An Unusual Combination. On the Sociological Use of Literary Sources

Author/s Mariano Longo
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2019/153 Language Italian
Pages 20 P. 56-75 File size 278 KB
DOI 10.3280/SL2019-153004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The paper deals with the problematic relation between literature and sociology. The use of literary sources has generally been intended as a sort of embellishment of the often inelegant sociological speech. The author argues that literary narratives may be also adopted as an appropriate source of data, provided that social scientists take into account the methodological paradox of fictional texts used to understand non-fictional social phenomena. By confronting with an essay by Peter Laslett, in which a cautious use of literary sources is advocated, the paper attempts to show the truth value of literary texts, by chiefly making reference to Paul Ricoeur’s concept of mimesis. The paper underlines, moreover, that the use of literary sources by social scientists entails a sociological translation and an unavoidable reduction of the complexity of the literary work.

Keywords: literature, sociology, narratives, sociological use of literary sources

  1. Bruner J.S. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge (MA.): Harvard University Press.
  2. Bruner J.S. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1: 1-21. DOI: 10.1086/448619
  3. Carlin A.P. (2010). The Corpus Status of Literature in Teaching Sociology: Novels as “Sociological Reconstruction”. The American Sociologist, 41, 3: 211-231.
  4. Carlshamre S. (2004). Truth in (of) Fiction. Philosophical Communications [Göteborgs Universitet], 32: 33-46.
  5. Dowling W.C. (2011). Ricœur on Time and Narrative. An Introduction to «Temps et récit». Notre Dame (IN.): University of Notre Dame Press.
  6. Eco U. (1962). Opera aperta. Forma e indeterminazione nelle poetiche contemporanee. Milano: Bompiani.
  7. Eco U. (1979). Lector in fabula. La cooperazione interpretativa nei testi letterari. Milano: Bompiani.
  8. Falk C. (1988). Fiction and Reality. Philosophy, 63, 245: 363-371.
  9. Gibson J. (2007). Fiction and the Weave of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Glezakos S. (2012). Truth and Reference in Fiction. In: Russell G. and Graff Fara D., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language. London: Routledge.
  11. Koten J. (2012). Searle’s Approach to Fiction (Extending the Concept to Other Media). Organon F. International Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 19, 2: 173-178.
  12. Laslett P. (1976). The Wrong Way Through the Telescope: A Note on Literary Evidence in Sociology and in Historical Sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 27, 3: 319-342. DOI: 10.2307/589619
  13. Lewis D. (1978). Truth in Fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 1: 37-46.
  14. Longo M. (2015). Fiction and Social Reality. Literature and Narrative as Sociological Resources. Farnham: Ashgate.
  15. Ricœur P. (1983). Temps et récit. I. L’intrigue et le récit historique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil (trad. it.: Tempo e racconto. I. Milano: Jaca Book, 1986).
  16. Ricœur P. (1984). Temps et récit. II. La configuration dans le récit de fiction. Paris: Éditions du Seuil (trad. it.: Tempo e racconto. II. La configurazione nel racconto di finzione. Milano: Jaca Book, 1987).
  17. Ricœur P. (1985). Temps et récit. III. Le temps raconté. Paris: Éditions du Seuil (trad. it.: Tempo e racconto. III. Il tempo raccontato. Milano: Jaca Book, 1988).
  18. Searle J.R. (1975). The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse. New Literary History, 6, 2: 319-332. DOI: 10.2307/468422
  19. Simms K. (2003). Paul Ricœur. London-New York: Routledge.
  20. Sparshott F.E. (1967). Truth in Fiction. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 26, 1: 3-7. DOI: 10.2307/429239
  21. Turner M. (1996). The Literary Mind. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
  22. Van Ort R. (1998). Three Models of Fiction: The Logical, the Phenomenological, and the Anthropological (Searle, Ingarden, Gans). New Literary History, 29, 3: 439-465.
  23. Znaniecki F. (1934). The Method of Sociology. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

  • A Job Satisfaction Structural Equation Model Obtained Combining Rasch Analysis and Generalized Maximum Entropy Estimation Enrico Ciavolino, Maurizio Carpita, Amjad Al-Nasser, in SSRN Electronic Journal /2012
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1993102

Mariano Longo, Un insolito connubio. Sull’uso delle narrazioni letterarie nelle scienze sociali in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO " 153/2019, pp 56-75, DOI: 10.3280/SL2019-153004