THE TWO POLES OF LITERARY PRODUCTION: HETERONOMY, AUTONOMY AND THE LITERARY FIELD IN THE THEORY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU
Article Sidebar
Published:
Jun 20, 2021
Keywords:
literary debate, Pierre Bourdieu, field, commercial literature, cultural production, literary field
Main Article Content
Abstract
The literary world has always been marked by the debate on the legitimacy of literary works. Who
the literary works are written for, who they should be written for, and how one should write them. Additionally, a plethora of other similar questions have been raised, time and time again, with statistical regularity, especially after the establishment of literature as an autonomous field at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. In this paper, the importance of this type of conflict in the field of literature will be analyzed by examining two such instances in literature - Paulo Coelho and H.G. Wells’ criticism of Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake by James Joyce and the contrasting views of the poet and critic
T.S. Eliot. Pierre Bourdieu’s theories will serve as our main methodological tool in this analysis, particularly his concept of field, specifically addressing the literary field. We will further analyze the indicated examples by opposing the two poles of functioning of the literary field: restricted production and large-scale
production - a binary opposition that logically stems from the dual hierarchization of the field. According to Bourdieu, conflicts of this kind stem from the very structure of the literary field itself, and help legitimize it as an autonomous module of cultural production as well as drive its production and reproduction within societal reality.
the literary works are written for, who they should be written for, and how one should write them. Additionally, a plethora of other similar questions have been raised, time and time again, with statistical regularity, especially after the establishment of literature as an autonomous field at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. In this paper, the importance of this type of conflict in the field of literature will be analyzed by examining two such instances in literature - Paulo Coelho and H.G. Wells’ criticism of Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake by James Joyce and the contrasting views of the poet and critic
T.S. Eliot. Pierre Bourdieu’s theories will serve as our main methodological tool in this analysis, particularly his concept of field, specifically addressing the literary field. We will further analyze the indicated examples by opposing the two poles of functioning of the literary field: restricted production and large-scale
production - a binary opposition that logically stems from the dual hierarchization of the field. According to Bourdieu, conflicts of this kind stem from the very structure of the literary field itself, and help legitimize it as an autonomous module of cultural production as well as drive its production and reproduction within societal reality.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Dizdarevikj, Vedran. 2021. “THE TWO POLES OF LITERARY PRODUCTION: HETERONOMY, AUTONOMY AND THE LITERARY FIELD IN THE THEORY OF PIERRE BOURDIEU”. Journal of Contemporary Philology 4 (1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.37834/JCP21410119d.
Section
Literature
Copyright © 2014 Blaže Koneski Faculty of Philology, Skopje
Journal of Contemporary Philology (JCP)
Современа филологија
References
Бурдје, П. (2006). Противогнови/За телевизијата. Скопје: Темплум.
Bourdieu, P. (2010). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London and New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdie, P., and Johnson. R. (ed.). (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1994). In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1995). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. Great Britain, Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
Edel. L., Ray. G. (1958). Henry James and H.G. Wells: A Record of their Friendship, their Debate on the Art of Fiction, and their Quarrel. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.
Eliot, T. S. (1948). Christianity and Culture. London: A Harvest Book.
Eliot, T.S. (1975). Ullysses, Order, and Myth. Kermode, F. (ed.). Selected Prose of T.S. Eliot. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Jenkins, R. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu. London and New York: Routledge.
Jenks, C. (2005). Culture. London: Routledge.
Saussure, F. (2011). Course in General Linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Thompson, P. (2008). Field. In Grenfell, M. (ed.). Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts, 199-212. Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.
Trilling, L. (1953). The Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Williams, R. (1960). Culture and Society: 1780-1950. New York: Anchor Books.
Flood, A. (2012). Paulo Coelho: James Joyce’s Ulysses is ‘harmful’ to literature. Guardian. August 6th. [Online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/06/paulo-coelho-james-joyce-ulysses [Accessed: January 19th, 2021]
Wells, H.G. (2016). Who the hell is this Joyce?. The Paris Review. [Online]. September 28th.
Available from: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/09/21/who-the-hell-is-this-joyce/
[Accessed: January 19th, 2021]
Bourdieu, P. (2010). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London and New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdie, P., and Johnson. R. (ed.). (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1994). In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1995). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Culler, J. (1976). Saussure. Great Britain, Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
Edel. L., Ray. G. (1958). Henry James and H.G. Wells: A Record of their Friendship, their Debate on the Art of Fiction, and their Quarrel. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.
Eliot, T. S. (1948). Christianity and Culture. London: A Harvest Book.
Eliot, T.S. (1975). Ullysses, Order, and Myth. Kermode, F. (ed.). Selected Prose of T.S. Eliot. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Jenkins, R. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu. London and New York: Routledge.
Jenks, C. (2005). Culture. London: Routledge.
Saussure, F. (2011). Course in General Linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Thompson, P. (2008). Field. In Grenfell, M. (ed.). Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts, 199-212. Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.
Trilling, L. (1953). The Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Williams, R. (1960). Culture and Society: 1780-1950. New York: Anchor Books.
Flood, A. (2012). Paulo Coelho: James Joyce’s Ulysses is ‘harmful’ to literature. Guardian. August 6th. [Online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/06/paulo-coelho-james-joyce-ulysses [Accessed: January 19th, 2021]
Wells, H.G. (2016). Who the hell is this Joyce?. The Paris Review. [Online]. September 28th.
Available from: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/09/21/who-the-hell-is-this-joyce/
[Accessed: January 19th, 2021]