Epistemological reflection has been a major source of innovation in the human sciences while having very little influence on the arts or sciences. This variation is explained using a sociological framework emphasizing the organizational forms that underpin or are implicit in epistemological positions. The fine arts and the harder sciences are, respectively, too weakly and too strongly organized to be open to epistemological influence. By contrast, the human sciences might plausibly be organized either more loosely or more tightly, and epistemological argument is used in part to urge movement in one or the other direction. This perspective is applied to the academic study of literature both historically and in relation to a current epistemological dispute between realist and relativist scholars. The argument is unresolvable in practice, it is argued, because of constraints on scholarly interpretation set by consumers. Parallels are drawn with circumstances in sociology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiagioliMario. 1993. Galileo, Courtier. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BlackDonald. 1993. “Appendix: A Strategy of Pure Sociology.” Pp. 158–70 in The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
3.
BloomHaroldde ManPaulDerridaJacquesHartmanGeoffreyMillerJ. Hillis. 1979. Deconstruction and Criticism. New York: The Seabury Press.
4.
BourdieuPierre. 1975. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason.”Social Science Information14(6):19–47.
5.
BrooksCleanth. 1962. “Literary Criticism: Poet, Poem, and Reader.” In BurnshawStanley, ed., Varieties of Literary Experience: Eighteen Essays in World Literature. New York: New York University Press.
6.
BushDouglas. 1949. “The New Criticism: Some Old-Fashioned Queries.”PMLA64, suppl., part 2.
7.
CampbellDonald T.1988. “Evolutionary Epistemology.” Pp. 393–434 in Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
CollinsRandall. 1994. “Why the Social Sciences Won't Become High-Consensus, Rapid Discovery Science.”Sociological Forum9:155–77.
10.
CraneDiana. 1987. The Transformation of the Avant-Garde: The New York Art World, 1940–1985. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
DerridaJacques. 1967a(1976). Of Grammatology, translated by SpivakGayatri C., Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
12.
DerridaJacques. 1967b(1978). Writing and Difference, translated by BassAlan. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
ErskineJohn. 1948. My Life As a Teacher. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.
14.
FishStanley1980. Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
FuchsStephan. 1992. The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
16.
FuchsStephanTurnerJonathan. 1986. “What Makes a Science ‘Mature’?: Patterns of Organizational Control in Scientific Production.”Sociological Theory4:143–150.
17.
GraffGerald. 1987. Professing Literature. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GriswoldWendy, 1986. Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London Theatre 1576–1980. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
GustonDavid H.1995. “Conference Reports: The Flight from Reasonableness.”Technoscience8(3):11–14.
HagstromWarren O.1965. The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books.
22.
HallJohn R.1990. “Epistemology and Sociohistorical Inquiry.”Annual Review of Sociology16:329–351.
23.
HalleDavid. 1992. “The Audience for Abstract Art: Class, Culture, and Power.” Pp. 131–51 in Cultivating Differences, edited by LamontM.FournierM., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
HirschE.D.1967. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
HirschE.D.1976. The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
HirschE.D.1983. “The Politics of Theories of Interpretation.” Pp. 321–33 in The Politics of Interpretation, edited by MitchellW.J.T., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
HoltonGerald. 1973. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
HullDavid L.1988. Science As a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
LamontMichèle. 1987. “How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida.”American Journal of Sociology93:584–622.
30.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
LentricchiaFrank. 1980. After the New Criticism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
LowesJohn Livingston. 1933. “The Modern Language Association and Humane Scholarship.”PMLA48, suppl.
34.
ManicasPeter. 1987. A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
35.
ManicasPeter. 1991. “The Social Science Disciplines: The American Model.” Pp. 45–71 in Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Scientific Disciplines, edited by WagnerPeterWittockBjornWhitleyRichard. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
36.
MartindaleColin. 1990. The Clockwork Muse: The Predictability of Artistic Change. New York: Basic Books.
37.
MillerJ. Hillis. 1976. “Stevens' Rock and Criticism as Cure, II.”Georgia Review30:330–348.
38.
MullinsNicholas. 1973. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. New York: Harper & Row.
39.
PorterTheodore M.1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public LifePrinceton, PA: Princeton University Press.
40.
RichardsI.A.1926. Science and Poetry. New York: W.W. Norton.
41.
RichardsI.A.1929. Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
42.
RortyRichard. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, PA: Princeton University Press.
43.
SchneiderMark A.1993. Culture and Enchantment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
SearleJohn R.1977. “Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida”Glyph1:198–208.
45.
StinchcombeArthur L.1994. “Disintegrated Disciplines and the Future of Sociology.”Sociological Forum9:279–291.
46.
TraweekSharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
TurnerStephen. 1994. The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and Presuppositions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
WagnerPeterWittockBjörnWhitleyRichard, eds. 1991. Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
49.
WeberMax. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by GerthH.MillsC., New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
WilsonGeorge M.1992. “Again Theory: On Speaker's Meaning, Linguistic Meaning, and the Meaning of a Text.”Critical Inquiry19:164–85.
51.
WinchPeter (1958)1963. The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
