Suchergebnisse

The 2nd of 5 reviews of Leo Grebler, Joan W. Moore, & Ralph C. Guzmann, THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN PEOPLE (see SA 0410/F6970). The book is called 'a self-consciously designed classic.' Despite its Calvinist thoroughness, however, a pernicious & baneful quality is noted in the book. 'It forms part of a literary & scholarly tradition which purporting to be about a people, instead turns out to be about the authors.' The real tragedy of the book is the evidence it provides of the indifference to Mexican-Amer's as a living people. While the book falls at transcending the ethnocentric barrier, however, it still occasions a host of important questions of which perhaps the most important one is that of Chicano nat'lism. This issue must be confronted critically & rationally. The concepts of la raza & chicanismo are not reverse racism; they represent the struggle for identity. (See also SA 0410/F6959, 0410/ F6962, 0410/F6969, 0410/F6982.) M. Maxfield.

The Marxian sociol of literature forms the methodological basis of this study. Focus is on 2 questions: (1) What type of groups find a means of expression in literature? (2) What is the function of literature in these groups? Does their structure explain the importance of literature as a form of expression that is necessary for them? These questions are examined by taking an analysis of the literary texts as a starting point. The results thus obtained are then interpreted against the background of historical reality. The following theses are presented with the aid of a review of French love poetry up to the time of the Renaissance: Every work of literature is the center of a group which is based on its common attitude towards the work. This group constitutes the horizon set as a matter of course for the author in his act of writing & thus determines the structure of the work. The concrete structure of the groups, which in this case act as carriers of love poetry, can best be understood as the result of an effort to adapt certain essential & very simple aspirations of group life to the change of soc conditions which make their realization more difficult. The group may not be defined by econ or soc criteria, but must be taken as a system of meaningful relationships, which provides the basis for the view which the individual has of himself & of his relationship to others. This group creates the context in which the symbolic forms (of religion & great literature) will form an intelligible whole. In this sense the group therefore constitutes the necessary intermediary level between econ & pol'al conditions & the symbolic forms. AA.

The structuralist & genetic conception of the sociol of literature, originated by George Lukacs, is analyzed. 5 basic principles of genetic structuralist sociol are enumerated. They are viewed as indicating that, (1) in the case of the sociol of literature, the res worker must seek to discover a structure which accounts for practically the whole of the text, & he must add nothing to it. (2) He must not overestimate the importance of the individual in the explanation, whether individual or collective, for which the mental structure which governs the work has a functional & signif character. (3) What are commonly called 'influences' have no explanatory value & at the very most constitute a factor & a problem which the res worker must explain. 'In short, comprehension is a problem of the internal coherence of the text, which presupposes that the text, the whole of the text & nothing but the text is taken literally & that, within it, one seeks an overall signif structure.' Several examples are provided, among them analyses of portions LES PENSEES (Thoughts) of B. Pascal & the tragedies of J. Racine. Starting from a text which for him represents a mass of empirical data similar to those by which any other sociol'st who undertakes a piece of res is faced, the sociol'at of literature must first tackle the problem of ascertaining how far those data constitute a signif object, a structure on which positive res can be carried out with fruitful results. The diff's are pointed out between the structuralist sociol of literature & the traditional explanation offered by psychoanalysis or literary history. Traditional methods are concerned with the content of literary works & the relationship between that content & the collective consciousness, or the ways in which men think & behave in daily life. The sociol'al explanations of the Lukacsian Sch pose the problem of the work as a unitary structure of the laws which govern its universe & of the link between that structured universe & the form in which it is expressed. Lastly, the possibility of extending res is discussed by taking as a starting point Julia Kristeva's study on Bakhtin (Critique No.239). E. Weiman.

Klappentext: This highly original work presents laboratory science in a deliberately skeptical way: as an anthropological approach to the culture of the scientist. Drawing on recent work in literary criticism, the authors study how the social world of the laboratory produces papers and other "texts,"' and how the scientific vision of reality becomes that set of statements considered, for the time being, too expensive to change. The book is based on field work done by Bruno Latour in Roger Guillemin's laboratory at the Salk Institute and provides an important link between the sociology of modern sciences and laboratory studies in the history of science.

Verlagsinfo Auflage 2013: First published in response to John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice", Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" has become a defining text of classic libertarian thought. Challenging and ultimately rejecting liberal, socialist, and conservative agendas, Nozick boldly asserts that the rights of individuals are violated as a state's responsibilities increase-and that the only way to avoid these violations is the creation of a minimalist state limited to the enforcement of contracts and to protection against force, fraud, and theft. Translated into 100 languages, winner of the National Book Award, and named one of the 100 Most Influential Books since World War II by the Times Literary Supplement, "Anarchy, State and Utopia" remains one of the most theoretically trenchant and philosophically rich defenses of economic liberalism to date. With an introduction by philosopher Thomas Nagel, this edition brings Nozick and his work to a new generation of readers.

Drama is viewed as one of society's principal mechanisms for resolving soc & psychol'al conflicts of various types. Morality plays in England, which enjoyed great popularity from about 1400 to 1600, are examined as vehicles for the solution of both soc & intrapsychic conflicts among the uneducated or partially-educated bulk of the pop. While the plays were officially meant to inculcate reverence for Christianity, they showed some strange ambiguities & underlying currents quite opposed to the official intentions of church supervisors. These ambiguities may be interpreted (1) from a literary-dramatic point of view; (2) theologically; (3) sociol'ly, in terms of class conflict; (4) anthrop'ly, in the light of ancient ritual drama; or (5) psychol'ly. The latter approach is focused on here as the most rewarding. It is hyp'ed that medieval drama resolved conflicts via 2 basic psychol'al mechanisms: catharsis & cognitive processes. The sources utilized include the texts of plays, staging instructions, the writings of reformist clergy who disliked theater, & account books of the guilds, listing expenditures & properties for performance. The following cognitive processes are traced in the plays: (a) simplification through myth & allegory; (b) mastery of the future; (c) 'test' identification; (d) guilt induction. Of particular interest are the plays 'Everyman' & 'The Castle of Perserverance.' It is concluded that the morality play provided some catharsis of antiChristian & anti-Church sentiments, but above all helped to preserve a feeling of the basic unity of society by portraying the figure of Mankind facing the perils of death & hell which were the common property of all SC's. It also provided an outlet for the resentments of various diff classes, represented on the stage in historical & allegorical forms by traveling players who lived at the margins of society & could thus mirror the feelings of all classes or of none at all. Reasons for the decline of the morality play are briefly suggested. M. Maxfield.

An historical definition of the sociol of literature is presented. The situation & development of this field are examined mainly in the US, France, & the Federal Republic of Germany. In the US it is held that sociol'al literary criticism has evolved, perhaps more than anywhere else, in accordance with the soc situation. The approaches of the following critics are noted: V. F. Calverton, R. H. Pearce, L. Lowenthal, I. Watt, K. Burke, & R. Wellek & A. Warren. It is stated that the enormous Amer production of sociol'al works obviously comprises numerous notes on literature, but these notes do not at all compensate for the general dearth which is so obvious in this field. In Germany, there is felt to be a philosophical & sociol'al tradition which is directed to a much greater extent towards the sociol of literature. Certain Marxian writers, such as F. Mehring, are mentioned in this connection. Another approach is the use of the concept of form as applied to society & its cultural productions. G. Lukacs adopts an intermediate approach: his work, Kantian at the start, then Hegelian & Marxian, represents the corpus of the most complete sociol of literature yet produced by a single author. Cited are THE SOUL AND FORMS (Berlin, 1911) & THEORY OF THE NOVEL (Paris, 1963). After WWII it is mainly around the Frankfurt Sch that the sociol of literature developed. Mentioned are T. W. Adorno, W. Benjamin, L. Schuking, E. Auerbach & E. Kohler. In France, a little-known precursor of the French sociol'al tradition is J. M. Guyau, who in 1889 affirmed the structuralist nature of criticism. Other forerunners are J. Bedier, G. Lanson & L. Febvre. It is felt that the sociol of literature has found its most coherent expression in L. Goldmann, who holds that the sociol of literature has in view the understanding of the meaning of a work. This means clarifying the total network of meanings which internal analysis of a work reveals by an explanation & inserting this network in a whole of wider signif: the soc group. In conclusion, the works cited seem to indicate 2 directions for res: (a) a microsociol'al study of groups which comprise a world vision, whose aim must be the study of the actual conditions operating between creative groups & individuals, & (2) a more scrupulous reading of texts which would include the symptomatological structures. E. Weiman.