Cf. Harap, op. cit.,pp. 3940.32Harap, op. cit.,p. 112; Marx and Engels,Lit-erature nd Art,pp. 25, 45, 52-55, 116.33Karl Marx and FriedrichEngels, Correspond-ence,1846-1895 New York: International ublish-ersCo., 1936), p. 475. Cf.Harap, op. cit.,pp. 10-11.


6/13

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LITERATURE AND SOCIETY 429tionto either he degree fsocialdevelop-ment rthetype f economic ase.34Among henumerousollowers hohaveelaborated,nterpreted,nd appliedtheseideas re Veblen, audwell, ox,Calverton,Parrington, nd Hicks. Some are strictMarxists, thers dapt and selectMarx'sideas,of which heclass nfluencen litera-turehas been the most suggestive. eblenshowsthe intrusion f economicmotives,conspicuous aste, ndexpensivenessnthecharacter f aestheticobjects.35 audwelland Fox,dealingwith oetryndthenovel,respectively,36ttempt o relateeconomicconditionsnd bourgeoisdeas totheformsas well s the ontentf iterature,nd pre-sume that artistic reatnesswillarise n afuturelassless ociety.37arrington,liber-al rather han Marxist, escribesheeco-nomic ackgroundrom hichpring here-gional ndclass differenceshatdistinguishthemainperiods fAmericanocial nd it-eraryhistory.38 ore comprehensivendless doctrinairehanCalverton39r Hicks,40he traces heclass andeconomic osition fwritersnd showshowthese"determine"their conomic heories nd their eligiousand politicalphilosophies s well as the

character nd form f their iterary ro-ductions.One need not, of course,followtheMarxiansystemn investigatinghe nflu-ence of social classesonliterature.omars,for xample, doptingMacIver's onceptsfcorporatendcompetitivelasses, escribesand illustratesheir ifferentialnfluencenthe subjectmatter nd styleof literatureand other rts ndexaminesnterclassela-tionships s well.4'More recentlyGordonhas been impressed y theaccuracywithwhichnovelistshave representedhe cul-turaltraitsthatdistinguisheveral socialclasses ntheUnited tates.42

In general, heMarxianorientation asbeenwidelynfluential,houghubject oanumber of difficulties. hether, or ex-ample, proletarian"iteraturectually on-tributeso ower-classolidaritysquestion-able, nd how nother espectstfostersheclass struggle as notbeen systematicallyexplored.Muchof heMarxistwritings fullofdoctrinairendnegativeudgments ath-erthanthoroughnalysis robjective est-ingofhypotheses. he conceptof classesseemsof imited pplicabilityoAmericansociety,ndthe ystem ails o nclude thertypesofgroups romwhich ertainvaria-tions f iteraryormndexpression aybederived r o onsiderhenfluencendrama,for nstance, f groupswithconflictingrdivergentnterests.43he problem fhowbourgeoiswritersnd artists ucceed n re-flectinghe deas ndaimsof heproletarianclassremainsbscure. s for henotion hattheclassless ocietywillprovide he ulti-mate basis for hedevelopmentf iteraryand artistic reatness,here s obviously obasis; t seitherwishfulhinkingrhopefulpropaganda-unless, f course, neacceptswholeheartedlyhe Marxian system.De-

34LiteratureandArt,pp. 18-19.35Thorstein Veblen, The Theoryof the LeisureClass (New York: Heubsch, 1924),pp. 126-66.36Christopher audwell, Illusion and Reality(New York: InternationalPublishersCo., 1947);Ralph Fox, The Noveland thePeople (New York:International ublishersCo., 1945).37Caudwell,op. cit.,pp. 293-98; Fox, op. cit.,pp.80, 125-26. Cf. Harap, op. cit., pp. 168-82, and

Lenin, n ClaraZelkin,ReminiscencesfLenin (NewYork: International ublishersCo., 1934), p. 13.38 Vernon . Parrington, ain Currentsn Amer-ican Thought 3 vols. in 1; New York: Harcourt,Brace & Co. 1930). In methodParrington as influ-encedbybothTaine andJ.AllenSmith, romwhomhe derived the concept of economic determinism(III, vii).39V. F. Calverton,TheNewer pirit New York:Boni & Liveright, 925); TheLiberation fAmericanLiterature New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,1932).40 GranvilleHicks, The Great Tradition NewYork: Macmillan Co, 1933); Figures of Transition(New York: MacmillanCo., 1939).

41 p. cit., p. 141-223.e MiltonM. Gordon,Kitty oyle ndtheCon-cept of Class as Culture," AmericanJournal ofSociology,III (November,947), 10-18.43Levin . Schuckingoints ut howhetero-

geneous udiencesnfluencedlizabethan rama(Sociology fLiteraryTaste [London: Kegan Paul,1944], p.11-13).


7/13


8/13

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LITERATURE AND SOCIETY 431tion, t would eemthat the theorys notentirely selessbutthatmore xtensiven-vestigations needed.The reliabilityf it-erature nd art as indexesof the stateofsociety nd culturemight e checkedgainstother ndexes, o thatthedanger s avoidedof deducing he"spirit f the age" fromtsart ndthen ediscoveringt n ts rt5" thedanger whichDeVoto calls "the literaryfallacy."52t seemsevident, lso, that tosomeextent hephrase reflectionfsocie-ty" s a misnomer,incemuch fwhat itera-turepresumablyeflectss specificallyul-tural atherhan ocial, s Sorokin xplicitlystates.53 arx and others ave called tten-tionto theinfluence f social classes,butmany ther ocial spectsmight eexplored.It is not clearlyunderstood, or example,whatsocial processesdevelop and sustaindifferencesn aesthetic aste or determinewhat s called artistic reatness. tpresentthe reflectionheory eems to accountforsomeofthe content nd certain roadas-pectsof iterarynd artistic tyles,withoutcoming o gripswiththeproblem f whatsocial conditions re responsible or theexistence nd popularityf specificiteraryandartisticorms. nd nevitablyt stressesthe external roduct s an artifact,o thatsome investigatorsminimize r deny thepossible oleof the rts n socialchange.Despite gaps and uncertainties,hesegeneral rientationshow omepossibilitiesofultimategreement.t shouldbekept nmind, lso, thathistorically he reflectiontheoryhas donevaluable service n chal-lenging lder nsights nd establishedradi-tions. t hasdirected ttention o the ocialand cultural haracteristicsf iteraturenadditionto its morenarrowly ormal s-pects. t has emphasized he conceptionfartists s agents fsocialforces atherhanas individual eniuses rgreatmenwithn-ventivemaginations.t hasprovidedocialandhistoricalmodesofanalysis s alterna-

tives to exclusively iographical nd aes-thetic pproaches nd offeredoncepts fculturalrelativismn place of absolutistaesthetic rinciplesnd socialdeterminismin placeofartisticndividualism.Thehistoricalmphasis n reflectionasnaturallyended o distract ttentionromthequestion fthe nfluencef iteraturensociety,utthe wo oncepts avefrequent-ly beenregardeds mutuallynfluentialras opposite idesofthe amecoin.54 uker-jee holds hat art s at once socialproductand an establishedmeans of social con-trol."55nglis, indingo evidence hatpop-ular literature 'shapes"society,believesthat tresultsna measure f ocialcontrolby supportinghestatus quo ofAmericanattitudesnd ideals.56n brief,ne canfor-mulate hepropositionhat, f iteraturee-flects,hen talso confirmnsnd strengthenscultural orms,ttitudes,ndbeliefs.This "social control" unction flitera-ture s suggestednthearticle yBerelsonand Salter,57nd BettyWangfinds hat tappliesto the folk ongsofChina.58Moresystematicallynd directly, owever,t issupported yWarner nd Henry's nvesti-gationofBig Sister,a radioserialdrama.59Theyconclude hat hisdrama s essentiallya minormorality lay adaptedto a secularsociety.Psychologically,t does not just"entertain"ts isteners,ut t releases heirantisocial mpulses, nxieties, nd frustra-

51 chUcking,p. cit.,pp. 4-5.52 Bernard eVoto,The LiteraryFallacy (Bos-

ton:Little, rown Co.,1944).53 p. cit., IV, 124-28.

54See Barnett, op. cit., p. 11; Paul Meadows,"Social Determination fArt," Sociology nd SocialResearch,XXVI (March-April, 942),310-13."IOp. cit.,p. 496.56 nglis' use of "social control" s a form f"in-fluence" eems to lead to someconfusion.t seemspreferableorestrictheterm o ts more imited ndprecise ontext.57Op. Cit., p. 188.58 "Folk Songs as a Means of Social Control,"SociologyndSocial Research, IX (September-Oc-tober, 1934), 64-69; "Folk Songs as RegulatorsofPolitics," ibid., XX (November-December, 935),161-66.69 W. Lloyd Warner nd WilliamE. Henry, The

Radio Daytime Serial: A Symbolic Analysis,"Genetic sychological onographs, XXVII (Febru-ary, 1948),3-73.


9/13

432 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGYtions ndprovideshemwith oth feelingofbeing nstructednd a senseofsecurityand importance.ociallytheprogram ro-motes understandingf the ideals andvaluesoffamilyife, nditstrengthensndstabilizes hebasicsocial nstitutionfoursociety,hefamily.60Although o mention s made ofMali-nowskinthis tudy,hese onclusionsecallhis statements n therole ofmyth mongtheTrobriandslanders.Mythcomes ntoplay,he says,"whenrite, eremony,r asocial ormoralruledemandsustification,warrantf ntiquity,eality,ndsanctity."6'Psychologically, yths elpto stilldoubtsandcalmfears.Myths fdeath, or xample,bring own a vaguebutgreat pprehensionto thecompass f a trivial, omestic eali-ty."62Myths of origin re not "explana-tions," as some anthropologists avethought,utwaysof nstructionnand us-tificationfthe social ystem.uch a myth"conveys,expresses, nd strengthenshefundamentalactofthe ocal unity fthegroup fpeopledescendentrom commonancestress."63t thuscontributeso socialsolidarity nd supports he existingocialorder.Malinowski's indingsnd those fWar-ner and Henryare apparently onsistentand essentially hesame, both in psycho-logical and in social functions f certaintypes f iterature.oth nvestigationsp-hold he heoryf ocial ontrol.t should erecognized,owever, hatBigSister ppliestoonly single ocial nstitution,hefamily,whereasTrobriandmyths ffect he totalsociety.Moreover,heradio istenersoBigSister reconfinedo the commonman"ofmodernAmerican ociety; heydo not in-cludecareerwomen romheuppermiddleclass thecontrol roup), orwhom hepro-gram has littleor no appeal. Presumably

these women would prefer rograms x-pressing ifferentalues, s mayother ub-groups, uch as members f theupper ndlower classes. In short, differentocialclasses or groups n our societymayselectand emphasize istinct ocialand aestheticvalues,ranging rom omicbooksto storiesintheNew Yorker,rfrom opular ictionoclassical rt.In our omplex ociety, hen, s contrast-ed with Trobriand ociety, ocial controlthroughiterature ay either e limited othose norms and values commonto allgroups r applied o class or group ontrol,each lassorgroup espondingo the rt ndliterature hat confirmsts own set ofvalues, customs, nd beliefs.n the lattercase, fthese ets re to some xtent n con-flict, ne may logically xpect iteraturensomedegree o furtherheir ntagonismndthuscontribute otto socialsolidarity utto ntergrouponflictnd to socialdisunity.Groupdifferences,or xample,maybe ex-posed and attacked.Writersatirize usi-nessmenndbusiness thics, pposing er-tainwidespread ocialbeliefs ndpractices.Or,as Marxiantheoryndicates,iteraturemaytend operpetuatehe tatus uo of he"common man," yet operate simulta-neously, hough erhaps nintentionally,oconfirmnd strengthenn intrenchedco-nomicpower lite. Maintaining he statusquo inthefamily ystemnd in othernsti-tutions t various social class levels mayalsohelpto mpede r reduce ocialchangesthat readaptive onew onditions,o thatthe iterature hich upportsheolder, ra-ditional ocial formsmay serveas a con-servative ather han as a dynamic orce.64Some iterature, owever,mayminimize

60Ibid.,p. 64.61Bronislaw Malinowski, "Myth in PrimitivePsychology," n Magic, Science and ReligionandOther ssays (Glencoe, ll.: Free Press, 1948), pp.84-85.62Ibid.,p. 113.63 Ibid., p. 93; cf.pp. 85-89, 109.

64 This conservative ffect f literaturemay beconspicuous n periods of rapid social change, asseems demonstratedn L. K. Knight's Drama andSociety n the Age of Jonson (London: Chatto &Windus,1937) and inWalterTaylor's The EconomicNovel n America Chapel Hill: University f NorthCarolinaPress, 1942). Conservative spectsofradioprograms are pointed out by Paul Lazarsfeld inPrint,Radio, and Film in a Democracy, d. DouglasWaples (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,1942), pp. 66-78.


10/13

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LITERATURE AND SOCIETY 433orreconcilentergrouponflict,ike humorfordifferentacialgroups,65nd somemaycontributeosocialmobility,hichs anim-portantultural alue n our ociety. itera-ture nd art, s Fearingtates,mayreveal oan individual widevariety fpatterns fbehaviorwhich emayaccept rreject.66neither ase, his awareness f therangeofpossibilities,hedegree f freedomor c-tion,wouldbeincreased,he reasof ignifi-cantmeaningsnlarged,ndhis horizon x-panded. t seemspossible hat, faccepted,some f henewvalueswould romoteocialmobility ather hanreconcilingne to his"place."67In these ndprobably therwaysthe o-cialcontrolheoryeems nadequate or x-plaining number f direct nd "hidden"socialeffectsf iteraturen a complex oci-ety-effectshat waitfurtheresting. ev-ertheless,ecognitionnd support f thistheory,articularlyyMalinowski ndtheWarner-Henrytudy, ndicates ts impor-tanceto students fthegeneral roblem fthefunctionf iteraturendart nsociety.Its significances increasedy thefact hatit articulateso closelywithwhat s proba-blythe commonestersion freflection,othat achtends oreinforceheother ndtouphold npart hepropositiontated arlier.The concept f socialcontrol,hen,maywellbe considereds separate nd distinctfrom he nfluenceheory hich mphasizesliterature s "shaping" society.Actually,the deaof iteratures shaping rmoldingsocietyseems to have taken two broadforms, ependingnwhether he nfluencehasbeenregardeds beneficialrdetrimen-tal to society.Both are obviouslyvalue

judgments ather han theories, ut theyhave been widelyheld.The theory,or n-stance, hat ome iterature,fnot ll, tendsto disrupt r to corrupt ociety as been ahardyperennial n thehistory fWesterncivilization.ts traditional ormwas setbyPlato inTheRepublic, here e feared hatthefundamentalaws of the statewouldbealtered y shiftsnmodes f music."68hisconceptwas later doptedby the Christianchurch, emained urrent hroughout heMiddleAges, nd foundts trongestxpres-sion in sixteenth-centuryatholicismndin Puritanism.69oday, in similar ashion,the SovietUnion trictlyontrols he char-acter faestheticutput,whilentheUnit-ed States censorships more imited.70 llsuchmeasures ave beendirect ttemptsoprescribertistic roductionrpreventtscirculation,n the assumption hat someworks extend and perpetuatevalues an-titheticalo an emergingocialorder, s inRussia,or ntroducenddisplay aluesdis-ruptive f an existingocialorder, s in theUnited tates.This was theorientationf theseries finvestigationsn movies sponsored n the1930'sby thePayne Fundandofa numberofmore recent ndependenttudies. incemanyofthese rewellknown,weshallcon-fine urdiscussion o a few spects. n gen-eral, twas assumed hatpeople, speciallychildren,re moreor lesspassiveand caneasily be swayed by the stimuliof themovies rotherrtisticorns oact ingivendirections,sually oward mmoral rcrimi-nal behavior.A popularaccountpicturedchildrens "molded y movies," s "movie-made criminals,"hough fewwere nflu-

65 MiltonBarron, A ContentAnalysisof nter-groupHumor," American ociologicalReview,XV(February, 950),88-95; Richard tephenson,Con-flict nd ControlFunctionsofHumor,"AmericanJournalofSociology,VI (May, 1951),569-75.66Op. cit., p. 74.67 Cf.RichardWright, lackBoy (10thed.; NewYork:WorldPublishing o., 1945),pp. 217-22,226-28: "I hungered orbooks,newwaysof ooking nd

seeing.... It had been my accidentalreadingoffictionnd literary riticismhathad evoked nmevagueglimpses f ife'spossibilities."

68 Op. Cit., pp. 140, 186-87.69 Lerner nd Mims,op. cit.,pp. 537-38.70 For Soviet control f theartssee Tomars,op.cit.,pp. 299-301, 370-71; Max Eastman,Artists nUniformNewYork: A. A. Knopf,1934),pp. 33-38;JuriJelagin,Taming oftheArts New York: E. P.Dutton & Co., 1951), p. 76. For American ensor-ship see Ruth A. Inglis, Freedomof the Movies

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947);CharlesA. Siepmann,Radio, Television nd Society(New York: OxfordUniversity ress,1950).


11/13

434 THE AMERICAN JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGYenced to adopt more deal attitudes ndgoals.7'The bulk oftheevidence rom hePaynestudies,however,s to the contrary.hatmoviesdo havemeasurable ffectsn atti-tudes of children hurstone nd Petersonclearlydemonstrate,72nd that conductmay also be affecteds evident romeveralofthe nvestigations.73ut the nfluencesnot a simplecause-effectelationship,scommonlyssumed; t sselective,eing e-terminedrimarilyy an individual's ack-ground ndneeds.74 personmayfocus nparticulartems uch s hairor dress tyles,manners,methods rrobbery, r courtshiptechniques, utopposing orcesmayalsobepresent o cancel or modify he effect fthese nfluences.he consensusfall thesestudies eems obe thatmovieshavediffer-entialeffectsepending n moviecontent,on an individual's eeds, nd on his socialand cultural ackground.75henHulett t-temptedo discoverhenet effectf a com-mercialmotion icture, isterKenny, ponpublic pinionna whole ommunityatherthan on specificndividuals, e obtainednegative esults.76It must e admitted hat he arger ues-

tion of the negative mpact of filmsonsociety rculturesstillunanswered,o saynothing fthe nfluencef iteraturer art.Thecomplexityf theproblems yetdefiesadequate testing, lthoughcertainly henaive assumptionf a one-directionalypeof influences thoroughly iscredited, tleastamong ocial cientists. mongaymenand some experts" he dea persists nd hasagain found xpressionecentlyoncerningtelevision.The verypersistence f the idea thatmovies r other orms f iteraturendartare socially isruptivepparentlyndicatesan enormousespector hepower f rtisticmedia-a respect eeply ntrenchedn tra-dition.The conceptionlso seems o mani-fest earswhich rise nd becomewidespreadduring eriods f rapid social and culturalchange,when societysmore r essdisor-ganized.Whenunderlyingauses ofchangeare obscuredor unrecognized, ervasiveanxietieseem ofind neoutlet yattack-ingmovies or other rtistic orms, r bycurbing their publishers nd producers.That thisprocess s a channelingfnot adisplacementfanxietyeems ossible, utit leavesunresolved heproblem ftheex-tent owhich rtisticroductsmaynotonlyreflect ocial changebut also contributeto it.If the detrimentalffects fmovies orliteraturensociety re stillundetermined,thebeneficialffectsreeven ess o,thoughthetraditionallaimshave beenmany ndexceedingly reat.Historically,ne suchclaim referso the "moral"value of itera-ture, lreadydealt with nconnection iththesocialcontrol heory,ut the effectsftheartsbeyond heir ocial ontrol unctionmaymore ppropriatelye classified s in-fluencen"shaping" ociety, powerwhichToynbee ndothers avedenied othe rts.Whenone examines arious laims, heyprove to be a curiousmixture.AlbertGuerard, orexample, tatesthat iteraryworkshave set fashions, uch as a "fatalpallor," ndthatGoethe'sWertheras"re-sponsible or"a wave of suicides.77 e be-

71HenryJ. Forman, urMovieMadeChildren(New York: MacmillanCo., 1935),passim.72RuthC. Peterson ndL. L. Thurstone,MotionPictures and theSocial Attitudesf Children NewYork:Macmillan Co., 1933).73Herbert Blumer,Movies and Conduct NewYork: Macmillan Co., 1933); HerbertBlumer andPhilip M. Hauser, Movies,Delinquency,nd Crime

(New York:MacmillanCo., 1933); Paul G. Cresseyand FrederickM. Thrasher,Boys, M4lovies,nd CityStreets New York:MacmillanCo., 1933).74MildredJ. Weise and Steward G. Cole, "AStudyofChildren's ttitudesnd the nfluencef aCommercialMotionPicture,"Journal f sychology,XXI (1946), 151-71.75Paul G. Cressey, The MotionPictureExperi-ence as Modified by Social Backgroundand Per-sonality,AmericanSociological eview,II (August,1938), 516-25.76J.E. Hulett,Jr., Estimating he Net Effort f

a CommercialMotion Picture upon the Trend ofLocal Public Opinion," AmericanSociological Re-view,XIV (April,1949), 263-75. 77 Op. cit., p. 337.


12/13

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LITERATURE AND SOCIETY 435lievesthat iterature asproduced he con-ceptions fnational ypes nd that iteraryideasprecedednd "guided"politicalmove-ments nd reforms.78imilar laims havebeenmadeaboutparticularworks uc-hsUncleTom'sCabin and TheJungle, y Up-ton Sinclair,which s supposedto have"broughtbout"the reformfthe packinghouses in 1906. In fact,however, heseclaims avenotbeen ubstantiated.79ssen-tially, hey est n the samekindofsimpli-fiednotion of causation as those for the"bad" influencef themovies.Someof these o-called influences,"n-deed, remainly roblems fcultural iffu-sion s related osocialchange,which avebeendealtwith yboth omars ndSorokin,among thers. omarshas concentratedninterclassurrentsnd fashions f art in acompetitiveociety s contrastedo a cor-porate ociety.80orokin asmore ompre-hensivelytated ome pproximateniform-ities of spatial displacement,mobility,circulation,nd diffusionf culturalphe-nomena, including iterature nd art."Again, both emphasize he complexity fsuch processes. As Sorokinpoints out,whetheriterary r art forms penetrate"anotherocial lassora differentulturen-volvesa number f conditions, hich n-clude t east hedegree f refinement"ndcomplexityf work, henature f thecul-tureor subculture eing"influenced,"hetypeofcommunicationystem eingused,andsometimeshe mount ndcharacter fcoercionrforce hat sapplied.82he diffu-sionof ertainypes f iteraturer rtmay,

then, e involvednsocial hange.However,whetheriteraturerany otherkindof art"penetrates" irst n timeor more uccess-fully han other ultural bjectsor deas isdoubtful; ven ftrue, t is clearly ot thefunctionmerely f the work f artitself.83Much the same difficultys encoun-tered n other raditional ssertionsboutthe "shaping" influencef art, especiallythosepertaining o personal haracterndto idealhuman xistence. ohnDewey,forexample,nsists hat,whenwe enternto hespirit f NegroorPolynesian rt,"barriersare dissolved, limiting prejudices meltaway."84 eveloping his hought, otshalkdeclares hatthefine rtsare"an indispen-sablefoundationfcongruity ffeeling rsocial solidarity etween ndividuals ndpeoples."85onsistent ith heseudgmentsis theevaluation fthe arts s thecrowningachievementfcivilization,hechiefmeansofmeasuringhe tature f society, sym-bolof ts nternal ower ndworth.88Thesestatementsefer o the "highest"cultural dealsfor ndividuals nd forhu-manity, ssentiallyhereligious onceptionofbrotherhood.bviously hey renot for-mulated n ways that would lend them-selves o scientificest. erhaps he rtshelpto perpetuate uch idealsor contribute otheir cceptanceby other ultures. o theextent hat theyreinforcehesevalues inour culture, hey wouldpresumably er-formthe social controlfunction, houghprobably or ertain litegroupsmore hanfor thers. sEastmanpoints ut, hepres-ent attempts t maintaining hissupremeevaluation fthe rts reprimarilyirected78Ibid., p. 338-40.

791n AmericanOutpost New York: Farrar &Rinehart,1932) Sinclair acknowledgesthat he issupposed to have helped clean up the stockyardsbut insists this s mostlydelusion."Donald Grantcame to similar onclusions n "TheJungle:A StudyofLiterary nfluence" unpublished aper,Univer-sityofBuffalo).Materialson UncleTom's Cabin arewellknown.80 Op. cit.,pp. 141-23.81 Op. cit., IV, 197-289.82Ibid., pp. 202ff.

83 Ibid., pp. 268-79, 282-88.84Art s Experience New York: Minton, Balch& Co., 1934), p. 334ff.Cf. Albert R. Chandler,Beautyand Human Nature (New York: Appleton-CenturyCo., 1934), pp. 294-95; Daiches, op. cit.,p. 10.86D. W. Gotshalk, Art and the Social Order(Chicago: University f Chicago Press, 1947), pp.210, 212-13.86Dewey, op. cit., p. 345; Gotshalk,op. cit., p.203; Edman, op. cit.,p. 51; AugusteRodin, Art(New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1928),pp. 7-9.


13/13

436 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGYat preservinghe high statusof embattledmen-of-letters,ho seek to recapture heposition hey njoyed n thepast,when heirassociation with religionand "superior"knowledge ave to the rts ingular restige.Today their ositions being nderminedythe encroachmentsf experimentalcience,oncerated ow in the social scale as "thevulgar ursuit fuseful nowledge."87To define heproblem n thisway wouldbe to investigatehe historicalrigins ndthe ocial tructureshat upport nd main-tainthe high cultural alue placed on thearts-the fine rts especially, ut populararts as well-and to assess their ffectsnsocialbehavior n many roups,n compari-son to other inds f ulturalnterest.und-berg hinkshat "social relationsretodaymanaged n the basis ofwhat poets,play-

wrights, ournalists, reachers nd radiocommentatorsssume, n thebasis of f k-lore, iterature,nd highlyimited ersonalexperience,o be principlesfhuman atureandhuman elations."88uture esearch illno doubtdeterminehe truth f this tate-ment,nd eventually emay lso be able totracemoreclearly he extent o which rthas become, s Max Weber tates, cosmosof ndependentalues,which re n dynamictensionwithreligion nd which akeover"the function f a this-worldlyalvation,"especially rom he increasingressuresftheoreticalnd practical ationalism.89UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO

87Max Eastman, The LiteraryMind (New York:Charles Scribner's ons, 1932), pp. 36-53.

88 GeorgeA. Lundberg,Can Science Save Us?(New York: Longmans,Green& Co., 1947), p. 63.89 H. H. Gerth nd C. WrightMills (eds.), FromMax Weber: ssays in Sociology NewYork: OxfordUniversity ress, 1946),p. 342.

Documents

University Delhi.entrance Examinations.march.1954.Relationship Literature and Society Passage 2.Question Papers.pdf