Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T09:26:15.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progress in Literary Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Edward Davenport
Edward Davenport*
Affiliation:
John Jay College, The City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Literary study, along with other social sciences, has been thought by many to be incapable of progress because it, like the other social sciences, is culturally defined. The aims and standards of literary study always depend on the value assumptions and preconceptions of the culture which fosters literary study—for literary study is a social institution. Because literary study and other social sciences are social institutions, obvious difficulties arise with transplanting the aims and standards of social science in one society into another society. The idea of progress, however, appears to demand that we have aims and standards which apply independently of particular social contexts, and independently of the boundaries of a culture or an age. Thus the cultural definition of literary study has sometimes been thought to prevent progress in this field.

Max Weber proposed a strategy for working toward objective knowledge and progress in the social sciences generally, which can be applied to literary study.

Type
Part V. Literature and the Philosophy of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1980 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1980 , 1980 , pp. 141 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agassi, Joseph. (1975). Science In Flux. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XXVIII.) Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Agassi, Joseph. (1977). Towards a Rational Philosophical Anthropology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, Edward. (1978). “Why Theorize About Literature?” In What is Literature? Edited by Hernadi, Paul. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Pages 35–46.Google Scholar
Crews, Frederick C. (1963). The Pooh Perplex. New York: E.P. Dutton and Company.Google Scholar
Plato, . The Republic. (As printed in Great Dialogues of Plato. Translated by Rouse, W.H.D.. Edited by Warmington, Eric H. and, Rouse, Philip G.. New York: New American Library, 1956.)Google Scholar
Popper, Sir Karl. (1962). Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Popper, Sir Karl. (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Translated by Shils, E.A. and Finch, H.A.. New York: The Free Press. (Translation and collection of three articles: “Der Sinn der ‘Wertfreiheit’ der soziologischen und okonomischen Wissenschaft.” Logos 7(1917): 40-88; “Die ‘Objectivitat’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis.” Archiv fur Socialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19 (1904): 22-87; “Die protestantische Ethik und der ‘Geist’ des Kapitalismus.” Archiv fur Socialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 20 (1905): 1-54.)Google Scholar