Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C OMPARATIVE
SOCIOLOGY
brill.com/coso
Abstract
The paper argues that if imagination is paramount for sociologys status and if liter-
ary intuition is a source of such imagination, we should rethink the value of literary
insight for social analyses. It reviews the changing relationship between literature and
sociology and shows how sociology can draw from literature as a starting point for
understanding the social world and a way of invigorating sociological imagination. By
framing the digital age as a current moment of change that has reconfigured the rela-
tion between sociology and literature, it illuminates the impact of challenges faced by
both sociology and literature. It argues for the validity of literature for sociological use
in the digital future and calls for more reflection on the utility and scope of the link-
age. It asserts the literary inspired way of doing sociology, which takes advantage of the
chance provided by the e-revolution, is one of ways forward for sociology.
Keywords
[t]hings are not so simple as you think (Kundera 1988:18), scores of sociolo-
gists view literary fiction as a....way of making known that which one does
not wish to know (Bourdieu 1993:158) and appreciate novels for their ability
to address human experience and connected with it many complex, moral
and sensitive issues and human experience. Furthermore, the novel not only
reveals to us the complexity, the difficulty, and the interest of life in society,
so essential to our understanding of todays world, but it also best instructs us
in our human variety and contradiction (Trilling 1950:xx). As the novels duty
is to remove a magic curtain, woven of legends, hung before the world, or in
other words the veil of prejudices that blocks our view of reality, novelists,
by tearing this curtain of pre-interpretation faces the worlds ambiguity and
uncertainty (Kundera 2005:92), can help us grasp not only the complexity but
also and more hidden aspects of social reality.
Sociology can benefit from using novels not only because literature can
uncover the hidden aspects of reality and illuminate processes and features
of social life about which we have incomplete knowledge, but also because it
can shed lights on futuristic trends. The novel often discovers new things long
before any exploration of these topics by social science takes place, so literary
evidence often played the part of a pioneer who opens up new domains for
observation (Znaniecki 1968:196).
Literary themes frequently anticipate shifts in social values and attitude,
foresee some developments and changes of main principles and modes
(Trilling 1950). For example, as the first description of mass society, bureau-
cratization and industrialism can be found in the nineteenth century novels,
it can be said the artists vision lies behind such concepts as mass society,...
alienation, anomie... (Nisbet 1976:43).
To limit any questioning of the validity of the use of literature for sociologi-
cal purposes, we must be aware of the limits of the literary material and realize
that the novels is defined precisely by the fact that it does not say what it says
in the same way as the sociological reading does (Bourdieu 1996:32). Without
claiming that truth in fiction does not differ from genuine factual truth, truth
in the novel can be seen as to be like truth in all kinds of works of art, namely,
revelatory truth, aletheia (Heller 2011:89). Thus, in spite of the fact that con-
cedes that truth in the novel has a little to do with the real (Heller 2011:89),
a reflexive utilization of works of literature can assist sociology in its attempts
to deconstruct that more hidden, more profound reality. Therefore barring
entirely the use of literature for scientific purposes we would certainly deprive
ourselves of valuable sources of material (Znaniecki 1968:195). Any use of liter-
ature as a source of sociological information needs to avoid a conflict between
the radical rationalist who would like to make sociology independent of any
data which are tainted with subjectivism and the intuitionist who stands for
the theoretic importance of a direct knowledge of reality, treats rationaliza-
tion as worthless abstract schematism (Znaniecki 1968:194). It can be argued
that by adopting a middle way in which text and society can be properly inter-
related (Hall 1979:29), it possible to see the manner in which the novel may
enable us to view social phenomena in a new light. Such a stand, which, while
asserting that literature does not provide objective knowledge about society
and recognizing that the novel is neither a reflection or mediation or mir-
ror of society, stresses the possibility of a more reflective utilization of works
of fiction in sociological investigations. It ensures that the view that novels
properly used, that is, as social referent rather than just a social reflector
(Hall 1979:38), can make sociology more sensitive to society has preserved
its validity.
Since in sociology the use of literary examples seems to be called upon espe-
cially in the moment of its crisis (Mills 1959), and since the current crisis of
empirical sociology is seen as the crisis of imagination caused by the fetish of
methods (Savage and Burrows 2007; Gane 2012), it can be suggested that now
is a good moment to talk about the restoration of the links between sociology
and literature. Furthermore, this idea is supported by a growing number of
signs that sociology is becoming more receptive to the resurrection of interest
in using literature. Moreover, the role of new social media and the fate of nov-
els in the digital age both bring to our attention a need to re-discuss the chang-
ing nature of this relationship between sociology and literature. This paper
aims therefore to develop an argument for re-opening a discussion about the
value of literary insight for social analyses. It however, also recognizes a need
for more and better sociology of literature as rescuing this now not so popu-
lar subfield could facilitate sociologists interest in making use of novels. Even
though the paper contains references to the sociology of literature as a socio-
logical subfield, its focus is not on the achievements or the status of this sub-
field but rather on the general use of novels in sociology, and particularly on
the import of the creativity and inventiveness implied in reading fiction into
our understanding of social reality. Since one way to differentiate between the
general use of literature in sociology and the sociology of literature is to pres-
ent the complexity and usefulness of sociologys relationships with literature,
our discussion will be placed within a broad historical perspective, with the
digital age being seen as a current moment of change that has reconfigured
the relation between sociology and literature.
The paper will start by presenting the ambivalence of sociologys links with
literature from the beginning of the discipline. This will be followed by analysis
of the main debate of the role of literary works in providing insights into the
social world, which flourished in the 1960s and 1970 and declined by the next
decades. The next section will offer an examination of the impact of new tech-
nologies and new social media on the fate of the novel and its relationships
with sociology. Arguing that the background of the discussions of the relation
between literature and sociology is shaped by broader technological changes,
the paper will debate if the effects of digitalization can offer new opportuni-
ties for the revitalization of sociologys links with literature. In conclusion, the
validity of the use of literature for sociological purposes in the digital future
will be critically evaluated.
comes from a literature work by Goethe with the same title, recognized the
importance of artistic intuition for understanding peoples minds.
The sociologys links with literature were also shaped by the long lasting bat-
tle between sociologists who dreamt of a highly sterilized, germ-proof system
of knowledge, kept in a cool dry place (Veblen in Coser 1972:xv) and sociolo-
gists whose ambitious was to address peoples feelings and emotions (Nisbet
1976). As this debate continued through many decades, and as the natural sci-
ence increased its successes, there was a growing aspiration to make sociology
to resemble the natural science. The push to become a discipline character-
ized by cold rationality, which seeks to comprehend the structures and laws of
motion of modern industrial society by means of measurement and compu-
tation (Lepenies 1985:13) undermined the sociologys image as a humanistic
discipline. However, it did not totally re-construct boundaries between science
and literature as debates of sociologys relationship with the novel not only did
not disappear, but they even intensified from the first decades of the twentieth
century.
These more direct discussions of the nature of literary mediation of reality
found their expression in Benjamins the idea of correspondence between
certain kinds of writing and other contemporary social and economic prac-
tices, Adornos rejection of the assumption of correspondence and Lukacss
more qualified acceptance of the superiority of realism (Williams 1981:5758).
In the post WWII period the literary debates focused around the reflection
theory, with exchanges between its three Marxist versions dominating the
field. The first strand of the reflection theory, the Marxist account of litera-
ture guided by the abstract and static formula of base and superstructure, was
confronted by the middle road perspective, which defined valuable literature
as that which reflects social reality, and its preferred method is realism, judg-
ing works of art by their fidelity to or illumination of otherwise observable
social reality (Williams 1981:55). The reflection theory was also challenged by
Lukacss inspired less rigid explanation of the relations between literature and
social reality. Lukacss totality approach while criticising the first stands too
basic view the relations between a work of art and social reality and arguing
that works of art should present a totality of meaning that is not alien to the life
of individuals (Jameson 1971) warned that the reflection of reality in the
novel may be either insufficient or deceptive. Thus, for example, what Balzac
did, according to Lukacs, was to depict the typical character of his type, while
enlarging them to dimensions so gigantic...that they never pertain to single
human beings, only social force (quoted in Sennett 1978:157). Lukacs rejected
the reflection theory as being too simplistic by arguing that the novel is not
appropriate form of epic writing for modernity as this form does not reflect
a relation between human life and the objective social forms that constitute
mode (Lukacs [1916] 1971:59). The debates between three Marxist approaches
contributed to the development of the sociology of literature. Yet, the sociol-
ogy of literatures real chance to gain a high status and visibility did not come
until the 1970s, initially under influenced of European Marxist scholars and
later the English school, both of which put stress on the ability of literature to
offer the truth about society.
This successful and special time of the sociology of literature can be illus-
trated by the proliferation of various attempts to conceptualize the links
between literature and society, from Mikhail Bakhtins adequacy, Goldmanns
homology, Eagletons literary mood of production and Williamss attempt
to elude the casual relationship between infrastructure and superstructure
(Ferguson et al. 1988:427).
What it is interesting about the debate on the relevance of literary input for
enhancing our knowledge of the social world is that all its participants of the
debate agreed that only the first rate, great novels are worth consideration.
Within the literary field, Leavis insisted that it is the great novelists above
all who give us our social history (Filmer 1969:275). Works of literature are
great only if they enhance our awareness of the possibilities of life and show
concern with the interests of life (Leavis 1962:10). Similar to Leaviss view is
Goldmanns idea that we should be only interested in studying the greatest lit-
erature as such works of genius articulate world visions in the most of elabo-
rated and coherent way and their literary qualities, organizing categories and
structures give them their unity (Pincott 1970). Because in not so acclaimed or
inferior literature sociologists would not find the reflection of actual world
views, a full picture of peoples emotion and experience, sociology of literature
should not be not concerned with ordinary or popular literature (Goldmann,
in Williams 1971:13). Hence, it is not surprising that many sociologists tended
to drew only on the best works of fiction. For example, Coser (1972:xvi) in the
construction of his anthology Sociology through Literature, the edited collec-
tion of extracts from novels, argued that we should, appreciate a good novel-
ists imaginative power as [t]here is an intensity of perception in the first-rate
novelist when he describes a locale, a sequence of action, or clash of charac-
ters which can hardly be matched by those observers on whom sociologists
are usually wont to rely. Also several others twentieth century sociologists
searched for literary intuition in great novels, for example, Schutz (1964:136)
tried to learn from Don Quixotes adventures about ways in which we experi-
ence reality. Mills himself used novels to illustrate his sociological ideas and
concepts, for example, in The Power Elite (1956) he called on Kafka and Orwell
and confessed that he was inspired by Balzac: I had read Balzac off and on
during the forties and was much taken with his self-appointed task of cover-
ing all the major classes and types in the society of the era he wished to make
his own (quoted in Eldridge 1983:80).
Following the intense discussion of the value of literature and the impact of
structuralism and post-structuralism as well as semiotics and deconstruction,
with Derrida arguing that writing is a form of communication in which the
meaning is always deferred and mediated and that language is not a device
for representing reality (Derrida, quoted in Rorty 1982:43), the vision of litera-
ture as the reflection of society came under attack. Both structuralists (who
concentrated on internal qualities of literature and argued that literature has
nothing to say about the larger society; Hall 1979:13), and deconstructivists
(who attempted to eliminate the author from the pages; Derrida 1988) called
for giving up the idea of language and literature as representing an external
reality. This request did further problematize the relation between fiction
and sociology. Although the social scientific study of literature continues to
enhance this subfield visibility, with many influential works produced in the
field of the history of the book and readings practice (for example, the works of
Darnton (2014), Howsam (2006), Chow (2004) and Chartiers (2008)), from the
late 1980s research in sociology of literature has been declining.
Since the beginning of the 1990s the relevance of the sociology of literature
in terms of shedding lights on sociological problems and providing a cru-
cial complementary perspective for many areas of sociology has been ques-
tioned. As its competing paradigms and visions of literature came under
attack, the visibility and research agenda of the sociology of literature have
been transformed. From that time, with the growing recognition of the lim-
its of sociological reading of literature and with sociologys aspiration not to
be between literary and science but be rather scientific, the sociology of lit-
erature has stopped to be perceived as a field of much significance (Ferguson
et al. 1988). Additionally, the rise of private means of watching visual media
and their negative impact on the readership have also meant that research in
sociology of literature has been less central in the 1990s and early 2000s. The
growing skepticism of the value of fiction was also a result of sociologys inter-
nal developments, with its focus on research and methods advancement. All
these trends undermined the status and focus of the sociology of literature, and
plural by drawing from Marcel Prousts novels which laid the groundwork for
a theory of the plurality of egos in every individual, while Ruggieros (2003)
Crime and Literature offers a close look at what literary fictions brings to our
understanding of crime and deviance. Additionally, the task of bringing the
humanities back into sociological inquiry by demonstrating the usefulness
of literature as a complement to scientific knowledge of human behaviour
has recently been undertaken by Edling and Rydgren (2011) in their edited
volume, Sociological Insights of Great Thinkers: Sociology Through Literature,
Philosophy, and Science. They, like Coser (1972) attempt to show the benefit
of using literature in sociology, while stressing that literary insight cannot be
substituted for scientific research. However, while Coser allowed the selected
literary texts to speak for themselves, Edling and Rydgrens (2011:8) volume is
a collection of commentaries extracting sociological analysis from great liter-
ary works which are seen as capable to shed light on aspects of social reality
about which sociologists have incomplete knowledge. Apart from a growing
number of sociologists relying on literary means, referring to works of fiction
and analyzing literature in search for ideas and concepts, there is a renewed
interest in the sociological study of literature (Chong 2013; Harrington 2002,
Moretti 2011) as well as in studies of the social conditions of literary produc-
tion, such as Lahire and Wells The Double Life of Writers, and the publishing
industry, for example, John Thompsons Merchants of Culture.
Todays re-emergence of debates of the relations between literature and
sociology can be seen as result of several factors. Among them, one of the
most important is the realization that sociology rests on inputs from a variety
of sources, including literature (Carter and Carter 2014). This comes with the
growing understanding that, even though attempts to invent theoretical con-
cepts or metaphors adequate to the task of relating literature to society have
been discredited, sociologys choice is not necessarily between scientific rigor
and literary insight. Such a recognition of the plurality of source increases the
probability of the acceptance of literary insight, without seeing it as replac-
ing scientific and analytical knowledge (Carlin 2010; Gane 2012). Also now,
as some sociologists argue for viewing literature as the most appropriate site
for the process of ethical theorizing (Dromi and Illouz 2010), the rediscovery
of the moral and ethical dimensions of literary texts brings social scientists
closer to literature. A similar support for the reduction of incompatibility of
literary and sociological perspectives has been enhanced by sociologys narra-
tive and cultural turns, while sociologists of emotion appreciate the literatures
ability to engage emotions of the reader. For instance, Abbotts (2007:70) lyrical
sociology, which looks at a social situation, feels its overpowering excitement
and its deeply affecting human complexity, aims to stimulate and engage the
emotional imagination of the reader. For Abbott (2007:73), sociology should
be about communicating an emotional sense of reality with a help of single
image. Moreover, the sociologys renewed concern with literature can be seen
as a result of this disciplines continuous interest in analyzing peoples experi-
ences and interactions in order to provide a better explanation for their behav-
ior (Lahire 2003). Finally, contemporary sociologys fascination with stories,
inspired by attempts to capture details of peoples experiences and identities
(Polletta et al. 2011), and its attempts to address society as text (Brown 1987)
also bring back to our attention works of fiction as a way to overcome limita-
tions on the ability to observe social interaction and relations.
These new stands, without either understanding sociology to be between
literary and science or calling for the social sciences to take a literary turn,
reassert the importance of literature to sociology. While remembering that
[n]ovels are sociology to the extent that their authors make them (Runciman
1985:21, italics in original) and that the novel refuses to exist as illustration
of an historical era, as description of a society, as defense of an ideology,
and instead puts itself exclusively at the service of what only novel can say
(Kundera 2005:67), they suggest that sociology should not give up on seeking
ways in which literary input could enhance richness of its social analyses. These
new approaches, in contrast to the previously dominant concern with the
great literature, are interested in studying not only works of creative geniuses.
For instance, researchers interested in popular cultures focus on hard-core
romances (Illouz 2014) and popular fiction (Plamer 1991; Daly 2000). Moreover,
works of popular fiction are also analyzed by scholars interested in specific top-
ics, such a crime (Ruggiero 2003) or nationalism (Corse 1996). However, what
sociologists of literature from both periods have in common is a lack of inter-
ested in aesthetic considerations and they do not express aesthetic judgments
(Eastwood 2007:166). For example, Heller (2011:96) directly declares that her
judgments are not aesthetic, while Bourdieus reading Flauberts Sentimental
Education overlooks matters of aesthetics (Eastwood 2007:166).
The re-opening of debate of the links between sociology and literature is
also necessitated by the evolution of their relationships in the face the digita-
lization and hybridization of all artistic genres. A recent success of a television
series The Wire, which offers the best ethnography of contemporary American
society and inspires the sociological imagination by taking materials from the
social sciences, literature and journalism and presenting it in a compelling
fictional form (Penfold-Mounce et al. 2011:156), provides a good illustration of
challenges facing this relationship. The achievement of The Wire as a visual
novel, by pointing to the fate of novels in the digital age and the role of the digi-
tal media as means of enriching sociological analyses, also brings to our atten-
tion the changing nature of sociologys links with artistic genres generally.
The innovations of the digital age (which include both information communi-
cation technologies and modes of product dissemination) have had implica-
tions for the autonomy of the artist, how texts are disseminated for readers and
analysts, the decline of reading as cultural activity, and research activity. The
literary field is especially influenced by such new trends and developments as
digital technologies effect on the future of books, especially novels, the read-
ers expanded choices, the book publishing industrys re-orientation towards
a multimedia entrainment business, the status of libraries and the emergence
of self publishing business. Many trends in social science, such as the rise
in quantitative studies, the uses of vast quantitative data, digital databases,
automated data retrieval, which all point out to the arrival of the era of big
data with its digital overload of information, may also be perceived as signal-
izing the end of the social sciences need to reach for literary input. In other
words, the new developments could suggest that literature is no longer central
to our culture and that in the social sciences there is no scope for concern with
features of literary fiction.
Yet, although at the first sight todays literature and social science may
seem to be more incompatible than in the past, the effects of digitalization
could offer new opportunities for the revitalization of sociologys links with
literature. Moreover, if we remember not to conflate between qualitative
sociology and fiction and take into account other trends (for example, the
emergence of new methods to analyse the text and the development of lit-
erary digital collection or the success of visual novels), we can see that the
decline of centrality of fiction in the digital age is only shifting, not eroding,
the ground on which the relationship between literature and sociology
(whether qualitative or quantitative as both are inscribed in language) are
based. This means that literature and sociology continue to be involved in
negotiation of their boundaries, which are always ambiguous, flexible, histori-
cally changing, contextually variable, internally inconsistent and sometimes
dispute (Gieryn 1983:792). What is new in this boundary-work process is that
it takes place in the new cultural environment within which both disciplines
negotiate their definitions, evaluations, judgments and procedures (Chong
science by shifting social research towards data driven research (Savage and
Burrows 2007) and, at the same time, by expanding its reach as, for example
now is possible to explore subjectivities which used to be the inner sanctum
where social sciences had to stop and dismount in order to shift to other, less
reliable vehicles (Latour 2007:2). Big Data offer new opportunities for social
research as the precise forces that mould our subjectivities and the precise
characters that furnish our imaginations are all open to inquiries by the social
sciences (Latour 2007:2). However, these data also raise some methodologi-
cal challenges, the range or scale of ethical and epistemological questions and
concerns about potential of empirical work of this type in terms of its capabil-
ity to explore meaning and explanation (Tinati et al. 2014; Lewis 2014).
The digitalization offers new potential for empirical work also for research-
ers in the literary field. As a result of the internet, which has brought us such
developments as Project Gutenberg and Google Book scanned books (a for-
profit book digitalization project undertaken by the Internet Archive and Hathi
Trust) and other technological advances, many researchers in humanities and
social science can more easily investigate not only language, style but also
novels plots and models of presentations of social relations. Within literary
studies the amount and the speed of this type of studies increased beyond all
expectations: today, we can replicate in a few minutes investigations that took
a giant like Leo Spitzer months and years of work (Moretti 2011:80). With the
growing interest in ebooks and with the increasing popularity of Kindle books,
we are offered new ways of carrying the contextual analyses of texts and new
methods to analyse the novel. Apart from the content analysis, the digital era
also offers tools to view and record readers reactions and to search whole texts
of work fictions available electronically in new, simplified and efficient ways.
For example, new methods led to the recent investigation of more than five
million novels which aimed to show that our ways of presenting the world are
conditioned by a given social and historical context (Bentley et al. 2014). This
investigation into use of mood words in the novels of the depression peri-
ods, from the 1920s until the recent financial crisis, discovered literary misery
and economic misery follow cycles (Bentley et al. 2014). The study found that
an increase in frequency of miserable language in the novels of the depres-
sion decades correlated to the economic misery of the respective previous
decade. This type of studies and the emergence of new centers devoted to digi-
tal textual studies contribute to the development of new investigative instru-
ments. By utilizing computational methods or digital technologies, scholars
specializing in text analysis and computational approaches to the study of
large text collections offer social scientists a chance to expand a scope of their
they never read physical books at all, and 45% prefer television (Flood 2014).
Furthermore, 56% said they believe the internet and computers will replace
books in the next 20 years and this figure rises to 64% among 18 to 30-year-olds
(Flood 2014). Moreover, the findings warn that 27% of all respondents (with
this proportion rising to 56% for 18 to 30-year-old respondents) preferred the
internet and social media to reading books (Flood 2014). However, the novel
has been declared to be on its death throe ever since its beginning and despite
the continuous pronouncements it seems to be able to evolve and persist. For
example, the global success of such works as Harry Potter series or Fifty Shades
of Grey suggests what even with the advent of social media, literary fiction, but
especially one with links to films, is still popular.
In the digital age we witness not only the decline but also change in type
of readership and the increased importance and reliance on images. As the
technological advances have made everybody to photographer, images, which
we use to tell stories, are now taking on the function a message/communica-
tion (Kelsey and Stimson 2008). As sending a picture through social media
slowly replaces a text or verbal communication, videos and photography also
become a means for construction of reality. With images being easy to con-
struct, manipulate and distribute, their creation more than ever hovers in
zone between fiction and fact. A clear indicator of these new trends is also
the emergence and popularity of visual novels and televisual, which all sug-
gest that the novel does not exist independently of the conditions in which
it is enjoyed (Park 2014) and as all digital media competing for people
attention the hardcover book and ebook need to be reimaged as multime-
dia entertainment (Auletta 2010). Moreover not only contemporary fiction is
adapting by reaching in the direction of visual novels but we also see the spread
of blogs novels (for example, Teju Coles work), Twitterfiction (for example,
works of Nick Belardes or David Mitchell). As these new types of writing go
even further in adjusting its content to the medium and creating bases for
dialogues and eliciting responses (Jamison 2014:19), social science has a lot of
material describing the world through the eyes of a particular individual.
Todays new importance of works of fiction for sociologists can be also dis-
cussed in terms of the potential of new genres combining fiction and non fic-
tion to inform sociological imagination. The new types of genre, indicative of
the decline of the separation between mainstream literature and science fic-
tion and the decline of the clear boundaries between fiction and non-fiction,
could make sociologists more confident in treating these books as a valid
source of representation of peoples experience. They also could offer social
researchers a new opportunity to build on works that are able to capture the
form is different from the serious fiction of the past. Although Knausgaards
work is categorized as a novel by its publishers, the author himself thinks
about his project as as a kind of experiment in realistic prose (Lerner 2014:21).
Others see it as an autobiography (Wood 2012) or as a document of life (Smith
2013), or view it as the detailed description of the authors childhood which is
like reality TV (Lerner 2014:21). Thus My Struggle, as the combination of fic-
tion and non-fiction, can offer sociologists eager to develop their understand-
ing peoples minds both an artistic intuition and access to an autobiographic
material.
Presently sociologists can build on works that bring new type of ideas and
thoughts to social science research. For social researchers the fact that the
technology of the printed novel is replaced by the digitalized provisions and
that every move in the virtual world leaves behind traces, means that inner
workings of private worlds have been pried open (Latour 2007:2). In the digital
era social scholars could focus on new artistic genres able to capture the mod-
ern worlds complexity, fluidity, chaos and confusion in various creative forms.
With the boundaries between mainstream literature and science fiction, fic-
tion and non-fiction, between novels and visual novels becoming more flexible
and not so clear cut, these new genres could offer social scientists escape from
debates over the uniqueness of science among knowledge producing activi-
ties. The difference between the novel of the past and works of fiction written
in the digital, speeding, connected, globalized networked society is itself a sig-
nificant social theme. With the ebook increasing its share of the market and
with people attention being fragmented and divided between various digital
media, the centrality of the novel will continue to be questioned, while its form
and shape will persist to evolve. Although these developments challenge soci-
ologys relationship with literature, however, they do not weaken our argument
in favor of brining literary intuition to sociological imagination. Sociology still
can take advantage of literary insights as the scaling down of the novels sta-
tus does not necessarily undermine this literary genres ability to explore the
diversity and complexity and hidden aspects of social reality and as the new
methods can facilitate exchanges between sociology and literature.
recover the power of its generalizing narratives (Savage 2010), we may appre-
ciate the role literature as a medium of sociological thinking (Harrington
2002:59, italics in original). Todays re-emergence of calls for a consideration of
literatures unique and distinctive contribution to our understanding of some
aspects of societal life in general and to the reaction of individuals to their
society in particular are indicative of the fact that for some the novel still mat-
ters (Bauman 2008; Boltanski 2014; Harrington 2002; Sennett 2009).
Without insisting that without relaying on literary insight sociologists are
blind to the fullness of a societys life (Hoggart 1970:20), it can be argued
that the value of novels for sociological investigation is connected with liter-
ary works ability to invigorate sociological imagination by penetrating and
dramatizing their insights by means of a unique relationship with language
and form (Mills 1959; Hoggart 1970; Nisbet 1975; Coser 1972). The significance
of the relevance of works of fiction for sociology is connected with its abil-
ity to identify the wide ranges of experience and with the fact that the liter-
ary imagination can enhance our understanding of human potentialities and
moral judgments. The novel as the art form which extends our experience
and makes to reflect and feel about what might otherwise be too distant for
feeling (Nussbaum 1992:47), can help to grasp the experience that is deeper,
broader and sharper, less confined and less parochial (Hall 1979). Literature
can benefit sociology because its ideas and images often anticipate many soci-
ological theories and observations and therefore can be of the great service
for hypothesis and provisional orientations. Moreover, the novel not only can
shed lights on subjective experience and new trends but it can also enrich our
capacities of moral discrimination. Expanding Nussbaums (2013) advice for
philosophers and lawyers, we can say that sociologists too should read fiction
to cultivate their imaginative and moral capabilities as well as to improve their
sense of perspective.
The digital era provides a context that is likely to be challenging to
sociologys relationship with literature over the coming decades. The effect
of the digital overload of information on social sciences as well as the digital
and global contexts impact on the novels hybridization demand rethinking
sociologys links with literature. While maybe the future of sociology is deter-
mined by its alliances with computational sciences (Tinati et al. 2014), this,
nevertheless, should not prevent sociologists studying the issues of subjec-
tivity from reaching beyond disciplinary boundaries. Although in the digital
age, both sociology and the novel are faced with challenges, it can be noted
that there are several reasons why sociologists should be interested in ensur-
ing input from works of fiction and other artistic genres, such as visual novels
or televisual novels. The digitalization presents opportunities for sociologys
links with literature as it provides a chance to bring them closer to each other
by offering new methods and instruments for new types of investigation. Also
the rise of the visual culture, the impact of technologies on ways and methods
of participation in culture, from blogging to the rise of self-publishing, as well
as the emergence of new digital methods of studying tests and readership all
can make todays literature and social science more compatible than in the
past. The literary inspired way of doing sociology, which by responding to
the new global and digital context takes advantage of the opportunities
provided by the e-revolution, maybe is one of ways forward for social science
today. The papers consideration of digital platforms which enables different
forms of fictions and different forms of sociology, raises many issues for further
discussion. Such questions as whether using computational sociology for the
study of literature can be beneficial or undermine the importance of imagina-
tion, what are the specific merits of the digital age in enhancing or obscur-
ing the sociological imagination, can be only answered thorough engagement
with existing work in digital humanities and sociology.
References
Carter, Michel J. and Carter, Steven. 2014. How themes in literature can inform socio-
logical theory, research, and teaching American Sociologist 45:388411.
Chartier, Roger. 2008. Inscription and Erasure: Literature and Writing Culture from the
Eleventh to Eighteenth Century (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania).
Chernilo, Daniel. 2014. The idea of philosophical sociology. British Journal of Sociol-
ogy (65) 2:338355.
Childress, Clayton. 2011. Evolutions in the literary filed. Historical Social Research, 36
(3):115135.
Chong, Phillipa. 2013. Legitimate judgment in art, the scientific world reversed?.
Social Studies of Science 43(2):265281.
Chow, Kai-Wing. 2004. Publishing, Culture, and Power in Early Modern China. (Stanford,
Stanford University Press).
Corse, Sarah M. 1996. Nationalism and Literature. The Politics of Culture in Canada and
the United State. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Coser, Lewis A., (ed.). 1972. Sociology trough Literature. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Daly, Nicholas. 2000. Modernism, Romance, and the Fin de Sicle: Popular Fiction and
British Culture. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Darnton, Robert. 2014. Censors at Work. How States Shaped Literature. (New York,
Norton).
Debaene Vincent. 2014. Far Afield: French Anthropology between Science and Literature,
trans. Justin Izzo, (Chicago, Chicago University Pres).
Derrida, Jacques. 1988. Limited, Inc. (Chicago, Northwestern University Press).
Dromi, Shai M. and Illouz, Eva. 2010. Recovering morality: sociology and literary stud-
ies. New Literary History 41:351369.
Eastwood, Jonathan. 2007. Bourdieu, Flaubert, and the Sociology of Literature. Socio-
logical Theory 252:149169.
Edling, Christopher R. and Rydgren, Jens, (eds). 2011. Sociological Insights of Great
Thinkers: Sociology Through Literature, Philosophy, and Science (Santa Barbara,
Praeger).
Eldridge, John. 1983. C. Wright Mills (London, Tavistock).
Ferguson, Parkhurst P., Dean, Phillippe and Griswold, Wendy. 1988. Mirrors, frames,
and demons: reflections on the sociology of literature. Critical Inquiry 14(3):421430.
Filmer, Paul. 1969. The literary imagination and the explanation of socio-cultural
change in modern Britain. European Journal of Sociology 10(2):271291.
Flood, Alison. 2014. Survey shows deep class divide in reading habits. The Guardian,
11 March 2014. Retrieved 13.03.2014 (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/
mar/11/survey-class-divide-reading-habits).
Fraser, Nancy. 2012. On justice. Lessons form Plato, Rawls and Ishiguro. New Left
Review 74 MarchApril:5371.
Gane, Nicholas. 2012. Measure, value and the current crises of sociology. The Socio-
logical Review 59(2):151173.
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science form non-
science. American Sociological Review 48(6):781795.
Golder, Scott A. and Macy, Michael. 2014. Digital Footprints: opportunities and chal-
lenges for online social research. Annual Review of Sociology 40:129152.
Goodstein, Elizabeth S. 2005. Experience without Qualities: Boredom and Modernity.
(Stanford, Stanford University Press).
Griswold, Wendy. 1981. Americans character and the American novel; an explanation
of reflection theory in the sociology of literature. American Journal of Sociology, 86
(4):740765.
Griswold, Wendy. 1993. Recent moves in the sociology of literature. Annual Review of
Sociology 19:45567.
Hall, John A. 1979. The Sociology of Literature (London, Longman).
Harrington, A. 2002. Robert Musil and Classical Sociology Journal of Classical Sociol-
ogy, 2(1):5976.
Heller, Agnes. 2011. The contemporary historical novel. Thesis Eleven 106 (1):8897.
Hoggart, Richard. 1970. Speaking to Each Other. vol. II (London, Chatto&Windus).
Howsam, Lesile. 2006. Old Books and New Histories (Toronto, Toronto University Press).
Illouz, Eva. 2014. Hard-Core Romance: Fifty Shades of Grey, Best-Sellers, and Society.
(Chicago, Chicago University Press).
Jacobs, Alan. 2011. The Pleasures of Reading in an Age of Distraction. (Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
Jameson, Fredric. 1971. Marxism and Form. (Princeton, Princeton University Press).
Jamison, Leslie. 2015. Feel my pain, The Guardian, 5.07:1920.
Kelsey, Robin and Stimson Blake, (eds). 2008. The Meaning of Photography. (New
Haven, Yale University Press).
Kundera, Milos. 1988. The Art of Novel. (London, Faber and Faber).
Kundera, Milos. 2005. The Curtain. (New York, HarperCollins Publishers).
Lahire, Bernard. 2003. From the habitus to an individual heritage of dispositions.
Towards a sociology at the level of the individual. Poetics 31:329355.
Lahire, Bernard and Wells, Gwendolyn. 2010. The Double Life of Writers. New Literary
History 41(2):443485.
Latour, Bruno. 2007. Beware, your imagination leaves digital traces. Times Higher Lit-
erary Supplement, 6 April, p. 2.
Leavis, F.R. 1962. The Great Tradition. (London, Peregrine).
Lepenies, Wolf. 1985. Between Literature and Science: the Rise of Sociology. (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Lerner, Ben. 2014. Each cornflakes, London Review of Books, 22 May:2122.
Lewis, Kevin. 2014. Studying online behavior. Sociological Science 2:2031.
Lilley, Simon and Papadopolus, Dimitris. 2014. Material returns. Sociology
48(5):972988.
Lukacs, Georg. [1916] 1971. The Theory of the Novel, A. Bostock trans., (London, Merlin).
Mikics, David. 2013. Slow Reading in a Hurried Age. (New York, Belknap Press).
Miller, Daniel and Horst, Heather A. 2012. Digital Anthropology. (London, Berg).
Mills, Wright C. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Moretti, Franco. 2011. Network theory, plot analysis. New Left Review 68,
MarchApril:80102.
Mullan, John. 2014. Whatever happened to cyberpunk? The Guardian, Nov 17.
Retrieved 12.11.2014. (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/07/neuroman
cer-william-gibson-review-cyberpunk-classic-30-years-on>).
Neate, Rupert. 2014. Bookshops hope super Thursday will help start a new chapter for
publishing, The Guardian, 5 October. Retrieved 6.10.2014. (http://www.theguardian
.com/books/2014/oct/05/bookshops-super-thursday-publishing_).
Nisbet, Robert. 1976. Sociology as an Art Form. (New Brunswick,Transaction Books).
Nussbaum, Martha. 1992. Loves Knowledge. Essays on Philosophy and Literature. (New
York, Oxford University Press).
Nussbaum, Martha. 2013. Political Emotions. Why love matters for justice. (Cambridge:
The Belknap Press).
Palmer, Jerry. 1991. Potboilers: Methods, Concepts, and Case Studies in Popular Fiction.
(London, Routledge).
Parks, Tim. 2014. Reading struggle. New York Review of Books, June 10.Retrieved 12.07.
2014. (http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/jun/10/reading-struggle/).
Penfold-Mounce, Ruth, Beer, David, and Burrows, Roger. 2011. The Wire as Social
Science-fiction. Sociology, 45(1):152167.
Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. (Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press).
Pincott, Roger. 1970. The sociology of literature. European Journal of Sociology
11:177195.
Piper, Andrew. 2013. Book was There: Reading in Electronic Times. (Chicago, University
of Chicago Press).
Polletta, Francesca, and Chen, Bobby P., Gardner, Beth G. and Motes, Alice. 2011.
The sociology of storytelling. Annual Review of Sociology 37:109130.
Rorty, Richard. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis, University of Minne-
sota Press).
Ruff, Ivan. 1974. Can there be a sociology of literature? British Journal of Sociology
25(3):367372.
Ruggiero, Vincenzo. 2003. Crime in Literature: Sociology of Deviance and Fiction.
(London, Verso).
Runciman, Walter G. 1998. The Social Animal. (London, Harper Collins).
Rusu, Mihail S. 2014. Literary fiction and social science. Journal of Comparative
Research in Anthropology and Sociology 52:133152.
Santana-Acuna, Alvaro. 2014. Are novels part of our DNA. American Journal of Cultural
Sociology 21:97149.
Savage, Mike. 2010. Identities and Social Change in Britain since 1940: The Politics of
Method. (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Savage, Mike and Burrows, Robert. 2007. The coming crisis of empirical sociology.
Sociology 41(5):885899.
Schutz, Alfred. 1964. Collected Papers. Studies in Social Theory. Vol. II (Hague, Martinus
Nijhoff).
Self, Will. 2014. The novel is dead this time its for real. The Guardian, 2 May.
Retrieved 12.05.2014. (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/02/will-self-
novel-dead-literary-fiction).
Sennett, Robert. 2009. Sociology as Literature, a lecture given at CREASH, Cambridge
9.054.2009. Retrieved 12.07.2014. (http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/DO/filmshow/
sennett_lecture_fast.htm).
Smith, Zadie. 2013. Man versus corpse New York Review of Books, Dec 5. Retrieved
7.06. 2014 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/dec/05/zadie-smith-man-
vs-corpse/?page=2).
Steen, Gerard and Schram, Dick H., (eds). 2001. The Psychology and Sociology of Litera-
ture (Philadelphia, John Benjamin Publishing).
Tait, Theo. 2014. Ways of being interesting. LRB, 11.09. pp. 3839.
Thompson, John. 2010. Merchants of Culture. The Publishing Business in the Twenty First
Century. (Cambridge, Polity Press).
Tinti, Ramine, Halford, Susan, Carr, Leslie, and Pope, Catherine.2014. Big Data:
methodological challenges and approaches for sociological analysis. Sociology
48(4):663682.
Trilling, Lionel. 1950. The Liberal Imagination. (New York, Harcourt).
Turner, Charles. 2010. Investigating Sociological Theory. (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Walter, Damien. 2014. Transrealism: the first major literary movement of the 21st
century? The Guardian, 24 October. Retrieved 11.11.2014 (http://www.theguardian
.com/books/booksblog/2014/oct/24/transrealism-first-major-literary-movement-
21st-century).
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society, vol. 3, (Berkeley, University of California Press).
Williams, Raymond. 1971. Literature and Sociology. New Left Review 1(67):318.
Williams, Raymond. 1981. Marxism, structuralism and literary analysis. New Left
Review 1(129):5166.
Williams, Richard. 2014. Suburban correctives. TLS, May 23, p. 20.
Wood, James. 2012. Total recall. New Yorker, August 13. Retrieved 12.07.2014 (http://
www.newyorkers.com/arts/critics/books/2012/08/13/12013crbo-books_wood?).
Znaniecki, Florian. 1968. The Method of Sociology (New York, Octagon Books).