Towards a Sociological Aesthetic: An Attempt at Constructing the Aesthetic of Lucien

Goldmann
Author(s): Jacques Leenhardt and Diane Wood
Source: SubStance, Vol. 5, No. 15, Socio-Criticism (1976), pp. 94-104
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3684062
Accessed: 08-04-2018 09:42 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to SubStance

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 TOWARDS A SOCIOLOGICAL AESTHETIC:
AN ATTEMPT AT CONSTRUCTING THE
AESTHETIC OF LUCIEN GOLDMANN

Jacques Leenhardt

The brutal and tragic end of the writings of Goldmann, just when people were
still expecting that theoretical synthesis that he was one day planning to publish,
necessitates a return to disparate texts asking aesthetic questions in order to seize the
outlines of a firm theory concerning the quality of artistic works.
The absence of a theoretical formulation by Goldmann himself immediately
creates difficulties. The most fruitful source we may tap indeed remains the article
"L'esthbtique du jeune Lukics," which appeared in Meditations in 1961 and was
reprinted in Marxisme et sciences humaines. For in this essay where he examines the
first three works of Lukacs1, Goldmann immediately presents the problem of the
essay as a genre as it is developed by Lukics beginning in 1910. In this mirror through
which he meditates, Goldmann questions himself about his own work and informs us
about the status of his own discourse. Speaking of Lukacs' aesthetics, he defines his
own in so far as it is true that "the essay remains an intermediary form to the extent
that it only presents its problems because of a particular reality. Thus it is always a
work with two dimensions. That of the object it refers to and that of the problem it
raises."2 That Goldmann preferred to enunciate the problems of a sociological
aesthetic which is his own "because of" the aesthetics of Lukics rather than to present
an autonomous theoretical exposition in itself defines one of the dimensions of this
aesthetic. The aesthetic does not possess theoretical autonomy, it can only be the
object of a particular science.
This statement is based on the determination of its specific object. As a matter
of fact, aesthetics has as its object not the Beautiful, but the quality, which inevitably
leads to a theory about the functionality of this quality, always felt through man as
opposed to a definition of the Beautiful, necessarily considered in itself. Certainly, and
we will see it later, the aesthetically valid object reveals its own character in itself, but
that is merely one of the poles of the definition, inseparable and finally unrecognizable
without the functional pole.
If aesthetics is denied an autonomy, that implies theorizing its connection with
other disciplines, and, as an end result, defining its object. Goldmann thus specifies,
beginning in 1955 that:

For me, literature, art, philosophy and, to a great extent, the

practice of religion are essentially languages ....3
Thus, to consider the work of art as language returns us to the global process of
communication from which each form of expression is derived. But, if literature and
art are languages, they are not alone to be thus considered, and it is fitting after that to
ask oneself what they possess of a specific nature. That is where the first definition of
work of art intervenes:

Sub-Stance No. 15 94

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Towards a Sociological Aesthetic 95

These 'languages' are reserved for the expression and

tion of certain particular contents. My initial hypothesis
justified only by examples of concrete analysis, is that
are in fact world visions.4

A hypothesis which will prove fruitful in The Hidden God

vision of the world appears as a conceptual tool of primary im

What I have called a 'world vision' is a convenient t

whole complex of ideas, aspirations and feelings which
the members of a social group (a group which, in most cases, assumes
the existence of a social class) and which opposes them to members of
other social groups.
This is certainly a highly schematic view, and extrapolation made
by the historian for purposes of convenience; nevertheless, it does
extrapolate a tendency which really exists among the members of a
certain social group, who all attain this class consciousness in a more or
less coherent manner.5

Thus, the work of art has a function at the interior of society to give a form to a
vision of the world and it will be all the more important and valuable as its form is
more coherent. Returning to a phrase of Goldmann, we could write: the reason for
which coherence is an aesthetic value is the same as the reason which states that the
social is always really or virtually coherent.6 We touch on the meshing of aesthetic
judgment with sociological analysis. Here is founded what Goldmann calls the
sociological aesthetic to which he, for his part, is attached.
Two concepts appear essential to the development which is thereby produced.
First, that of coherence, which goes back to the Kantian tradition and links Goldmann
with classical German philosophy.

The central idea of my work and of my method is that

coherence-not logical but functional-is, next to richness and
conceptual character of the imaginary, one of the three elements
constituting aesthetic value and characterizes, as such, the great literary
or artistic works.7

Next, that of functionality, which is inseparable from the first because it forms an
integral part of its definition and qualifies the nature of it.
However, Goldmann distinguishes two types of coherence and, as a consequence,
different functionalities. One may be said to be individual or, by reference to
psychoanalysis, libidinal. Obviously, it only adds minimally to the structuring of
historical facts and, implicitly, of cultural and aesthetic facts. This thesis which
nourishes all the polemics led by Goidmann against the psychoanalysis of literature,
takes its most detailed form in his article, "Le sujet de la creation culturelle."8 It is
founded on the double statement:
a) that the great works recall visions of the world without which they would
remain incomprehensible,
b) That no individual may create for himself a vision of the world, that the latter
is, of necessity, elaborated by a social group before being actualized by an author.

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 96 Jacques Leenhardt

Thus, the range of explicative study thro

fragments of text which disqualifies it with
mediocre works, separated as a consequence
wvorld which can grasp the sociological aesth
individual problematic exactly matches the
world, may escape from the double invalidat
The other type of coherence distinguishe
linked to the transindividual subject. The co
here on two levels:

1. The social group where the mental categories are elaborated through
which the work is constructed appears as the subject, as the real origin
of the creation.

2. The concept of the subject itself, as it has been given to us by the

individualistic philosophical tradition, shines as a false appearance, as an
ideological concept masking the true origin of the functioning of the
creation.

The subject of the creation thus is constituted as the intersubjectivity of the organic
subjects and, as a subject, it is to be considered at the interior of what Goldmann
elsewhere calls an intra-subjectivity, signifying by that that its activity is deployed
inside a range of subjectivity created by the social practices of the group.
Two types of coherence founded on two types of functionality thus define for
Goldmann the connection between a work and its subject. They can be made more
precise by saying that the function of creation is to bring this coherence which
frustrates man in real life, "exactly as in the individual level of dreams, the delirium
and the imaginary obtain the object or the object's substitute that the individual was
not able to really possess."10 The difference is masked, however, in that cultural
creation reinforces the tendencies of consciousness whereas the dream evades the
censor and acts through the unconsciousness, against consciousness.
All that we have stated demonstrates that Goldmann places literary and artistic
creation at the heart of social life and explains, as a consequence, that there cannot be
aesthetic autonomy from it. In other respects this position offers the advantage of
breaking definitively with all theories concerning reflection because there is no more
separation between the creative process and the rest of social reality. The determinist
link is transcended by the true exercise of the dialectic which is marked on the
methological level by the distinction between comprehension and explication.

The Great Work and the Genius

If the tenants of traditional literary criticism always balked at sociological

explications, sociologists, for their part, have never accepted the choice declared by
Goldmann of the great works as privileged objects of the sociology of literature.
Accustomed to working on the disorganized level of social acts, they criticized the

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Towards a Sociological Aesthetic 97

exclusivity accorded to well known works and minor works.

they think, for making a work privileged? In addition, how
which is apparently arbitrary or, at least, ideological since it
tradition of class and, consequently, is an improper foundatio
However justified it may appear, this objection non
miscomprehension of the Goldmann aesthetic. The reconstitu
presented in the following manner:
1. The preliminary work of every sociologist is to constit
structure upon which research may operate in a fruitful man
2. It is not possible that the products of everyday consciou
object, no more than the majority of the average cultural c
3. On the other hand, the prerogative of the sociologist of
from the fact that the great works present a very advanced
4. That such works, that means those which are presented
present a remarkable character of structuration which res
survival depends on the epistomological and psycho-hist
same coherence.

(...) if the social factors which determine the success of a book

immediately after its publication, during the author's lifetime and for a
few years after his death, are both highly numerous and largely
accidental (fashion, advertisement, social situation of the author,
influence of certain highly placed individuals, such as Louis XIV, for
example), these all eventually disappear, and leave only one factor. This
continues to act more or less indefinitely. Although it can and does
vary very greatly in intensity: it is the fact that, in certain works of the
past, men rediscover what they themselves think and feel in a confused
and obscure manner today.11

As a result, without constituting an imperative, it seems preferable and mo

useful, given a certain method, to seek a vision of the world where it has some cha
of finding expression rather than where the incoherence of an average thought hin
its possibility of appearance.
For our own part, we add that the more mediocre a work, the more it can
presented as adhering to a code that the sociologist may explain without needing
understand it. That makes it easier to understand why such works are preferentia
chosen by specialists of fixed forms of literature.
We thus discover the existence of two aesthetic fields. The first, which we h
just briefly glimpsed, constitutes what one can term a sociological aesthetic, wh
object is to disengage the connections between a vision of the world as a construct
conceptual structure and the world constituted by beings and things. That causes t
multiple representations to be presented as the unity of a work and effectively reli
them of a discipline suspeptible of explaining the proper character of t
"presentation". The problem of structuring a universe, real or oniric, fantasti
realistic thus goes back to a sociological aesthetic since, as we have seen, in the f
analysis, this structuration can only be collective.
On the other hand, it is necessary to recognize that what we may term pu

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 98 Jacques Leenhardt

aesthetics, literary criticism or more spec

specified object which escapes the sociolog
undergoes mediation of specific literary and
what is necessary to correctly seize the rela
the work and the means of expression utiliz
why such a universe, the aforenamed aest
nature of the means (lexical, grammatical, t
this description because the display of evid
means rightly springs from the sociological
means of expression is part of the struct
aesthetic thus thinks it can expand its fie
determined the why. It would therefore b
Goldmann's genetic structuralism to separat
its meaning.
In this regard it is interesting to see th
between The Hidden God and Structures m
work Goldmann notes:

I shall only treat the second level, that of the relationship

between this universe and the literary devices used to express it, in a
fairly superficial manner.12

Fifteen years later the extreme reticence of this text gave way to a declared attempt to
take into account what appeared to many to be the specifically literary aspect. In the
name of microstructures, Goldmann analyzed the first twenty-five speeches of Les
Nigres by Jean Genit, showing how therein are condensed four micro-models of the
world, disengaged from the beginning. In fact, one can't say that in so doing
Goldmann has truly broken away from this ordinary method since he always maintains
the level of the signified and properly speaking touches neither on the semantic nor on
the linguistic level. On the other hand, it is essential to measure the seriousness of this
new attention which is attested to by the return to the same sort of work in regards to
the Eloges of Saint-Jean Perse. There again, however, lacking linguists and semanticists
as collaborators, Goldmann does not depart from the level of the signified which
remains his special province.
Indeed, one may regret that this overture did not lead to a more profound
recognition of the literary manner but, on the other hand, to accept that literature be
reduced to the structures of the signifiers that it produces would have led to a
definitive turning away from every definition of literature as a human
creation-Goldmann would have somewhat renounced himself. This half measure
cannot therefore be considered entirely accidental since it was so contrary to all his
scientific activity. One finds here the divide between the sociological aesthetic to
which he attaches himself and regular aesthetics which he finally renounced without
regret.
We are now striking the more irreducible part of the Goldmann aesthetic.
Written on the banner of his theory, the thesis that all human activities are significant
marks the limits of the autonomy of the signifier in its literary function (that does not,

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Towards a Sociological Aesthetic 99

of course, touch on the problem of this autonomy in the fun

se).
The status of the signifier thus goes back to the significance of forms. Instead of
conceiving of it by itself, in an autonomy which would cause it to approach the
arbitrary, the signifier appears bound. Reflecting on Lukics' L cime et les formes,
Goldmann in effect shows that the effect of the form on the work, in the sense of
content, is that by which the disharmony of the content is transcended through
literary technique. Starting from a content of a real or imaginary given which
characterizes the rupture, the disharmony, etc., the writer elaborates a form-that is, a
unifying structure-which permits him to go beyond the heterogenity of its raw object
in a literary work, that is to say, actually to go beyond a vital problem towards a new
and more coherent formulation.
The opposition to any formalism, perceived in this theory, is of course, only
valid in the precise case defined therein. The Goldmann aesthetic actually is only
concerned with the great works, defined by an elaboration of a world vision. Beyond
that, in popular tales, for example, it is not impossible that form gains in autonomy in
direct proportion when what is proposed is not a world vision but the formulation of a
problem (of religious essence according to Proppl13). For what distinguishes a world
vision is that it is a global response not to a problem but to the totality of existing
problems for a group or a social class. One problem always appears as a universal
abstract, whereas a problematic one is necessarily concrete. From there it follows that
the response to a problem may be treated by universally abstract formulae, the forms
of the fantasy tale, for example, whereas visions of the world always require the
comprehension and explication of a concrete problematic, inscribed in the history of
the social groups which manifest them.
In fact, although elaborated apropos of the works of Lukics, this theory is
really, as we said at the beginning, Goldmann's own. There would therefore be some
illusion in believing that Goldmann speaks of an existing aesthetic of Lukics. What he
reveals only exists at the price of an original synthesis of the first three works of
Lukics. It is only after having for a time abandoned aesthetic problems that Lukics
will develop his sociological theory in Histoire et conscience de classe, a theory upon
which Goldmann will found his own aesthetic. This reminder of the epistemological
role of Histoire et conscience de classe permits Goldmann to place his contribution to
the aesthetic in its true theoretical cadre. It is only after having accorded to the
concept of possible consciousness (Zugerechnetes Bewusstuein) the preponderant
place it acquires with Lukics that one may seize the aesthetic theory that makes
cultural creation the privileged place where the maximum of possible consciousness is
expressed or at least approached.
By the "maximum of possible consciousness", Goldmann understands the
maximum of equivalence to reality that the consciousness of a group is capable of
attaining without changing its structure. Now in daily practice, the individual and
group consciousnesses are usually not conscious, of what they tend toward. The great
works thus appear as the most complete structuration of these aspirations, the
manifestation of what the members of the group "were thinking without knowing it"
The traditional perspective which sought to reduce the works either to the present

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 100 Jacques Leenhardt

state of collective consciousness or to reflect

and invalidated because the work, in no way
itself appears as creative, as bearer of an intern
promotes the examining of conscience. The p
the creative function of the work in regard
addressing sociologists to affirm:

That means that these creations are more easily accessible to a

structuralist study than the historical reality which engendered them
and of which they are a part. That is to say that the relationship of
cultural creation with certain social and historical realities once
established constitute a precious index concerning the elements
constituting these realities.

One can thus speak of the revealing, or more correctly, the prophetic function of a
work of art and Goldmann illustrated it in his article on "Le th6fitre de Genat", in
1966 where, regarding Paravents he saw "the first important play which tells us the
force and the still intact possibilities of man, and which, as paradoxical as this
affirmation may be, places on stage a hero-in his negativity and through his
negativity-in the last instance, positive."'"15 In conclusion, Goldmann ponders the
question of whether the appearance of this play "today" was merely an accident or
whether it was a matter of "the first symptom of historical change". It is evident that
historical facts do not delay in giving vibrant responses to these questions, thus making
negativity one of the very characteristics of the movements which animated them.
Thus, as Goldmann invites in this same article:

(...) the sociologist of culture (...) must not only understand

literature apart from society but also society apart from literature.... 16

which definitively ruins the old sociological determinism.

Here we touch on a point where Goldmann's sociological aesthetic rejoins
general sociology like a return to the foundation of his epistemology. The question at
the center of the debate embodies the status of cultural works in the totality of social
life as well as the contemporary theories concerning its productions. As a matter of
fact, one cannot fail to perceive a movement which tends to increasingly detach works
from their socio-historical insertion to confer upon them this autonomy, this internal
dynamic of its own which we referred to earlier. Now what these theories demonstrate
acquires precisely the appearance of truth so that

(...) the development of production for the marketplace

necessarily entails the appearance of an autonomous economic life (and
of its corollary, the science of economic events, political economics),
obeying its own laws, and which is increasingly independent of all
ethical, intellectual, or artistic process.17

Meanwhile, one must beware of concluding from the automation of the economic
sphere an autonomy of mode of expression. It is the specific contribution of the
"introduction to the problems of a sociology of the novel" to have asked in detail as
well as programmatically the questions about the contemporary study of the novel. As

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Towards a Sociological Aesthetic 101

a matter of fact, one perceives an important theoretical ch

the discovery of a new object. Until then, having essentiall
seventeenth century which were not novels, he has simp
Marxist theory; i.e., that creating passes through the m
consciousness. Thus he discovered a current of collective th
of Jansenist extremists, a collective consciousness to which
Pascal and Racine. With the novel, however, Goldmann fou
is impossible to link the novelistic form to the consciousnes

The novel analysed by Lukhcs and Girard no long

the imaginary transposition of the conscious structur
group, but seems to express on the contrary (and this
of a very large part of modern art in general) a search f
social group defends effectively and that the econo
make implicit in all members of the societyl8

Thus the novel, as a formulation of a world vision cannot b

social group whose values it manifests. At least it is exclud
method to the bourgeoisie (to which it is tied without expr
possible consciousness) or to the western proletariat
exaggerated the historical role and which

(...) far from remaining alien to the reified society

as a revolutionary force, has on the contrary become
to a large degree, and its trade union and political wor
to gain a relatively better place in it than Marx's analy

Faced with this situation which is new to him, Go!dma

argumentation quite different from the one asserted in
novel as a vision of the world is no longer linked to a real g
there is no alternative to finding another mode of
political-economic practice with that of cultural practice.
concept of homology between the structures of economic
manifestation-the novel-become self-sufficient since the m
consciousness has disappeared. The use of such a concept c
the perspective of a unitary grasp of the social phenomenon
implying the existence of quasi-autonomous structures
homological rapport weaves the ties. The ambiguity of t
many critics to assimilate the concept of homology to anal
ruin the true perspective in which this concept was formul
late to envisage its replacement in Goldmann's theory and w
expounding the justifications advanced by Goldmann t
procedure is found to have directly operated on the cult
presents four points. We cannot summarize them better tha

a) The birth in the thinking of members of bourge

the basis of economic behavior and the existence of ex
the category of mediation, as a fundamental and increa
form of thought, with an implicit tendency to replace t

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
102 Jacques Leenhardt

totally false consciousness in which th

absolute value and in which the mediat
to put it more clearly, with the tendenc
values from the point of view of mediat
to make money and social prestige ab
mediations that provide access to other
b) The survival in this society of a nu
essentially problematic insofar as their
dominated by qualitative values, even th
themselves entirely from the existen
whose action permeates the whole of th
These individuals include, above all, t
philosophers, theologians, men of act
behavior are governed above all by th
though they cannot escape entirely fro
from the welcome extended them by th
c) Since no important work can be
individual experience, it is likely that th
be developed only insofar as a non-conc
an affective aspiration toward qualitativ
in society as a whole, or perhaps solely
which most novelists have come.
d) Lastly, in the liberal market societies, there was a set of values,
which, though not trans-individual, nevertheless, had a universal aim
and, within these societies, a general validity. These were the values of
liberal individualism that were bound up with the very existence of the
competitive market (in France, liberty, equality, and property; in
Germany, Bildungsideal, with their derivatives, tolerance, the rights of
man, development of the personality, etc.). On the basis of these values,
there developed the category of individual biography that became the
constitutive element of the novel. Here, however, it assumed the form
of the problematic individual, on the basis of the following:
1. The personal experience of the problematic individuals
mentioned above under b);
2. The internal contradiction between individualism as a
universal value produced by bourgeois society and the important and
painful limitations that this society itself brought to the possibilities of
the development of the individual.0

Consequently, in a like manner, it would be-the conditional tense indicating,

however, it was still only a hypothesis for Goldmann himself-the importance assumed
by the economy in the bourgeois society which would permit the understanding of the
direct impact that is acknowledged while speaking of non-mediated homology. It
should be noted, nevertheless, that Goldmann here is also making the hypothesis of a
privileged tie between the novel as a genre and certain middle classes of the
bourgeoisie, which would tend to restore the theory of the mediating collective
consciousness.

This new hypothesis should further especially attract attention to

that it is accompanied by a questioning of the role of "the collective
non-conceptualized 'sound-box' that made possible the development o
form."21 It is quite clear that attributing its own function to this 'sound-b
the sociological study of the public of the works, and to seeing in this an

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Towards a Sociological Aesthetic 103

factor permitting an explanation of the development o

Goldmann indicated a direction which he could not explo
examination conditions the development of all research on t
Ultimately can one construct Goldmann's aesthetic? T
Goldmann dispersed all his reflections on art is characterize
fact that it contains more questions than answers. In the c
however, note two facts. On one hand, the whole of the th
have referred to constitute an aesthetic theory, not, of co
Beautiful, but like the theory of the act of creating, tak
elevated sense. At this point Goldmann's aesthetic is fou
(tendency of individuals and groups toward coherence, resi
Then again, on the other hand, we must acknowledge a
theory which doesn't hesitate to criticize itself when appro
(the problem of mediation through the collective consci
implicate the foundation of his epistemology, his anth
Towards a Sociology of the Novel on resistance of reificatio
Progressively as the application of sociology unfolds in
we thus pass from the solid to the fluid and inversely,
modeled on a real whose diversity is never denied. The f
mediating collective consciousness had been abandoned at
left the seventeenth century to enter the twentieth must sho
one single theory, applicable always and everywhere, that is
may be varied through time. The most recent work of Gol
des lettres et des arts dans les civilisations avancies"22,
contemporary situation of art and artists implies a profou
the part of the theoretician if he wants to again touch the en
This recognition of the modification of the status of cr
overthrow the theoretical foundation laid by Goldmann
problem these appear susceptible to the necessary correction
profound adherence to the real beyond the variations of its
It is because Goldmann's aesthetic is always capable of a
daily it is increasingly capable of bringing responses. Th
assumed by not setting itself in a closed system responds to
exigency to conforming to the real and of recognizing its pri

Translated by Diane Wo

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
104 Jacques Leenhardt

NOTES

1. L'dme et les formes, La theorie du roman et Histoire et conscience de classe.

2. Marxisme et sciences humaines, Gallimard, 1970, p. 231. Translations are mine. (

3. The Hidden God. Tr. Philip Thody. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964. p. 3

4. Hidden God, p. 314.

5. Ibid., p. 17.

6. "... the reason why the social is always coherent, either in reality or virtually, is the same
reason which makes coherence an aesthetic value." Structures mentales et creation culturelle,
Paris, Ed. Anthropos, 1970. p. 416. Translations are mine (Tr. note)

7. Structures mentales, p. 451.

8. Marxisme et sciences humaines, pp. 94-120.

9. We have shown elsewhere that this was the case for Racine by comparing the psychoanalytic
study of Mauron and the sociological analysis of Goldmann in The Hidden God. Cf. J.
Leenhardt, "Racine: psychocritique et sociologie de la litt6rature," Etudes Frangaises, 3, No.
1, 1967.

10. Marxisme et sciences humaines, p. 114.

11. Hidden God, p. 315-16.

12. Ibid., p. 316.

13. La morphologie du conte. Paris: Seuil, Collection Points, 1970, p. 183.

14. Marxisme et sciences humaines, p. 85.

15. Structures mentales, p. 337.

16. Ibid., p. 339.

17. Marxisme et sciences humaines, pp. 235-236.

18. Towards a Sociology of the Novel. Tr. Alan Sheridan. London, Tavistock Publications, 1975.
p. 10.

19. Ibid., pp. 11-12.

20. Towards a Sociology of the Novel, pp. 15-28.

21. Towards a Sociology of the Novel, p. 17, note.

22. In Liberte et organisation dans le monde actuel. Bruxelles, Descl6e de Brouwer, 1969.
Publications du Centre d'Etudes de la Civilisation Contemporaine.

This content downloaded from 192.248.32.72 on Sun, 08 Apr 2018 09:42:30 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms