SOCIOLOGICAL CRITICISM

            Sociological criticism is not a 20^th century development. It dates back to 18^th century. Adopting the sociological approach Vico, a perceptive critic of the 18^th century, made a thorough study of the Greek poet Homer’s epics. He highlighted the social conditions which went into the composition of Homer’s epics. During the 19^th century, the German Critic Herder and the French Critic Taine advocated the sociologica approach.

            Taine stressed the importance of three forces – the race, the milieu and the moment – which influence a writer.

           

By “race” Taine means the hereditary temperament and the disposition of a people. He asserts that people belonging to a particular race have in common a mental structure which makes them different from other races.

            By “milieu” Taine means the combined influence of surrounding, climate, physical environment, political institutions, social conditions and the like on man. Man is not alone in the world. Nature surrounds him and his fellowmen surround him. Climate too has an effect on man.

            By “moment” Taine means the spirit of the times or the period. A writer is influenced by the dominant ideas of his times or epoch.

            By using these three forces or sources a critic can interpret literary works in a proper light. This method advocated by Taine influenced the study of literature.

            Sociological theory regards the individual writer as a product of his race, milieu and epoch.

            Sociological criticism is based on the fact that there is a vita relationship between art and the society in which the artist lives. According to the advocates of sociological criticism “the time and space in which the artist is fixed shape his thinking and genius”. So a study of the relationship between art and society will deepen our aesthetic response to a work of art.

            “Art is not created in a vacuum. It is a work not simply of a person but of an author fixed in time and space, answering to a community of which he is an important articulate part”, says Wilbur Scott. A work of art can best be understood only with reference to its sociological background. Pope and Swift can never be understood without a basic knowledge of the controversies of their time. The relations between literature and society are reciprocal. The writer, in addition to reproducing life, sometimes shapes it, even changes it totally. In France people were influenced by the writings of Rousseau. His writings highlighted the human rights. It resulted in the French Revolution. The Romantic poets in England too were influenced by the writings of Rousseau and also by the French Revolution. Dickens wrote A Tale of Two Cities. Writers are influenced by the society and in turn they influence the society.

            A book appeals better when read against the society cultural background and widens the knowledge. The American writers respond to any problem existentially with the vein of rootlessness covering in it. Shakespeare’s plays are the consequences of his race and milieu yet universal in appeal.

            Sociological approach is wholly contradictory to the Formalistic Criticism or the Formalistic Approach to which everything is intrinsic. The external forces play a major role in sociological approach but the same become a limitation. As long as literature maintains its bond with society, the sociological approach will continue to be a vigorous force of criticism.

            Marxist approach is an offshoot of sociological criticism. Marxist criticism attaches primary importance to the economic conditions of society. It relegates to the background such factors as religion, culture, art, etc,. Marxist criticism values only those writers who either reflect or remedy the economic ills in society. Marxist criticism arose when the economy of Europe broke down on account of the First World War.

            According to Marxists, a work of art should portray social realism. Any literary work that ignores the sufferings of the working class people, the have-nots and the down trodden is not literature. Modern writers pay attention to solitariness of human beings and that does not constitute literature. Human beings are expected to establish good relationship among themselves. But most modern writers portray men as “asocial” living in ivory towers and looking down upon the have-nots.

            The Marxist critics attack all modernist writers because they portray men living in isolation. They attack James Joyce who gives importance to technique. These modernist writers pay attention to trivial things.