No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Recent Transformations in the Roles of Writers
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
Extract
The social role, and consequently the social status, of writers has been recently undergoing interesting transformations. They are not yet always taken into account in the sociology of literature, even though that role (or, strictly speaking, roles) in the second half of the 20th century in many respects differs markedly from that in the first half of this century, or, to adopt a conventional demarcation line, before World War II. These transformations have not yet fully crystallized, but it is legitimate to think that we are witnessing processes whose consequences will be better seen in the next century. On the other hand, prior to World War
II the role of writers did not in fact differ so much from that which they performed in the 19th century, if we disregard certain specifically Polish aspects of the problem, which are not to be discussed here in greater detail. Let it be mentioned only that those specific aspects were fairly numerous: the traditions of the old-style intelligentsia as a social stratum; the role of writers as “the conscience of the nation” in the period when Poland was partitioned by the three great powers; the economic and technological backwardness of Poland in the 19th and in the first half of the 20th century; still now restricted development of mass media and mass culture.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1973 Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie / International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP)
References
1 When reference is made to the role played by writers we mean the basic interpretation of that term, now current in sociological literature, as a set of rights and duties resulting from the fact individuals live in a community. Accordingly a right stands for a legitimate claim with respect to other individuals or society at large. A duty stands for a societally sanctioned expectation that a given person would satisfy certain legitimate claims (cf. M. Barton, Roles. An Introduction to the Study of Social Relations, London 1965, p. 2). This definition in fact refers to the concept of social role as defined by F. Znaniecki (c.f., e.g., The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge, New York 1940).
2 The devastation of Poland during World War II, the problems resulting from the need of organizing a new type of national economy, and presumably other factors as well account for the fact that Poland for the time being does not participate in economic growth to a degree in accordance with her aspirations, but if we compare the country's situation around 1930 and now we easily grasp the basic difference between the slowly developing agricultural Poland of 1930 and the rapidly developing country she is today.
3 On the definition of the way of life and its transformations see J. Szczepanski, A. Siciński, J. Strzelecki, "Changes in the Way of Life in Socialist Poland in the Light of Contemporary Hypotheses Concerning Changes in Social Structure," in: A Long-Term Model of Consumption, Ossolineum 1970, pp. 80-154 (in Polish); the publication was sponsored by The Polish Academy of Sciences Committee for Research and Prognoses "Poland 2000."
4 On the distinction between the "type" and the "style" of culture see S. Zólkiewski, Culture in People's Poland, Warsaw 1964, pp. 18ff (in Polish). In the interpretation adopted in this paper, "mass culture" stands for those manifestations of human intellectual, aesthetic, and recreational activities which are connected with the functioning of the mass media of communication. The grounds for such an interpretation are formulated in A. Siciński, Leisure Time and Mass Culture in the Urban Milieu, Warsaw 1966, pp. 5ff (in Polish).
5 See, for instance, A. Siciński, "Mass Media and Mass Culture," in Kultura i Spoleczenstwo, 2/1961 (in Polish).
6 An excellent review of the interpretations of the concept of the intel lectual and his role in society is to be found in J. Szczepański, Intellectuals in Contemporary Societies, Part I, Stanford 1961. In that paper of his Szczepański points to the historical differentiation of the concept and the role of intellectuals, and also to the differentiation of their functions under different social and cultural systems. An interesting review of the ideas related to the concept of intellectual and his social functions is to be found in G. B. de Hussar (ed.), The Intellectuals, a Controversial Portrait, Glencoe 1960.
7 The category of intellectuals is here defined in the way which, in J. Szczepanski's terminology (cf. his paper quoted in footnote 6), would have to be classed as a sociological or culturological definition (his distinction as between these two types does not seem quite clear). At any rate, the definition adopted by the present writer is very narrow, since it does not even cover all "creative workers and experts," not to speak of those definitions which cover the whole of the group called "the intelligentsia" or all "white collar workers."
8 A. Kloskowska, Mass Culture, Pros and Cons, Warsaw 1964 (in Polish). See in particular the chapter on "The Criticism of Mass Culture. The 19th Century Prologue," pp. 212 ff.
9 Op. cit., p. 216.
10 Op. cit., p. 215.
11 In Poland, for instance, intellectuals and intellectualism usually enjoy much prestige, which is largely due to the traditions of the intelligentsia as a social category. On the other hand, attention is often drawn to the prevailing anti-intellectual attitudes in the United States, attitudes which, however, seem to lose ground recently. This is what R. Hofstadter says on this subject: "Before attempting to estimate the qualities in our society that make intellect unpopular, it seems necessary to say something about what intellect is usually understood to be… Anyone who scans popular American writing with this interest in mind will be struck by the manifest difference between the idea of intellect and the idea of intelligence. The first is frequently used as a kind of epithet, the second never…" And then after: "Intellect… is the critical, creative, and contemplative side of mind. Whereas intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate, re-order, adjust, intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, imagines. Intelligence will seize the immediate meaning in a situation and evaluate it. Intellect evaluates evaluations and looks for the meanings of situations as a whole." And then the author states: " I have suggested that one of the first questions asked in America about intellect and intellectuals concerns their practicality. One reason why anti-intellectualism has changed in our time is that our sense of the impracticality of intellect has been transformed." (R. Hofstadter, Anti-intellectualism in American Life, New York 1964, pp. 24, 25, 33).
12 Barthes, who will be referred to later, says: "L'écrivain est celui qui travaille sa parole (fût-il inspiré) et s'absorbe fonctionnellement dans ce travail. L'activité de l'écrivain comporte deux types de normes: des normes techniques (de composition, de genre, d'écriture) et des normes artisanales (de labeur, de patience, de correction, de perfection). Le paradoxe c'est que les matériaux devenant en quelque sorte sa propre fin, la littérature est au fond une activité tautologique…" And at the next page: "Les écrivants, eux, sont des hommes "transitifs;" ils posent une fin (témoigner, expliquer, enseigner) dont la parole n'est qu'un moyen; pour eux, la parole supporte un faire, elle ne le constitue pas. Voilà donc le langage ramené à la nature d'un instrument de communication, d'un véhicule de la "pensée." Même si l'écrivant apporte quelque attention à l'écriture, ce soin n'est jamais ontologique: il n'est pas souci… Car ce qui définit l'écrivant, c'est que son projet de communication est naïf: il n'admet pas que son message se retourne et se forme lui-même, et qu'on puisse y lire, d'une façon diacritique, autre chose que ce qu'il veut dire: quel écrivant sup porterait que l'on psychanalyse son écriture? Il considère que sa parole met fin à une ambiguïté du monde, institue une explication irréversible (même s'il l'admet provisoire), ou une information incontestable (même s'il se veut modeste enseignant); alors que pour l'écrivain, on l'a vu, c'est tout le contraire: il sait bien que sa parole, intransitive par choix et par labeur, inaugure une ambiguïté, même si elle si donne pour péremptoire, qu'elle s'offre paradoxalement comme un silence monumental à déchiffrer, qu'elle ne peut avoir d'autre devise que le mot profond de Jacques Rigaut: Et même quand j'affirme, j'interroge encore. L'écrivain participe du prêtre, l'écrivant du clerc…" (R. Barthes, Essais Critiques, Paris, Editions du Seuil 1964, pp. 148, 151-152).
13 Contemporary writers find this role fascinating, which, after all, is quite obvious. Hence similar formulations are to be found in the works of authors of different makings, such as Jan Parandowski and Alejo Carpentier.
And Alejo Carpentier wrote: "S'occuper de ce monde, de ce petit monde, de ce très grand monde, est la tâche du romancier actuel. S'entendre avec lui, avec le peuple combattant, le critiquer, l'exalter, le dépeindre, l'aimer, essayer de le comprendre, essayer de lui parler, d'en parler, de le montrer, d'en monter les travers, les erreurs, les grandeurs et les ridicules, d'en parler et encore à ceux qui restent cois au bord du chemin, inertes, attendant je ne sais quoi, ou peut-être rien du tout, et qui ont tout de même besoin qu'on leur dise quelque chose pour les remuer. Telle est, à mon avis, la fonction du romancier actuel. Telle est sa fonction sociale, s'il en a une. Il ne peut en faire beaucoup plus et c'est déjà assez. Le grand travail de l'homme sur cette terre consiste à vouloir améliorer ce qui est. Ses moyens son limités, mais son ambition est grande. Mais c'est dans cette tâche en le royaume du monde qu'il pourra trouver sa véritable dimension et peut-être sa grandeur" (A. Carpentier, "Le rôle social de l'écrivain," in L'Art dans la société d'aujourd'hui, Neuchâtel 1968, p. 112).
14 We are here interested only in that aspect of the differentiation of the roles of writers which is thought to be especially characteristic of present-day cultural change. In each of the three roles listed above we could single out various sub-roles. This division also intersects with those which as the criterion of classification adopt the functions of literature and use these to define the roles of writers (for instance, K. Rudzińska singles out the following such functions: aesthetic, ludic, cognitive, political. Cf. her paper The Social Roles of Art and Artists in 20th Century Literary Sources (in Polish, manuscript, 1971).
15 It is arbitrary in the sense that it does not result from any necessity of satisfying elementary needs, even though it is certainly determined by social roles (with an increased possibility of choosing one's role).
16 The problem of institutions in which writers work is stressed intentionally, as it is believed that the institutionalization of culture (and especially an increase in the importance of "instrumental" institutions) is characteristic of the 20th century.
17 The role of the universities as related to the problems of intellectuals is given an interesting interpretation by L. Bodin in Les Intellectuels, Paris 1964.
18 Cf. L. Lowenthal, "Literature and Society" in Literature, Popular Culture, and Society, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1961, p. 141. Although Lowenthal stresses the necessity of covering popular literature, which is not on a high level of culture, with a sociological study of literature, he fails to notice, when he proceeds to discuss the status of writers, that the latter term now covers quite different social and professional categories.