Abstract This paper examines the meticulous reading practices of nineteenth-century Prussian censors. Driven by suspicion of subversive content, censors read not only “between the lines” but also “between the texts”, reconstructing meaning through paratextual references and even ephemera encountered in public spaces. The resulting interpretive practices of deciphering literary publications whose meanings were deliberately complex and dispersed posed significant hermeneutical challenges to censors and contemporary readers alike.
This contribution enters into conversation with the previous articles penned for this three-part special issue series "What is the sociology of literature?" from the disciplinary standpoint of book studies (Buchwissenschaft). Specifically, Donald F. McKenzie's concept of studying the 'sociology of texts,' proposed in the early 1980 s, is reconsidered.
Abstract The article explores how the social imaginary takes shape through the emergence of social figures—a process in which individual perceptions are transformed into symbolic formations that structure social experience. Focusing on the impostor or con artist in the Weimar Republic, it argues that this type crystallized as a key social figure of the interwar period. The analysis foregrounds literature as a laboratory of the social imaginary, tracing how the impostor circulates across discourses and undergoes semantic transformations—from the charming rogue to the cynical power broker of emerging fascism. By examining these shifts, the article shows how the interwar period came to recognize itself in the impostor’s practices of pretense, deception, and propaganda, and how literature actively contributed to the production and dissemination of this social imaginary.
The article discusses the what and the how of the sociology of literature in two steps. First, a model is proposed - the pentagram - comprising five nodes and their interrelated links for visualising the holistic literary-sociological research perspective. Second, the pentagram is related to six concrete strands of current research areas within the field, especially emphasising aspects concerning methodology and empirical materials: (1) literary-sociological bibliometrics; (2) archival materials and historical sources; (3) fiction and literary analysis; (4) studies of literary media and materiality; (5) ethnographic methods; and (6) quantitative studies of reading and reception. The perspectives and research examples are consequently derived from the Scandinavian tradition of the sociology of literature, which represents a distinct and uninterrupted tradition that in certain respects diverges from the Anglophone, German, and French ones.
This article examines Jeremias Gotthelf's bridal search stories. It combines the religio-political dimension of Gotthelf's texts with questions of tension research. It is shown that the dynamics of tension generation come into conflict with the values propagated by the text and ultimately lead to an astonishing reversal of values.
This paper examines the concept of ‘publisher authorship’ by highlighting the significant yet often overlooked role of publishers and calls for a sociological analysis of their contributions, networks, and decision-making processes in the shaping of the literary field. The study advocates for a more inclusive literary history that acknowledges marginalized voices and lesser-known publishers.
We examine a corpus of 42 university reading lists from German departments, providing the first comprehensive empirical study of this type of document in 20 years. The article discusses the paratexts, structure, and content of reading lists and highlights their complex relationships with the academic canon and the process of canonization.
Even in the ongoing processes of globalisation and digitisation, questions concerning the formation of literary canons persist in the domain of German studies. This enduring relevance is evidenced by the practice of compiling reading lists as a form of orientation aid, a method employed by the majority of institutes. The notion of a canon, being inherently flexible due to its historical and cultural contingencies, renders this practice an indispensable academic service, signifying a continuous endeavour to unravel the dynamic nature of the canon.
Studies on poetry lectureships (Poetikdozenturen) also shed light on the role of literary studies in the production, circulation, and reception of literature. While literary scholars already draw on sociological concepts to analyze their symbolic, institutional, and material entanglements within the literary field, this essay proposes to further examine the boundary work they perform through the format of the poetry lectureship.
The article investigates an important yet underexamined phenomenon in digital literary communication: the use of “Book Tropes” such as Enemies to Lovers or Forced Proximity by mostly non-professional readers. Book Tropes are examples of self-directed category formation in the digital sphere, showcasing not only differences but also notable similarities to the terminology used in literary studies.
This article responds to three attempts to reshape the sociology of literature with reference to (1) ideological criticism (Sapiro), (2) the sociology of conflict (Franzen) and (3) quantitative sociology (Lauer). Assuming that literature and its modes of production and reception have changed significantly under the socio-cultural conditions of late capitalist modernity, this change not only poses new challenges for the sociology of literature but ultimately leads to the persistent problem of autonomy of art and literature. How the approaches discussed here react to this problem is critically summarized with regard to both the current conditions and the history of the sociology of literature. Linked to this summary is the ongoing debate about the open question of the disciplinary classification of literary sociology within the humanities and social sciences.
Studies on poetry lectureships (Poetikdozenturen) also shed light on the role of literary studies in the production, circulation, and reception of literature. While literary scholars already draw on sociological concepts to analyze their symbolic, institutional, and material entanglements within the literary field, this essay proposes to further examine the boundary work they perform through the format of the poetry lectureship.
