“I envied the freedom of writers (…), or of the artists who, from Duchamp to Devautour, have, in their own artistic practice, constantly subverted the belief in art and artists.”
(Pascalian Meditations 2000, 2)
“To objectivize the novelistic illusion, and especially the relation to the so-called real world it assumes, is to remind ourselves that the reality against which we measure all fictions is merely the recognized referent of an (almost) universally shared illusion.”
(The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field 1996, 34).
Introduction: how to be(come) a sociologist of literature?
Although literature has always been concerned with society, while different authoritative and reformative actors have long been interested in social effects of literature, the sociological approach to literature is a relatively recent phenomenon in the system of modern humanities and social sciences. In the first study whose title indicates the emergence of a new (sub)discipline – the 1958 book Sociologie de la littérature (Sociology of Literature) – the French theorist Robert Escarpit pointed out that “there are at least a thousand and one ways of exploring any literary fact” (1 on page 1). While Escarpit’s way of doing sociology of literature is recognizable for the empirical, quantitative analysis of various phenomena in the literary field at the level of production, distribution and reception, one of the most recent general accounts of this disciplinary field confirms the author’s humorous observation. Gisèle Sapiro’s book entitled La sociologie de la littérature, published in 2014 and translated into English in 20232, offers a revealing insight into the overall theoretical and methodological complexity of the disciplinary field, which has evolved over more than half a century.
In contrast to the unifying effect of disciplinary terms such as “sociology of literature”, Sapiro shows that the history of the discipline has been anything but linear and homogeneous. Developed at the interface of at least two complex disciplines – sociology and literary studies, but also in close contact with other disciplines such as history, anthropology, art history, etc., this disciplinary hybrid has opened up new, exciting fields of research. However, the paths to its institutionalization were and are not easy to find. One of the first questions on this path could be: Is the sociology of literature a branch of sociology or a branch of literary studies? Should it be located primarily in sociology or in literary studies departments? And does the answer to this question depend on the specific contexts in which the sociology of literature develops and expands? And could its theories of literature and methods for analysing the literary field be divided between the two? Or do these questions fail to do justice to the truly interdisciplinary nature of the sociology of literature? Moreover, Sapiro concludes, “too ‘sociological’ for literary scholars and too ‘literary’ for sociologists, affiliated in some countries with literature, and in others with sociology, this subdiscipline suffers from a lack of institutionalization that contrasts with the richness of the work produced in the field for half a century” (2 on page 3).
Indeed, as Escarpit warned us half a century ago, it is not easy to be(come) a sociologist of literature. Advocates of the discipline are often misunderstood from at least two sides. The critiques are, in short, based on what literary scholars see as sociological reductionism on the one hand, and sociologists as a rather elitist object of study on the other (3 on page xi). As Bedecarre and Libman – the translators of Sapiro’s book – notice against one-dimensional critiques coming from both literary studies and sociology: “the challenges of bringing the sociological perspective to bear upon literary study – or the literary perspective to bear upon sociology – should not be taken lightly” (3 on page xi).
To provide an insight into some of the theoretical and methodological complexity of the disciplinary field, which also arises from the relationship between literature and sociology as distinctive writing ‘crafts’, we will turn to the work of Pierre Bourdieu, one of the most prolific and influential exponents of this disciplinary hybrid, who has often been the target of both types of criticism. Building on recent research on the status of literature in his work, we will shift the focus from the theoretical and methodological framework of his famous studies on Flaubert and the emergence of the modern, 19th-century literary field gathered in Les Règles de l'art: genèse et structure du champ littéraire (1992, trans. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, 19964), and thus further explore the implications of specific uses of literary strategies in his own writing.
How to “do” a sociology of literature?
As a general overview of the production shows, the interdisciplinarity of the sociology of literature is profoundly reflected in the general question of the relationship between the literary text and its social, historical and cultural contexts, as well as in the question of the possible theoretical and methodological choices for the analysis of the literary field, characterized by the tension between internal or text-oriented approaches on the one hand and external or contextually oriented analyses on the other (2 on page 8). Despite this theoretical and methodological split, on the internalist side, sociology of literature generally tends to demystify the assumption of artistic autonomy. It uncovers the social meanings and effects as well as the social conditions of the emergence of literary autonomy (2 on page 8), as opposed to assuming its “autonomous” origin.1 On the other hand, external analyses of the conditions of production and reception of literature still attempt to distinguish literary books from other types of books, both on a theoretical and methodological level. As Sapiro explains, general sociological research on literature and the literary field has focused on three main areas of interest: 1) the social conditions of production of literary works (the social, political, ideological, economic, and historical as well as the conditions of the literary field); 2) literary works (with periods, styles, themes, and forms as the object of analysis); and 3) the conditions of reception, appropriation, and social use of literature (2 on page 43). Even if they are only abstractly subsumed under these three broad categories, many objects of sociological research in the literary field often correspond and intertwine in practice.
Among the numerous theories and methods of analysis, of which the Marxist ones are the most prominent, one of the most comprehensive and recognizable approaches, which aims to encompass all three levels of analysis, was founded by one of the most influential French sociologists of the second half of the 20th century – Pierre Bourdieu. Developed at the crossroads of three major schools of thought – marxism, structuralism and durkheimism (6 on page 98) – Bourdieu’s comprehensive approach to literature, as well as the analysis of the literary field as a system of relations surrounding modern literature, had a decisive influence on subsequent production at all levels of sociological research. Furthermore, the set of his concepts – such as field, habitus, disposition, distinction and cultural capital – have entered the general dictionary of contemporary sociological analysis of literature.
The results of the author’s decades-long interest in literature were published relatively late – in 1992 – under the title Les Règles de l'art: genèse et structure du champ littéraire (The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field), which have since received a significant reception, both in monographs and edited volumes on the subject of “Bourdieu & Literature” and in important contributions to the disciplinary field inspired by Bourdieu’s thought, such as Pascale Casanova’s influential study La République mondiale des lettres (The World Republic of Letters), published in 1999. As Ahearne and Speller note, the fact that this book revived the animosity between sociology as the supposed reductivist of literature “as literature” and literary studies as the self-proclaimed defender of its autonomy was rather unfortunate, since “Bourdieu’s theory of literary autonomy takes shape precisely in reaction to such traditional sociological reductionism” (7 on page 2). Considering this critique against the backdrop of Bourdieu’s concept of literature, one might agree with Jeremy Lance that “it can only be maintained at the cost of underestimating the extent of Bourdieu’s engagement with the specificities of literary form” (8 on page 67). Furthermore, Ahearne explains that this objection to Bourdieu is itself reductive in relation to his approach: “It fails to do justice to the care Bourdieu takes not to fold, in this case, the literary onto the ‘social’ as a whole, but to construct the field of the literary as such, the field of literary position-takings as such, the mutating field of literary styles as such” (8 on page 102). While Bourdieu’s concept of literature has been the subject of much discussion, in this paper I would like to draw attention to the rather marginalized aspect of his relationship to literature. Namely, I will consider Bourdieu’s use of specific literary techniques as a strategy that might shed new light on the current discussion of his conception of literature and the literary field, as well as of his idea of reflexive sociology, starting from the premise that “what Bourdieu actually does with literary resources throughout his oeuvre is not reducible to the theory of literary fields as systematized in The Rules of Art” (8 on page 105).
From literature in sociology to sociology in literature
As for the general criticisms of the sociological study of literature, Bourdieu is aware of the complaints that the sociological research of the “rules” or laws that govern the literary and cultural field may overlook certain aspects of the artistic experience – whether on the part of the creator or on the part of the recipient. It is an experience that philosophy, alongside other disciplines, is constantly trying to describe, maintaining its “singularity” as a basic assumption (4 on page xv). Bourdieu therefore poses the following question:
Is it true that scientific analysis is doomed to destroy that which makes for the specificity of the literary work and of reading, beginning with aesthetic pleasure? And that the sociologist is wedded to relativism, to the levelling of values, to the lowering of greatness, to the abolition of those differences which make for the singularity of the ‘creator’, always located in the realm of the Unique? And all because the sociologist is thought to stand on the side of the greatest number, the average, the mean, and thus of the mediocre, the minor, the minores, the mass of petty, obscure actors, justly unrecognized, and to be an ally of what is repugnant to the ‘creators’ of an era, the content and the context, the ‘referent’ and the hors-texte, beyond the pale of literature? (4 on page xvi)
In contrast to the “defenders of the unknowable” (4 on page xvii), Bourdieu doesn’t fall for either – or construction of the problem (unique – average, text – context, artistic – scientific, etc.). In The Rules of Art he attempts to reconcile a literary and even philosophical premise – that literature, because of “its own specific means”, “can sometimes say more, even about the social realm, than many writings with scientific pretentions” (4 on page 32) – with the sociological analysis of the distinctive processes of autonomization of literature and the literary field that have made this critical position of literature vis-à-vis society, and its other competing discourses, possible in the first place. Since the theoretical and methodological framework of Bourdieu’s capital studies on literature has already received much attention, we want to turn to a different problem and shift the focus from the author’s analysis of the rules of the literary field to the use of literary techniques in his own writing and their possible impact on rethinking the relationship between sociological research and its rather “strange” object of analysis – literature, both in Bourdieu’s oeuvre and within the field as a whole.
A starting question for this kind of reading could be: Can a sociologist really proclaim “the truth” of the literary text, as Bourdieu suggests in The Rules2, or could the boundary between the “knowable” and the “unknowable” be problematized in the sociological discourse itself? Furthermore, are there any analogies between a novelistic and a sociological insight into the social world? Indeed, not only Bourdieu’s description of Flaubert as a literary analyst of society, but also the remarks about the protagonist of his literary exemplar are strongly reminiscent of the sociological attitude towards the social world: “Frédéric is one who does not manage to invest himself in any of the games of art or money that the social world produces and proposes. His Bovaryism is grounded in the powerlessness to take the real – that is, the stakes of games called serious – seriously” (4 on page 33).
Even the translator of Les Règles de l’art – who is, of course, well familiar with both the content and style of these studies – notes that “literariness” is already present in Bourdieu’s writing (9 on page xiv). Moreover, Ahearne notes that the web of literary references in his work “comprise one compartment of the ‘thinking tools’ (discursive formulae, narrative techniques, ‘takes’ on aspects of the social world) that he has ‘present’ or to hand when confronting a given problem” (8 on page 105). His work therefore requires an explicitly formalist reading, even if Bourdieu’s “stance” and the reception based on his capital study of the literary field are not so close to this perspective:
he is the ‘scientist’ of a society’s serious ‘games’ whose invisible mechanisms need ‘explicating’. But Bourdieu is himself implicated in a rather different kind of relation (…) Literature here signifies something like a precipitation of dislocated textual fragments whose current status is uncertain (not scientific, not documentary, not immediately instrumental), but which condition and enable certain kinds of reception. Bourdieu, the product of a certain kind of education and self-education, carries them around with him: they are ingrained into his disposition (his habitus). (8 on page 98)
It is therefore not surprising that there are several researchers who have already dealt with this “other” side of literature in Bourdieu’s work. For example, Ahearne provides an insight into Meditations Pascaliennes (Pascalian Meditations, 1997) in terms of its literary self-consciousness, affective tonality, leitmotifs, textual interleaving, and stylistic and rhetorical play (8 on page 106). In addition, David engages with another work which is distinct from, and to some extent methodologically opposed to, the analysis of the literary field in The Rules of Art – Bourdieu’s close reading of Apollinaire’s poem Automne malade10. With the aim “to read Bourdieu less as a sociologist of literature, and more as a sociologist in literature” (10 on page 120), David recalls literary references in Bourdieu’s writings and distinguishes four coexisting modalities of Bourdieu’s “non-objectifying” relation to literature – technical, rhetorical, analytical and ethical, which he explains as follows:
a) the recourse to literary works envisaged as a repertoire of techniques (enunciative, narrative or stylistic) which can be transferred to sociological writing; (b) the invocation of canonical authors in support of sociological arguments that might not otherwise be accepted by cultivated readers (an argument from authority); (c) the reference to a literary text presented as a more or less rigorous equivalent of sociological analysis; (d) the explication of the literary ethic of a writer as a detour to evoke the academic or personal ethic of the sociologist. (10 on page 120)
To address the first, technical modality, David refers to Bourdieu’s observations on the relation between literature and sociology from An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Here Bourdieu claims that literature can provide particular resources and insights for a sociologist that are not available in this sense in other discourses (11 on page 206) and have critical implications for sociology itself. According to Bourdieu, literature can help the sociologist to escape “the censorships and presuppositions implied in the scientistic or positivist representation of scientific work” (11 on page 207). Bourdieu contrasts this kind of representation, which would correspond more to linear histories of social or individual life, with the modernist literature as a more reliable sociological source:
I realized (…) the full extent to which the linear life-stories with which ethnographers and sociologists are content are artificial and how the apparently exceedingly formal researches of Virginia Woolf, Faulkner, or Claude Simon would appear today to me to be more “realistic” (if the word has any meaning), anthropologically more truthful, closer to the truth of temporal experience, than the linear narratives to which traditional novels have accustomed us. (11 on page 207)
As Bourdieu explains, this insight has serious consequences for the question of what is considered a sociological matter, for it encouraged him “to raise to the status of legitimate scientific discourse, worthy of scientific publication and debate, a whole range of so-called ‘raw’ documents that (he) tended to exclude, more unconsciously than consciously”3 (11 on page 208).
In a comprehensive study that deals with Bourdieu’s concept of literature Speller is going in the similar direction, as he begins his analysis by addressing a clear distinction between literature and sociology, highlighted in The Rules of Art, according to which literature offers a specific “indirect expression and experience of truths which, if confronted in reality, could be ‘insupportable’” (12 on page 107). However, Speller soon moves on to elements of this relationship, which he recognizes as “cross-overs” between literature and sociology (12 on page 115). In considering Bourdieu’s writing style, he mentions that
literary authors seem also to have inspired Bourdieu’s use of ‘polyonomasie’, the plurality of perspectives on the same person or object, which, especially in Modernist literature (Bourdieu mentions in various places Virginia Woolf, Faulkner, Joyce, Flaubert, but also Cervantes, who in some ways anticipated Modernism), shatters the fixed and unitary gaze of the observer, and according to Bourdieu brings us closer to the reality of co-existing, and sometimes directly competing, points of view. (12 on page 116)
Furthermore, if literature per se – and specifically modernist literature – can inspire a specific sociological perspective on social reality, as is the case with Bourdieu, then their relation in the system of knowledge could look different from the one that subordinates both literature and sociology in the binary of scientific and artistic though, together with other analogies such as objectivity and subjectivity, collectivity and singularity, realistic and imaginative, contextual and formalist, etc. As Speller claims, in this perspective “it is not sociological theory that provides new insight into the literary text, but the literary text that gives the sociologist a fresh perspective on his object” (12 on page 117).
This is not an (analysis of) autobiography
In the outlined framework, Bourdieu’s “anti-autobiographical” texts occupy a special place, since the theoretical and methodological problems are articulated there at the level of both content and form – or, more precisely, their inherent relationship. Their novelty in the specter of sociological discourses has also influenced a significant part of contemporary political literature, such as the works of Annie Ernaux, Didier Eribon, Edouard Louis and others. Although the relations between these authors are often mentioned regarding the contemporary French intelectual field, when considering the specter of 20th century and contemporary French literature, Maja Vukušić Zorica refers to Bourdieu’s last published work and puts this relationship in question: “To what extent is Bourdieu’s Sketch for a Self-Analysis (Esquisse pour une auto-analyse) really the model of Eribon and Louis, or what has changed from Bourdieu to Eribon and Louis?” (13 on page 296).
One of the peculiarities of Bourdieu’s work is certainly the refusal of “autobiography” as a generic signifier of his texts about his own life, written in the first person, which thus differ from his other, in a narrative sense more classical, sociological analyses of various social phenomena. Therefore the already mentioned Sketch for a Self-Analysis is opened with an allusive moto: “This is not an autobiography”, recalling Rene Magritte’s Ceci n’est pas une pipe. The key question here is how does Bourdieu’s critique of autobiography relate both to his sociological project – that of reflexive sociology, and to his artistic preferences – that of modernist literature? As Bourdieu asserts at the beginning of Pascalian Meditations, against the illusion of the self-transparency of consciousness, “it is not sufficient to perform the return of thought onto itself that is commonly associated with the idea of reflexivity” (14 on page 9). According to the author, “the most effective reflection is the one that consists in objectifying the subject of objectification” (14 on page 10). Bourdieu goes on to explain: “I mean by that the one that dispossesses the knowing subject of the privilege it normally grants itself and that deploys all the available instruments of objectification (statistical surveys, ethnographic observation, historical research, etc.) in order to bring to light the presuppositions it owes to its inclusion in the object of knowledge” (14 on page 10). And what about the possibility of language itself – and literary language in particular – to objectify and dissposses the writing subject in its own way, with its own specific means?
The opening of Bourdieu’s “Impersonal Confessions” from Pascalian Meditations is symptomatic in this sense, as it takes its critical aim at both his sociological and philosophical counterparts:
To take away the objectifying brutality of the analysis I have sketched here of the philosophical habitus of a generation of French philosophers that has the particularity of having imposed its particularities on the whole world, and so, perhaps, to overcome a few resistances, I think it may be useful to perform an exercise in reflexivity by trying to outline the broad features of my years of philosophical apprenticeship. (14 on page 33)
However, this intention is not autobiographical in the traditional, generic sense, as Bourdieu goes on to explain: “I shall speak very little about myself, the singular self, in any case, that Pascal calls ‘hateful’. And if I nonetheless never cease to speak about myself, it will be the impersonal self that the most personal confessions pass over in silence, or refuse, on account of its very impersonality” (14 on page 33). This narrative choice, together with other autopoetic commentaries, is integral to the author’s critical inquiry into the emergence of the modern philosophical field. Thus Bourdieu articulates on a textual level what he is trying to criticise regarding the concept of knowing/philosophical subject, as he notes that “the ambition of being one’s own foundation is inseparable from the refusal to take note of the empirical genesis of that ambition and, more generally, of thought and its categories” (14 on page 47).
It would be productive to consider Bourdieu’s writing strategy from Pascalian Meditations in the light of his earlier short essay entitled “L’illusion biographique” (1986, “The Biographical Illusion”), where he considers the problem of life story and history as a linear, structured, progressive flow of events, which could be recognized in specters of genres, from philosophy and history to the novel, biography and autobiography. Regarding the role of autobiographical narrative as part of a sociological interview as a method, Bourdieu notes that this narrative “is always at least partially motivated by a concern to give meaning, to rationalize, to show the inherent logic, both for the past and for the future, to make consistent and constant, through the creation of intelligible relationships, like that of the cause (immediate or final) and effect between successive states, which are thus turned into steps of a necessary development” (15 on page 211). While part of the literary tradition reinforces or even inspires this kind of meaningful story, Bourdieu already here insists that the modernist literature, namely the novel, plays a crucial role in the displacement of the traditional plot: “the structure of the novel as a linear narrative was dropped at the time when the vision of life as an unfolding strip, both in terms of meaning and direction, was brought into question” (15 on page 211). Bourdieu thus invokes Robbe-Grillet for an argument that is not only literary but also sociologically valuable: that “reality is discontinuous, formed of elements juxtaposed without reason” (15 on page 211). As Bourdieu explains, the integrative narrative of a unique self is supported by various social procedures and institutions which endow this subject or agent with identity, normality, responsibility, predictability, etc. (15 on page 212), such as the proper name, the signature, the civil register, and the curriculum vitae. According to Bourdieu, what remains outside the site and could potentially disrupt the construction is the insight into the distribution and structure of the different types of capital in the respective fields – namely the already recalled objectification of the subject (of objectification). It is astonishing that this kind of objectification can only be articulated through a specific relationship to literature, which is both non-objectifying and desubjectivised.
In this sense, Bourdieu’s last work – Sketch for a Self-Analysis, first published in German as Ein Soziologischer Selbstversuch (2002) and then in French as Esquisse pour une auto-analyse (2004) – also rejects the genre of autobiography as “conventional” and “illusory” (16 on page 1), while paradoxically articulating the author’s life story. In order to objectify the writing subject, however, this work repeatedly self-consciously plays through the conventions of the genre, such as the expected sequence of events: “at the risk of surprising a reader who perhaps expects to see me begin at the beginning, that is to say, with the evocation of my earliest years and the social world of my childhood, I must, as a point of method, first examine the state of the field at the moment I entered it, in the 1950s” (16 on page 4). Bourdieu spans the arc here from his own identification with Balzac (16 on page 66) to the realisation that “the adult man who writes this does not know how, has never known how, to do justice to the child who lived through these experi- ences, his times of despair and rage, his longing for vengeance” (16 on page 93). Therefore, his commentary on Leçon sur la leçon (1982, A Lecture on the Lecture), his inaugural lecture at the Collège de France in April 1982, could be applied to this text itself:
Why, in order to find a way out, did I have to practise that kind of semi-controlled schizophrenia in which, just as a patient describes what he says or does while saying that he is doing or saying something else, I give the commentary on my message, the giving of a lecture, through another message which contradicts its essential features by giving away everything that is signified and presupposed by giving a lecture? It is not the only time in my life when I have had the sense of being constrained by a greater force to do something that cost me dearly and the need for which was felt only by me. (16 on page 109)
This kind of textual “schizophrenia”, as A Lecture shows, is at the core of Bourdieu’s understanding of sociology:
sociology, the science of institutions and of the happy or unhappy relationship one may have with institutions, presupposes and produces a distance that is insurmountable and sometimes intolerable, and not only for the institution; it shakes you ot of that state of innocence which enables you to fulfil the expectation of the institution with a sense of satisfaction. As a parable or a paradigm, the lecture on the lecture, a discourse which reflects itself in the act of discourse, should at least have the virtue of reminding us of one of the most fundamental properties of sociology as I concieve it: all the propositions that this science enunciates can and must be applied to the subject who practises this science. (17 on page 177)
But how much of the entaglement between critique of autobiography, founding an ethics and aesthetics in modernism and an invitation for a reflexivity outlived Bourdieu’s last work? Only a look at the current state of the literary field could reveal a certain prevalence of autofiction and readings, which Bourdieu describes in La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement (1979, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste) as resistance to the formalist exploration of the work18. Although the author’s analysis of “legitimate” taste, largely in line with the modernist literature that Bourdieu himself affirms throughout his work, takes a clearly critical stance towards the mechanisms of reproducing class distinctions, his insight into the processes of identification interwoven with popular taste does not abandon the critical stance. While much of Bourdieu’s reception has foregrounded the critical analyst, his other works, loosely connected to the general theme of The Rules of Art, show that the question of how to write a sociological work is also guided by the outlined framework. Thus, what David calls the technical modality of Bourdieu’s relationship to literature – the transfer of literary techniques and references to sociological writing – is closely linked to the ethical modality of this relationship. In this sense, the key to understanding Bourdieu’s attitude is modernist literature as the most frequent and important reference in his work. In contrast to the critical analysis in Distinction, the possibility of rethinking sociological theory and methodology from the perspective of modernist experimental writing opens up a new perspective on the central questions of sociology of literature.
Conclusion
While Bourdieu’s most famous studies on literature, collected in the book The Rules of Art, have received a significant reception, in this paper we have attempted to approach the question of Bourdieu's relationship to literature from a relatively marginal perspective by focusing on texts that have not previously been the center of attention on this topic. This focus also allows us to concentrate on elements of Bourdieu’s interest in literature that cannot easily be subjected to the critique of alleged “sociological reductionism” that Bourdieu himself was critical of. In an attempt to capture those aspects of Bourdieu’s non-objectifying conception of literature, we have examined how the author develops his understanding of the subject of knowledge, reflection, narration and writing in a corpus that we can conditionally call “anti-autobiographical”, since here Bourdieu reaches for the convention of autobiographical narration while articulating a critical distance from both the genre and its implications in sociological research. Contrary to critiques of Bourdieu’s sociological analyses of the literary field, and to some extent contrary to critical insights about the distinction of legitimate taste, at various points in his work the author affirms modernist writing as a model that critically interrogates not only the literary tradition but also scholarly discourse based on the assumption of a coherent subject of knowledge. By adopting some of the procedures of modernist texts such as narrative fragmentation, the expression of narrative self-consciousness and autoreferentiality, in works such as Pascalian Meditations and the Sketch for an Auto-Analysis Bourdieu not only establishes the concept of a critical, reflexive sociology, but also grounds it in specific writing strategies. From this corpus, a new face of the famous theorist emerges, as well as a voice that can serve as a support for the critique of numerous tendencies in the contemporary literary field, such as the dominance of biographism and the referential idea of (not only literary) language.
Ethics and consent
Ethical approval and consent were not required.
Data availability
No data associated with this article.
Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences
- 1.
Escarpit R:
Sociology of literature. Translated by Ernes Pick. Frank Cass, 1971. Reference Source
- 2.
Sapiro G:
The sociology of literature. Translated by Madeline Bedecarré and Ben Libman. Stanford University Press, 2023. Publisher Full Text
- 3.
Bedecarré M, Libman B:
Translator’s note. In: The sociology of literature. Gisèle Sapiro. Stanford University Press, 2023.
- 4.
Bourdieu P:
The rules of art: genesis and structure of the literary field. Translated by Susan Emanuel. Stanford University Press, 1996. Reference Source
- 5.
Bürger P:
Theory of the avant-garde. Translated by Michael Shaw. University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Reference Source
- 6.
Kalanj R:
Pierre Bourdieu. Sociologija i angažman.
Socijalna ekologija: časopis za ekološku misao i sociologijska istraživanja okoline.
2022; 11(1– 2): 97–113. Reference Source
- 7.
Ahearne J, Speller J:
Introduction: Bourdieu and the literary field.
Paragraph.
2012; 35(1): 1–9. Publisher Full Text
- 8.
Ahearne J:
Fields and fragments: Bourdieu, Pascal and the teachings of literature.
Paragraph.
2012; 35(1): 97–114. Publisher Full Text
- 9.
Emanuel S:
Translator’s preface. In: The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Pierre Bourdieu. Stanford University Press, 1996. Reference Source
- 10.
David J:
On an enigmatic text by Pierre Bourdieu.
Paragraph.
2012; 35(1): 115–130. Publisher Full Text
- 11.
Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD:
An invitation to reflexive sociology. Polity Press, 1992. Reference Source
- 12.
Speller JRW:
Bourdieu and literature. Open Book Publishers, 2011. Publisher Full Text
- 13.
Vukušić Zorica M:
Zatočenici ljubav: književnost, homoseksualnost, angažman. Naklada Ljevak, 2022. Reference Source
- 14.
Bourdieu P:
Pascalian meditations. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford University Press, 2000. Reference Source
- 15.
Bourdieu P:
The biographical illusion. In: Biography in Theory. edited by Wilhelm Hemecker and Edward Saunders. De Gruyter, 2017. Publisher Full Text
- 16.
Bourdieu P:
Sketch for a self-analysis. Translated by Richard Nice. The University of Chicago Press, 2008. Reference Source
- 17.
Bourdieu P:
In other words: essays towards a reflexive sociology. Translated by Matthew Adamson. Stanford University Press, 1990. Reference Source
- 18.
Bourdieu P:
Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Harvard University Press, 1984. Reference Source
