Lecture Introduction. Fiction. System of literature. Plans

Lecture 5: Sociological method.
The sociological method is associated with the understanding of literature as one of the forms of social consciousness. In "mutual correlation" with other approaches, and not as the only and universal, it acquires meaning and significance. This method focuses primarily on the connection between literature and social phenomena of certain eras. The history of its origin goes back in the closest way to the cultural-historical school in literary criticism. It is natural that in the nineteenth century positivism was the most important philosophical basis of this method. Historicism brings the sociological method closer to the cultural-historical school, the desire to view literature as an expression of the laws of the material culture of the people, attention to processes, and not to individuals, a willingness to explain artistic creativity using the laws of other sciences (primarily economics, sociology, etc. .), interest in the impact of literature on the political situation and - more broadly - public life. The sociological method can be used both to analyze the work itself "against the background" of public life, and to study its impact on readers and the public. Here he comes into contact with psychological approaches to literature, as well as receptive aesthetics. In the first case, the work highlights, first of all, historical trends, socially conditioned moments, the depiction of the operation of economic and political laws, characters closely related to the "social atmosphere". In the second case, we are talking about the problem of the reception of a work by various groups (layers, estates, classes) of readers.
Understood in this way, the sociological method and comparative literary studies solve similar problems in a number of cases. Semantic areas and areas of application of various schools and methods in literary criticism intersect, overlap. Just as the genre nature of a complex work can contain various aspects, go back simultaneously to different kinds and types of literature, so the study of this work can be carried out using different types of analysis. It is important that overlapping methods are mutually "related" so that they consistently complement each other.
The sociological method, which has its own legitimate scope, has more than once been presented as the only possible, universal approach to literature. At the same time, vulgarization, inevitable in such cases, took place. Russian critical tradition of the 19th century, represented by the works of V.G. Belinsky, N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubova, D.I. Pisareva, with all the shades and differences between them, was preparing the appearance of the sociological method in literature. Controversy with the aesthetic aspects of art itself, which is partly characteristic of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov, intensified, as is known, in the criticism of D.I. Pisarev.
To illustrate the main features of this method, it is necessary to refer to its formation. Sociological thinking, like any other, is especially interesting when it appears not as a ready-made recipe, but in an “unprepared”, dynamic state. So, in the 40-60s of the nineteenth century, the sociological method as such in Russia is still just emerging. Like his teachers V.G. Belinsky and N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov was far from simplifying vulgar sociologism. Designating his criticism as "real", he correlated the picture presented by this or that author with reality. Investigating, for example, the question of whether "... is it possible" this or that person, the author of the article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" (1860) proceeds to "his own considerations about the reasons" that gave rise to this or that character. Consequently, the obvious postulate of "real" criticism is the idea that the reasons for the existence of any character lie in life itself, in extra-textual reality. ON. Dobrolyubov seeks "... to determine their own norm of these works, to collect their essential characteristic features ..." reflecting reality.
Obviously, criticism is only interested in the "text-reality" relationship. Thus, in the field of view of N.A. Dobrolyubov only hits one part of the communication chain in literature. And this does not at all testify to the critic's "blindness". On the contrary, we are talking about a programmatic, fundamental point, about an analytical “vision”.
As an example, let us refer to the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov's "A ray of light in the dark kingdom", in which, as you know, a brilliant interpretation of the drama of N.A. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm". The significance of this article for the history of Russian literature is undeniable. A return to it today is justified already because the concepts of vulgar sociologism and theories that arose in the circle of M.M. Bakhtin. ON. Dobrolyubov begins the article with arguments about the "service" role of literature, "... whose meaning lies in propaganda, and dignity is determined by what and how it promotes." At the same time, he points out that the greatest geniuses towered over this "service" role, depicting "fully and multilaterally" the essential aspects of life. Such was the great Shakespeare. Such is the playwright Ostrovsky.
To achieve this, N.A. Ostrovsky abandons traditional dramatic genres. "Thunderstorm", according to N.A. Dobrolyubova, does not fit into the traditional schemes of "comedy of intrigue" or "comedy of characters." Ostrovsky creates a new genre in his work, which in the article is designated as “plays of life”. Note that this genre name is in itself very characteristic of sociological thinking. If the "intrigue" or "character" of the category is largely intra-literary, then the concept of "play of life" takes the analysis to a different level. The point is not even that, according to N.A. Dobrolyubov, Ostrovsky refers to the "everyday, economic side of the issue", but rather to the fact that he is attracted by "... the general, not dependent on any of the actors, the situation of life." The "position" of the actors, adds the author of the article, dominates them, that is, over their characters. This is an important principle of the sociological method: not so much the individual as the socio-typical is interesting in the literatureюThanks to the sociological method, the critic accentuates and notes certain moments in the play "The Thunderstorm", but does not record others, which are also important in his own way. It should be remembered that N.A. Dobrolyubov took part in the literary struggle that unfolded around the work of N.A. Ostrovsky. In the disputes around the play "The Thunderstorm", authors clashed with different ideological and literary trends. It is quite clear that some of N.A. Dobrolyubov are given in a polemical accent, which, however, does not affect the main theses.
The critic comes close to the idea of ​​the correspondence of the character of the heroine to the genre nature of "The Storm". Indeed, in the “play of life”, as in the soul of the heroine, there is nothing originally given, “formulated”, going back to solid logical foundations. Katerina obeys her nature in everything, is "led" by her. The basis of her character is passion, which gives this heroine depth and at the same time illogicality. However, much in Russian life is beyond logic. If on. Dobrolyubov confidently correlates the development of Russian life with the character of Katerina, then he does not compare or bring together two literary moments - characterological and genre. Most likely, it seems to him something self-evident and obvious. For the sociological method, literary characteristics proper seem to be banal and secondary signs. This distortion is due to the special optics of the sociological method, its place in the interpretation of literature as a system.The critic puts forward the concepts of "background" and "soil" as the central ones. In the "play of life" "... the struggle required by the theory of drama ... takes place ... not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them." These "facts" constitute the "soil" of Russian life, as Ostrovsky portrays it. The remark of N.A. Dobrolyubova about characters who are not directly involved in the main conflict. They constitute the very "background", "crowd" that determine the fate of the main character. The critic expresses original considerations about the "mass" as a factor in art and life, which would later become one of the most important motives for the sociological analysis of literature.
ON. Dobrolyubova is most interested in how ideas about good and evil, the economic and everyday habits of the "crowd" are formed. He notes that the representatives of the "dark kingdom" in the play "breathe heavily", as they feel that there is a force above them - "... the law of time, the law of nature and history ...". The sociological method in literary criticism seeks to reveal the laws behind a literary work, "circumstances" outside of it. The critic considers the characters of the work themselves as elements of the “setting” (italics - NA Dobrolyubov), as speaking and moving “circumstances” that make the heroine's “fatal end” necessary. In his opinion, it is the “environment”, subordinated to the force of the Dikikhs and Kabanovs, “... usually produces Tikhonov and Borisov ...”. Analyzing Katerina's drama, the critic deeply comprehends her harmonious, freedom-loving character. However, he considers the position occupied by the heroine in the way that was established under the influence of the Dikikh and Kabanovs to be the real cause of the tragedy.This emphasis on the social position of the character, the desire, first of all, in this way to understand the essence of the conflict are important elements of the sociological method.
ON. Dobrolyubov emphasizes that N.A. Ostrovsky avoids "daguerreotype accuracy", resorting to "... an artistic combination of homogeneous features that appear in different positions of Russian life, but serve as an expression of one idea." ON. Dobrolyubov calls this principle of generalization "elevation to type," giving a single characteristic a generic, permanent meaning. As you know, this principle of generalization of social moments is called typification. This typification is considered to be the basis of "critical realism". Undoubtedly, the sociological method is capable, like no other, of explaining the relationship of a work with external reality, indicating the author's dialogue with reality. The sociological method, like all other variants of analysis, puts forward its own principles of generalization. However, they affect only one aspect of literature as a system: the relationship of the author of a work with reality. Responding to the polemical attacks of his opponents, N.A. Dobrolyubov admits that his interpretation of The Thunderstorm has been brought in line with some idea.In this regard, the question that N.A. Dobrolyubov does not mention in his article, what does he not notice? It is obvious that the critic decisively ignores certain aspects of the artistic structure of Ostrovsky's drama.
It cannot be argued that N.A. Dobrolyubov generally ignores "... the world created by the artist." In this the author of "Ray of Light ..." was reproached by another outstanding interpreter of "Storms", poet and critic Ap. Grigoriev. And yet it is true that the “artistic world” of the play as such, self-valuable, self-sufficient and in a different way real N.A. Dobrolyubov is not attractive. It is obvious that N.A. Dobrolyubov ignores the symbolism that is really characteristic of The Groza. The author of the famous article is not interested in this phenomenon. Note that later literary criticism did not fully master the tools necessary for such an analysis. Meanwhile, the theory of literature of the twentieth century asserts that the actual poetic function of language lies in the relationship between "the name and the context surrounding it." The higher the poetry of the name, the more "weakened" the relation to reality can be. Symbolization is, most likely, an in-text analogue of typing.If typification presupposes “raising to a genus”, “giving” a single fact of universal meaning, collecting disparate facts of reality together, into an integral aesthetic fact, then symbolization is a cross-cutting semantisation of meaningfully repeated elements of the text. At the same time, a phenomenon arises, which in this book is designated as the "artistic world".
The typification of N.A. Dobrolyubov described it excellently. In this case, he neglected the description of the symbolization characteristic of a literary text. For the symbolic plan of the play, it is very important to mention the thunderstorm and the "thunderous taps" in the conversation between Kuligin and Dikim (file 4, yavl. 2). In the opinion of the latter, the matter is not in "elestricity", since a thunderstorm is sent to people in "punishment." Kuligin, on the contrary, believes that the "thunderstorm" is not a threat at all, but "grace" (file 4, yavl. 4). Addressing the assembled crowd, he exclaims: "You are all thunderstorm!" Here this word symbolizes fear, which in various guises fills the hearts of Kalinovites, uniting with the deepest ignorance. We add that N.A. Dobrolyubov has an excellent sense of the social symbolism of the drama. However, he does not investigate it in the text of the work itself. The critic brings it out, projecting it onto the “social atmosphere,” Russian life.The "river" and "key" also acquire a symbolic meaning in the play. Katerina receives from Varvara the key to the gate in the garden. He burns her hands, at first she wants to throw him far away, "... to throw into the river ..." (d. 2, yavl. 10). However, she herself will rush into the river, into the pool.
The poetics of omen is also significant on a sound level. So, in the text of the play, the lexemes "enemy - ravine", "will be taken away - whirlpool", etc. are coming together. Katerina is very sensitive to that symbolism, which is the very core of the traditional way of life. Its essence consists in "signs", which, according to Kabanova, are for everything (d. 4, yavl. 5). She immediately understands who we are talking about when passers-by talk about the fact that this storm will certainly kill someone. At this moment, the old lady reappears, shouting out words about the temptation of beauty: "Better in the pool with beauty!" (d. 4, yavl. 6). In the play, the conversation about omens is immediately accompanied by the appearance of a living omen, a "realized metaphor."
At the time of the meeting, Katerina says the words about the sin that “will fall like a stone on the soul” (d. 3, p. 2, manifest. 3). This "stone" evokes the expectation of a river and a pool. Katerina dies, goes to the bottom. On one level, the drama is being played out, on the other it is constantly being prepared, like a "thunderstorm", gathering. These constant mutual transitions and transformations of words, replicas, stable expressions constitute the end-to-end symbolic basis of the text.Intratext transformations, "generating" meaning were not for N.А. Dobrolyubov's subject of critical consideration. Not designed to comprehend the "inner form" of a work or word, the sociological method embodies another way of reading art.
Based on the ideas of the Russian commoners-democrats and the concepts of K. Marx and F. Engels, later G.V. Plekhanov, P. Lafargue and V.I. Lenin anew and more rigidly formulated the main provisions of the sociological approach. So, for example, in the article "Dobrolyubov and Ostrovsky" (1911) G.V. Plekhanov criticized the enlightenment elements in the critic's worldview, which, in his opinion, go back to the philosophy of L. Feuerbach. The appeal of N.A. Dobrolyubov to abstract, "natural" reason, Plekhanov explained by his lack of a "class point of view." To the ideas of G.V. Plekhanov, for example, the provisions of some of the works of D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, one of the most significant representatives of the psychological approach in literary criticism.
Beginning in the second half of the 1920s, the thesis on the "class" understanding of literature acquired increasing importance in Soviet Russia. The understanding of the art of the word as a "mirror" of life, designed to reflect and educate this life in accordance with the ideology of the victorious proletariat, was consolidated. Later writers would be called “engineers of human souls” (I. Stalin).Sociologism presented in the works of A.V. Lunacharsky, V.M. Fritsche or P.S. Kogan, was not something exactly the same or homogeneous. Different authors were distinguished by varying degrees of giftedness and scale. However, it was the concept of "vulgar sociologism" that formed the basis for the activities of a number of creative associations, determined the principles of many studies and publications. Thus, the first Soviet "Literary Encyclopedia" consistently carried out the installation that "the class genesis of poetry" is fundamental. It was emphasized that the contradictions in the ideology of the writers "permeate" the form of their works. The most consistent and limited representatives of vulgar sociologism rigidly and straightforwardly linked the writer's artistic thinking, down to the details of style, with his class roots, attitude to political struggle, considering these parameters to be decisive for understanding creativity as a whole.
However, the sociological method, deeply connected with the classical traditions of Russian literature and culture, cannot be reduced to vulgar and extreme forms. Outside of sociological thinking, it is impossible to understand the concept of "dialogue" in the works of M.M. Bakhtin.Of course, the social component does not appear in the scientific thinking of M.M. Bakhtin is the main or the only one. However, its importance is undeniable. So, in his later notes "On the methodology of the humanities" (1974), the scientist reflects on the social, extra-verbal "conditionality" of the work, associated with the "extra-textual intonational-value context." MM. Bakhtin emphasizes that this context in "its most essential and deep layers" remains "outside the given text as a dialogizing background of its perception." Thus, the social aspect of the work is understood here as something that lies outside the text, but participates in the dialogue with it.
In the 1930s, a friend of M.M. Bakhtina V.N. Voloshinov. In the brilliant article "The Word in Life and the Word in Poetry" the author seeks to understand "... a special form of social communication, realized and enshrined in the material of a work of art ...". The principle of dialogue, common to a number of scientists from the circle of M.M. Bakhtin, defines the provisions of this theory.Of course, the social component does not appear in the scientific thinking of M.M. Bakhtin is the main or the only one. However, its importance is undeniable. So, in his later notes "On the methodology of the humanities" (1974), the scientist reflects on the social, extra-verbal "conditionality" of the work, associated with the "extra-textual intonational-value context." MM. Bakhtin emphasizes that this context in "its most essential and deep layers" remains "outside the given text as a dialogizing background of its perception." Thus, the social aspect of the work is understood here as something that lies outside the text, but participates in the dialogue with it.
In the 1930s, a friend of M.M. Bakhtina V.N. Voloshinov. In the brilliant article "The Word in Life and the Word in Poetry" the author seeks to understand "... a special form of social communication, realized and enshrined in the material of a work of art ...". The principle of dialogue, common to a number of scientists from the circle of M.M. Bakhtin, defines the provisions of this theory.However, it is quite understandable that the harsh stamp of the times lay on the judgments of the young Valentin Voloshinov. So, in the spirit of the era, he puts forward the thesis about the "internal, immanent sociological nature of any ideological formations." He understands aesthetic phenomena as a kind of social. The word, in his opinion, always appears in the utterance, capturing at the same time some definite extra-verbal situation. The author, listener and hero are thus united by a single "spatial and semantic outlook", which V.N. Voloshinov defines it as "implied" given to all participants in communication. This outlook also determines the "commonality of basic assessments" implied by those who creatively contemplate a work of art ("choral support"). The commonality of assessments determines the intonation and gesture series, the intonation commonality characteristic of the relationship between the author of the work, his hero and the listeners.
Note that these arguments are by no means groundless. It was the intonation commonality that united A.M. Gorky and the readers of his "Song of the Petrel" (1901), allowing the latter to move with great ease from allegory to a concrete historical understanding of the meaning of the work. In the appeal "Let the storm break out stronger! .." Contemporaries easily guessed the call for revolution. However, the word in the work, as it has already been noted more than once in this book, is associated not only with "choral support", but also with the in-text artistic context. The word relates not only to the reality that lies outside the text, but also to the reality of the words themselves that make up this text.However, it is quite understandable that the harsh stamp of the times lay on the judgments of the young Valentin Voloshinov. So, in the spirit of the era, he puts forward the thesis about the "internal, immanent sociological nature of any ideological formations." He understands aesthetic phenomena as a kind of social. The word, in his opinion, always appears in the utterance, capturing at the same time some definite extra-verbal situation. The author, listener and hero are thus united by a single "spatial and semantic outlook", which V.N. Voloshinov defines it as "implied" given to all participants in communication. This outlook also determines the "commonality of basic assessments" implied by those who creatively contemplate a work of art ("choral support"). The commonality of assessments determines the intonation and gesture series, the intonation commonality characteristic of the relationship between the author of the work, his hero and the listeners.
Note that these arguments are by no means groundless. It was the intonation commonality that united A.M. Gorky and the readers of his "Song of the Petrel" (1901), allowing the latter to move with great ease from allegory to a concrete historical understanding of the meaning of the work. In the appeal "Let the storm break out stronger! .." Contemporaries easily guessed the call for revolution. However, the word in the work, as it has already been noted more than once in this book, is associated not only with "choral support", but also with the in-text artistic context. The word relates not only to the reality that lies outside the text, but also to the reality of the words themselves that make up this text.However, it is quite understandable that the harsh stamp of the times lay on the judgments of the young Valentin Voloshinov. So, in the spirit of the era, he puts forward the thesis about the "internal, immanent sociological nature of any ideological formations." He understands aesthetic phenomena as a kind of social. The word, in his opinion, always appears in the utterance, capturing at the same time some definite extra-verbal situation. The author, listener and hero are thus united by a single "spatial and semantic outlook", which V.N. Voloshinov defines it as "implied" given to all participants in communication. This outlook also determines the "commonality of basic assessments" implied by those who creatively contemplate a work of art ("choral support"). The commonality of assessments determines the intonation and gesture series, the intonation commonality characteristic of the relationship between the author of the work, his hero and the listeners.
Note that these arguments are by no means groundless. It was the intonation commonality that united A.M. Gorky and the readers of his "Song of the Petrel" (1901), allowing the latter to move with great ease from allegory to a concrete historical understanding of the meaning of the work. In the appeal "Let the storm break out stronger! .." Contemporaries easily guessed the call for revolution. However, the word in the work, as it has already been noted more than once in this book, is associated not only with "choral support", but also with the in-text artistic context. The word relates not only to the reality that lies outside the text, but also to the reality of the words themselves that make up this text.Feeling the predestination of his constructions, V.N. Voloshinov tries to soften them. So, in his opinion, an ideological assessment in a work of art should not at all be expressed in the form of teachings or maxims. This would diminish the poetic meaning of the whole. “The assessment should remain in rhythm, in the order of the unfolding of the depicted event; it should be carried out only by formal means of the material ”. Note that V.N. Voloshinov also makes the opposite move: "... at the same time, without passing into content, the form should not lose its connection with it, its relevance to it ...". Here an important point arises: is this “attribution” of form to content a sociological moment or an immanent-poetic moment? The author of the article resolves this contradiction by introducing the concept of "hierarchy" of the structure of the form. The main requirement is “style adequacy”, which means “evaluative-hierarchical adequacy of form and content”. It is natural that V.N. Voloshinov sympathetically recalls the classicist and neoclassicist theories that divided the style into "high and low." The artistic form revealed its "actively evaluating nature" there. Content and form must be "equal". The choice of content and the choice of form are one and the same act that determines the basic position of the creator, which is dictated by the same social assessment.Thus, evaluativeness, moreover, end-to-end, given from the outside (as "choral support" and "implied" and from within - in the hierarchy of the structure of form), determines the essence of sociological poetics. This idea is illustrated by the following definition: “... a poetic work is a powerful condenser of unspoken social assessments: every word of it is saturated with them. It is these social evaluations that organize the art form as their direct expression. " From the point of view of formalism or structuralism, one might notice that the special nature of communication in art is not taken into account here (R.O. Yakobson, Yu.M. Lotman). As you know, the message in poetic speech is directed to the greatest extent at the very "verbal expression", "sign", at the very principle of "poetic nomination" (Yan Mukarzhovsky). The work condenses not only "unspoken social assessments", but also contextual poetic meanings (Yu.N. Tynyanov, Yan Mukarzhovsky, G.O. Vinokur).x
However, according to V.N. Voloshinov, the formal approach to art neglects the roles of the listener and the hero, who are “constant participants in the creative event”. The task of sociological poetics is, according to V.N. Voloshinov, precisely in "... explaining each moment of the form as an active expression of evaluation in these two directions - to the listener and the subject of the statement - the hero."The author emphasizes that the meaning, the meaning of the form does not relate to the material, as the formalists believe, but to the content. At the same time, he gives the following explanation: “... we can say that the shape of the statue is not the shape of marble, but the shape of the human body, and it“ heroes ”the person depicted, or“ caresses ”, or, perhaps, belittles him (cartoon style in plastic), i.e. expresses a definite assessment of what is depicted. " It seems that sociological poetics penetrates into the work from the side of perception, connecting the semantic, evaluative and intonational horizons of the listener. A purely linguistic analysis of a work of art is not legitimate from the point of view of this approach.
In the finale of the essay, V.N. Voloshinov turns to the analysis of "inner speech". "The poet's style is born from the uncontrollable style of his inner speech, and this latter is the product of his entire social life." The most intimate inner speech already contains an orientation towards the listener, who "... can only be the bearer of assessments of the social group to which the conscious one belongs."
The author's outlook is closed and fundamentally limited by the ideological and social horizon of a given moment in history. V.N. Voloshinov does not admit the idea that communication and understanding is possible between carriers of different ideological assessments, different linguistic and cultural consciousness that do not intersect or are far apart from each other in the system of ranks of the social hierarchy. Before us is a monolithic and fundamentally limited consciousness, which does not at all deny the talent of the researcher.Essay by V.N. Voloshinova points to both the strength and the weakness of the sociological method. The polemic of the "formalists" with scientists from the circle of M.M. Bakhtina could have been extremely productive. However, their rapprochement or synthesis in the 30s was decidedly impossible. Ideology then intervened in the discussion of literature. In the future, both of these major schools have decisively influenced the development of literary theory in our country and around the world.
Many ideas of V.N. Voloshinov and literary critics close to him influenced the researchers of the next generation. Sociological motives in literary criticism were not always a tribute to the political and scientific conjuncture. Thus, the outstanding Soviet literary critic G.A. Gukovsky (1902-1950). He wrote, for example, that in Pushkin's “little tragedy” it is not Salieri who is the real murderer of Mozart, but “historical being”.
However, it was the studies of G.A. Gukovsky are a remarkable example of overcoming the sociological method from the inside - partly contrary to their own attitudes. In the brilliant book "Pushkin and Russian Romantics", the scientist clearly formulated the provisions of the sociological method. He emphasized that certainty in the "class sense" is necessary because no one can "jump out of the class struggle." The researcher emphasized the idea that the most important achievement of 19th century literature on its path from romanticism to realism was the combination of historicism with the "analysis of social differentiation", the depiction of the "dependence" of the human psyche on history and society.Of course, the concept of "typing" also occupies an important place in this study. However, you should be aware of the scientific, cultural and political contexts that influenced the creation of this book. As you know, G.A. Gukovsky argued with representatives of a vulgar approach to literature. Opponents of G.A. Gukovsky was denied value to any art phenomenon that did not coincide with their understanding of realism.In the twentieth century, the foundations of the sociological method were formulated by representatives of various philosophical and ideological trends. L. Schukking was engaged in "Sociology of literary taste" in the 1920s in Germany. In the 30-50s of the twentieth century B. Brecht, V. Benjamin, T.V. Adorno and M. Horkheimer were influential representatives of the sociological method in philosophy and literary criticism. Their theories are very far from vulgar sociologism. After the Second World War T.V. Adorno, M. Horkheimer and G. Marcuse criticized the capitalist consumer society, offering their understanding of art in modern society. The studies on the sociology of art by C. Lado and E. Souriot are well known.
Probably, we can talk about the next round of renewed positivism in the humanities. A number of fundamental works on the sociology of art (40-70s of the twentieth century) belongs to A. Hauser, who returns to the theoretical constructions of Marxism, decisively distancing himself from its political practice. Hauser relies on the concepts of "basis" and "superstructure", introducing into the concept of "basis" not only "material", but also "spiritual components" associated with the individual consciousness of people. "Until the 80s of the twentieth century in the literary criticism of socialist countries, the historical materialism of K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin.
Let us refer to the research of the well-known theoretician G. Lukach, an excellently educated scientist, expert in classical German philosophy. Reflecting on the specifics of art, G. Lukacs relies on the Marxist-Leninist theory of reflection. According to the scientist, art is “its own world” (eine eigene Welt), with “completeness” (Abgeschlossenheit) and “spontaneity” (Unmittelbarkeit). However, for various reasons, G. Lukács could not stop at a position that repeated the well-known thoughts of W. von Humboldt and G.V.F. Hegel. G. Lukacs took the next step. In his opinion, the "spontaneity" of reflection, this "own world" of a work of art is only a "necessary illusion" (ein notwendiger Schein - "appearance", "appearance"). In other words, only the materialistically understood reality is the true reality.
As a theoretician who has gone through a large school of dialectical thinking, G. Lukács investigates - following G.V.F. Hegel - "mutually overturning", the mutual transition of content and form, as well as the transition of content into form (das Umschlagen des Inhalts in Form). The scientist is interested in the relationship between the generalized and the specific in the literature. He comes close to describing the symbolic nature of art, but does not use, cannot use this term. In this case, he would have to clarify over and over again what he means by "reflection." Lukács is forced to think in rigidly defined parameters, implying a combination of the dialectic of content and form with the principle of “partisanship” in literature.
In the second half of the twentieth century, the sociological method was repeatedly combined with elements of structuralism (L. Goldman). This trend continues at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. There is a "meeting" of semiotics, literary poetics and social psychology.Thus, in the original book by I. Paperno about the semiotics of everyday behavior in the circle of N.G. Chernyshevsky shows "how human experience belonging to a certain historical era is transformed into the structure of a literary text, which, in turn, affects the experience of readers." This scientific trend goes, of course, far beyond the scope of the sociological method. It seems, however, that the new combination of semiotics and sociology expands the scope of the sociological approach to literature and culture.
Summing up, we note that the emerging in the works of N.A. Dobrolyubov's sociological method was less cruel, more generalized and open than, say, the postulates in the later works of G.V. Plekhanov or, moreover, V.M. Fritsche. Sociological motives in the thinking of M.M. Bakhtin, on the contrary, defined his concept of "dialogue", which became one of the central in literary criticism of the twentieth century. It is not the sociological method itself that is dangerous, but its possible diktat, "one-man command." Literature is an open system. The system of its interpretations implies a plurality of approaches, their inner incompleteness and openness.
Questions to the topic:
1. Reread the article by N.А. Dobrolyubova "What is Oblomovism?" Give examples of "social typing".
2. Do you agree with the thesis that in "Mozart and Salieri" A.S. Pushkin is not Salieri the real murderer of Mozart, but "historical being"? (G.A. Gukovsky)
3. Define the elements of the "literature" system, connections and relationships between which can be investigated using the sociological method.