The sociology of literature in Argentina: A little of its history and some notes on its present

Abstract

Spanish

French

This article traces the trajectory of the sociology of literature in Argentina and clarifies its possible distinction from the local sociology of culture. In order to justify this relative independence, my examination considers not only major authors and their works, but also the publication of translated foreign books, the development of teaching activities, and the organization of conferences, among other factors. I divide the description and analysis into five parts: ‘Backgrounds’, ‘In-translations’, ‘Foundations’, ‘Interruptions’ and ‘Re-emergences’. These do not necessarily claim to constitute the history of the sociology of literature in Argentina, but might function as key organizing principles for a unifying narrative of the sub-discipline and its oscillations over approximately three-quarters of a century, from the mid-1950s to the mid-2020s.

Keywords

Argentina history of sociology sociology of literature

Introduction

Historically considered a part of literary studies, the sociology of literature was never among the main areas of interest in sociology – and nothing indicates that this situation might substantially change, although there is a level of definition of sociology that is undeniably intertwined with literature (Lepenies, 1992; Nisbet, 1976). Even within literary studies, the sub-discipline remains largely anachronistic: specialized bibliography from different countries tends to agree that the sociology of literature experienced its momentum of effervescence during the 1960s, 1970s, and even the 1980s, followed by a period of decline and disintegration (among various 21st century overviews, see Casas, 2020; English, 2010; Glinoer, 2019; Keunen, 2001; Sayre, 2011).

Most of these assessments come from the northern hemisphere (Europe and North America). What, then, has happened with the sociology of literature in countries occupying a very marginal position within the global geopolitics of social sciences and humanities? In the following pages, I propose a brief review of the history and present state of this area of studies in Argentina, with emphasis not only on the main authors and publications (the central works by Carlos Altamirano and Beatriz Sarlo in the 1970s and 1980s), but also the retrospective appreciation of an incipient national corpus of books related to the subject, the presence of a handful of ‘in-translations’ (local translations of foreign works), and, in recent years, the development of teaching activities, the organization of academic sessions and conferences, and the emergence of a significant number of articles by young scholars – a combination of factors that undoubtedly contributes to the institutionalization of the sub-discipline.

Another key starting point is the diagnosis by Alabarces (2012) on the Argentine sociology of culture. He establishes a hypothesis regarding the doubly marginal condition of this area of studies in the southern country. On one hand, he observes,

First of all, the Argentine sociology of culture is included within the margins of western academia. In spite of the fact that Argentine sociology still has an important place in Latin American sociology, the social sciences of the subcontinent remain at the periphery of western production, as measured by the indicators of their impact and their presence in the international academic journals (Alabarces, 2012: 706).

On the other hand, he completes the assessment with a remark of what has historically happened within the country:

The second peripheral condition of Argentine sociology of culture is related to its position within the field of Argentine sociology. The center of this field is comfortably occupied by political sociology. Due to the fact that the discussion of democracy, Peronism and authoritarian regimes has been so critically important, the studies on politics in Argentina have traditionally hegemonized sociological production. Demographic studies and research on social structure have benefitted from their status as rough sociology, that is, sociology based on statistical data and strict methodology (Alabarces, 2012: 706).

In the present text, I find it relevant to extend Alabarces’ hypothesis to the Argentine sociology of literature. However, there is an important difference with his argument: while he circumscribes – and with reason – some developments of the sociology of literature within the sociology of culture, here I want to stress a set of elements that indicate the existence of the former as a separate compartment of knowledge (even if ‘separate’ is not synonymous with robust).¹

I divide the description and analysis into five parts: ‘Backgrounds’, ‘In-translations’, ‘Foundations’, ‘Interruptions’ and ‘Re-emergences’. These divisions do not claim to represent the definitive history of the sociology of literature in Argentina, although they might function as key organizers for tracing the development and fluctuations of this sub-discipline within a time span of approximately three quarters of century, from mid-1950s until mid-2020s (and in this text I will particularly focus on the attempts for a relaunch during the last years). Covering such a wide time period in a single paper necessitates prioritizing a panoramic perspective, and this occurs at the expense of losing depth. One of my prime concerns in this text is to provide a set of bibliographic references and local names that had not been grouped and intertwined under a unifying narrative until now. To accomplish this goal, I employ a nominalist perspective that serves as the main criterion for establishing the periods and solving inclusions and exclusions – such an approach, while useful for organizational purposes, inevitably sacrifices detailed consideration of complex relationships across different analytical layers, and especially does not account for the deeper motivations behind scholars’ engagement with (or rejection of) the sociology of literature.

Backgrounds

When did ‘the sociology of literature’ begin? If we establish a strict parameter based on the explicit use of this label, it was certainly not created by Aristotle or Sartre, nor Marx or Adorno, etc., even though they are commonly cited as precursors in a broad sense. An analogous statement could be made about Argentina: the country certainly offers abundant reflections on literary phenomena (if we adopt a broad understanding of ‘literature’), beginning even with Domingo Faustino Sarmiento’s (2018 [1845]) Facundo, one of the nation’s foundational and multifaceted texts, originally published in the mid-19th century, which contains political, historical, and even anecdotal elements.

Hence, one of the strict criteria for acknowledging the sociology of literature is to consider its entry into university curricula during the 1950s and 1960s, as Aron and Viala (2006: 43–45) affirmed regarding the French case, with special consideration of Robert Escarpit’s Sociologie de la littérature, published by Presses Universitaires de France in 1958. Significantly, one of the traditional Argentine texts of literary criticism emphasizing ‘the social’ is David Viñas’ (1964) Literatura argentina y realidad política, which begins with an epigraph taken from the final paragraph of Escarpit’s (1962 [1958]) book (I quote here from the early Argentine edition): ‘hay que quitar a la literatura su aire sacramental y liberarla de sus tabúes sociales aclarando el secreto de su poder’ [‘we must strip literature of its sacramental air and free it from its social taboos by clarifying the secret of its power’] (1962 [1958]: 170).

Which figures and works configured the background for the sociology of literature in Argentina? Beyond the aforementioned Viñas, another intellectual who stands out from the mid-20th century is Adolfo Prieto. With titles such as Sociología del público argentino (1956), Encuesta: la crítica literaria en la Argentina (1963), and Literatura y subdesarrollo (1968), he established himself as an academic researcher with a prominent orientation toward the social history of literature (Blanco, 2014: 11; Sarlo, 2007 [2001]: 129), during a period both preceding and parallel to the consolidation of local sociology at both conceptual and institutional levels (1957 marks a key year, when the first degree in sociology was created at the University of Buenos Aires).²

The 1960s include additional authors and books within what could be considered a broader sociology of literature. Among them, Realismo y realidad en la narrativa argentina (1961), by Juan Carlos Portantiero, offers an analysis in which literary productions are examined in connection with national political developments. Moreover, Portantiero’s text adopts a revolutionary tone, characteristic of its era: similar to Viñas’ book, its primary intention was not to establish an academic sub-discipline, but rather to pursue a deeper goal centered on challenging and disputing a model for the nation-state. Beyond Viñas, Prieto, and Portantiero, two other significant figures in the mid-20th century are Raúl Héctor Castagnino and Jaime Rest. More aligned with Prieto’s approach, these intellectuals positioned their work within a framework closer to what we might recognize as objects of scholarly study, as evident in books like Castagnino’s ¿Qué es literatura? (1966 [1954]) and Sociología del teatro argentino (1963), or Rest’s Literatura y cultura de masas (1967).

In the 1970s, other contributions emerged concerned with literary phenomena in their ‘social’ dimension, such as Literatura y sociología (1973), by Delfín Garasa, and Producción literaria y producción social (1975), particularly in the text that gives title to the volume, by Noé Jitrik. Both books contain references to sociology – and even to the sociology of literature in Garasa’s (1973: 17–30) work – though with different viewpoints: Garasa adopts an affirmative tone, while Jitrik positions himself firmly within literary criticism (Jitrik, 1975: 7–18) and rejects the ‘sociologismo vulgar’ [‘vulgar sociologism’] (Jitrik, 1975: 49, 54). Nevertheless, neither text ultimately constituted a substantive contribution to a robust sociology of literature. Jitrik’s (1975: 48–64) ‘Producción social y producción literaria’ employs a universalist tone and lacks bibliographical references beyond some appeals to De Saussure and general Marxist terminology. Similarly, Garasa, after two promising initial chapters – where he conceptualizes literature as a socio-historical fact (Garasa, 1973: 7–15) and gives an informed insight to the sociology of literature (Garasa, 1973: 17–30) with references to authors like Robert Escarpit and Levin Schücking – limits himself to reviewing Marxist authors and their contributions to literary study: Marx and Engels themselves, as well as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Della Volpe, Lukács, Goldmann, and others. Thus, both Jitrik’s and Garasa’s texts align with what was considered the dominant conception of the sociology of literature in the mid-20th century: Marxist analysis of literature (as previously recognized, among others, by Memmi, 1963 [1960]: 357; Parkhurst Ferguson et al. 1988: 426; Aron and Viala, (2006: 25).

Viñas, Prieto, Castagnino, Rest, Garasa, and Jitrik represent just a handful of pertinent names, some still lauded, others more relegated, but all may be gathered as part of the backgrounds of the Argentine sociology of literature. From different perspectives, they all address questions about the ‘social’ status of literary phenomena – and sometimes explicitly invoke sociology and even the sociology of literature. Nevertheless, it would be unreasonable to overstate the relevance of this particular group of names, and it is important not to lose sight that, in those decades, beyond the formation and institutionalization of disciplines at universities, there were broader and more vigorous debates on politics and the possibility of a social revolution.³ But here my interest lies in a backward-looking search for the origins of a specific area of knowledge, even if this implies the risk of a retrospective bias. At this point, however, the nominalist criterion makes sense: we can acknowledge the existence of the sociology of literature only when its own denomination begins to circulate in academic discourse.

‘In-translations’

Besides the backgrounds established by the (non-exhaustive) list of local authors whose significant works broadly conceptualized the ‘social’ dimension of literature, it is also important to note that the Argentine book industry of the 1960s and 1970s offered a very relevant corpus of international scholarship through ‘in-translations’ – local editions of translated foreign works.⁴

In the 1960s and 1970s, several Argentine editorial projects published texts explicitly positioned within the sociology of literature – some with semantic variations addressing specific dimensions of literary phenomena, such as the sociology of literary creation or the sociology of the novel. These publishing initiatives emerged from companies with markedly different profiles: Compañía General Fabril Editora, Kapelusz, Nueva Visión and Amorrortu. Amalia Aguado’s (2014: 142) research on the consolidation of Argentina’s publishing sector between 1956 and 1975 categorizes three of these four publishers distinctly: Kapelusz focused on primary and secondary education texts, Amorrortu specialized in university and professional publications (Aguado, 2014: 145), and Fabril Editora concentrated on fiction (Aguado, 2014: 149–150).

Emerging from the non-coordinated activities of these companies, it is worth highlighting a series of foreign works situated within the sociology of literature – or its semantic variants – that were translated and published in Buenos Aires during a concentrated period of just over a decade, between 1962 and 1973, when this sub-discipline was emerging as a promising area of knowledge. The list includes: Robert Escarpit’s (1962 [1958]) pioneering work, Sociología de la literatura, released in the diverse Los Libros del Mirasol collection by Compañía General Fabril Editora; Albert Memmi’s (1963 [1960]) concise yet overlooked text ‘Problemas de la sociología de la literatura’, included in the two-volume collective work Tratado de sociología, edited by Georges Gurvitch (1962 [1958], 1963 [1960]) and published by Kapelusz; a compilation titled Sociología de la creación literaria (Goldmann et al., 1971 [1967]), from Nueva Visión, featuring seven contributions by Lucien Goldmann, Jacques Leenhardt, G. N. Pospelov, Umberto Eco, Georg Lukács, Geneviève Mouillaud, and Matthias Waltz; and finally, Michel Zéraffa’s (1973 [1971]) Novela y sociedad, published by Amorrortu.

A separate paper would be necessary to comment in detail on the contents of these works, but at least two observations can be made about this list of in-translations. All four books were originally published in French, a language that clearly signals one of the most important horizons for certain segments of Argentine intellectual life (a horizon with evident effects on the publishing industry as well), as part of a tradition that extends beyond the sociology of literature and spans both temporally and across other disciplines. In addition, it should be emphasized that this corpus of works does not correspond to an organic or centralized intellectual project – it is more closely related to a period of consolidation in the national book market and the corresponding increase in the number of published titles.

Although four books may seem a modest number, in subsequent years there were no similar importations, translations, and local publications of works focused on the sociology of literature. Only during the latter half of the 1990s did Pierre Bourdieu’s (1995 [1992]) Las reglas del arte. Génesis y estructura del campo literario begin circulating in the Iberian edition from the Catalan publisher Anagrama, a work that gradually became synonymous with the sociology of literature itself (an early review of its French version was penned by María Teresa Gramuglio [1993] for the cultural magazine Punto de Vista). This pattern seems to have continued when, after several years of vacancy, the local industry released Gisèle Sapiro’s (2016 [2014]) La sociología de la literatura, a handbook with an unmistakably Bourdieusian orientation – and likely the only handbook with which contemporary Argentine scholars are familiar. Beyond theoretical preferences, the key observation here is that four publications could be considered significant when compared with what followed that period of the 1960s and early 1970s.⁵

Foundations

The two preceding sections provide a limited yet significant contextual framework for introducing what may be considered the most substantial attempt to establish a sociology of literature in Argentina, through the appearance of four books between 1977 and 1983: Literatura y sociedad (1977), Conceptos de sociología literaria (1980), Literatura/Sociedad (1983a), and Ensayos argentinos. De Sarmiento a la vanguardia (1983b), all of them co-authored by Altamirano and Sarlo. Among these, the first three constitute the most solid theoretical foundation for the sub-discipline in the country’s intellectual history (Maltz, 2024).

At this point, let me return to a few lines of Alabarces’ formulations:

Some of the foundational texts [for the sociology of culture] date to this period. In 1980, Altamirano and Sarlo released Conceptos de sociología literaria (Concepts of Literary Sociology) followed by Literatura/Sociedad (Literature/Society) a few years later […] . In 1985, a work by Sarlo was published, El imperio de los sentimientos (The Empire of Feelings), where the author employs tools from literature criticism and cultural sociology to analyze the popular romantic serial novels of the first decades of the 20th century (Alabarces, 2012: 708).

Perhaps because of having in mind the subsequent steps by Altamirano and Sarlo, Alabarces includes Conceptos de sociología literaria and Literatura/Sociedad within their project of sociology of culture (and, among other relevant milestones, their early reception of authors like Hoggart, Williams, and Bourdieu):

Around 1980, Sarlo and Altamirano published the first reading of the work of Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams, as well as the first interpretations of the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Although these readings are marked by their interest in a sociology of literature, this original nucleus would ultimately expand toward the sociology of culture (Alabarces, 2012: 708).

Nonetheless, even though it is true that the agenda of Altamirano and Sarlo turned to the sociology of culture (a concern already included in their works on the sociology of literature), Alabarces’ interpretation omits Literatura y sociedad (1977), which contained an introduction with the first explicit program of a sociology of literature by Altamirano and Sarlo. In this sense, without contradicting the claim that these works were foundational for a national sociology of culture, it would be more precise to insist on the fact that they were formerly the base for a local sociology of literature.

Hence, Literatura y sociedad (1977), Conceptos de sociología literaria (1980), and Literatura/Sociedad (1983a) could be considered the theoretical foundation of the sociology of literature in Argentina (Maltz, 2024). While this argument is consistent, it must be framed within the context of the two previous sections: by the time these works were released, there already existed a significant corpus of ‘in-translations’ and local works – although the latter did not reach the depth and accuracy of Altamirano and Sarlo’s books.

Through a close reading of the texts by Altamirano and Sarlo, it is possible to follow a specific analysis demonstrating how their works showed an unprecedented level of precision and even a distribution of functions among the three referred books (Maltz, 2024).⁶ First, the anthology Literatura y sociedad could be conceived as a sample of texts representing the state of the art: seven contributions by Lukács, Goldmann, Escarpit, Hauser, Levin, Daiches and Bourdieu, preceded by an introduction by Altamirano and Sarlo – an introduction whose importance cannot be exaggerated, since it is their first exposition of how a project of sociology of literature should be formulated. Second, Conceptos de sociología literaria contains an agenda of problems relevant to the area of study: a list in alphabetic order of thirty key concepts, including ‘author’, ‘genre’, ‘system’, ‘taste’, ‘ideology’ or ‘institution’, and even others that demonstrate a particular interest in some authors, like Bourdieu’s ‘intellectual field’, Williams’s ‘structure of feeling’ or Goldmann’s ‘significant structure’. Third, Literatura/Sociedad consists of a theoretical framework elaborated with a greater degree of precision and depth in comparison with the previous works, but departing from a great division: ‘The Literary Text’ and ‘Subjects and Institutions’; the first is subdivided into two chapters that a minimally educated reader might associate more with literary theory than with the sociology of literature, as there are synthetic expositions and discussions of authors such as Tinianov, Lotman, Mukařovský, Bakhtin or Kristeva (and of key terms like function, constructive principle, literary system, aesthetic function or literary norm); the second part is structured in four chapters that, from common contemporary academic understandings, seem closer to a sociology of literature, through names such as those of Sartre and (again) Bakhtin, though especially those of Williams and Bourdieu (and concepts that Altamirano and Sarlo had been working on since the previous books: author, public, institution, field, formation, convention, genre, etcetera).

Beyond the considerable level of success in establishing a consistent theoretical framework, it is possible to detect, if not shortcomings, at least arguable or unattended aspects of their reflections. These include asymmetries between literary studies and sociology (Maltz, 2024: 311–315), with a substantial disregard toward the second, as well as asymmetries in the conceptualizations between ‘the literary’ and ‘the social’ (315–319), based on the sub-theorization of the latter (an asymmetry present since the introduction of Literatura y sociedad, where Altamirano and Sarlo devoted three paragraphs to explaining their understanding of ‘literary system’, but none for ‘social system’). In any case, despite these observations, the works by Altamirano and Sarlo were – and still are – the zenith of the sociology of literature in Argentina.

Of course, focusing solely on the contributions to the sociology of literature made by two of Argentina’s most prominent intellectuals of the late 20th and early 21st centuries inevitably implies a reduction of their work. Unable to fully address their broader contributions within this text, I will limit myself to two additional remarks: on the one hand, the books discussed are intellectually inseparable from their activities of creation and coordination of the magazine Punto de Vista, a project encompassing political and cultural debates that transcend the boundaries of an academic area of knowledge;⁷ on the other hand, in recent years, both Altamirano and Sarlo published intellectual autobiographies where the sociology of literature occupies very little space (Altamirano, 2019) or is completely absent (Sarlo, 2025). This last point could serve as a telling symptom of the status of sociology of literature in Argentina, whose foundational works tended to be, if not completely neglected, at least undervalued in the subsequent interests of their very creators.

Interruptions

After the series of books by Altamirano and Sarlo, there was not what could be named as a ‘progression’. On the contrary, for several years no more works with primary concern on the sociology of literature were published by Argentine authors – with the exception of some reprints of the ones by Altamirano and Sarlo. Yet, there was an expansion of works by literary critics that approached the sub-discipline’s concerns, albeit without adopting the label.⁸

It is difficult to establish definitive causes, but at least two main factors appear most significant: one national, linked to Argentina’s political situation; the other international, connected to the evolution of sociology of literature as an area of knowledge. The international factor relates to what was mentioned in the introduction: after the period of effervescence during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the sub-discipline entered a period of decline. The national factor refers to the last dictatorship (1976–1983) and its devastating effect on intellectual environments: many professors, writers, and activists were forced to flee the country due to threats, while many who remained were murdered.

It is worth questioning whether Argentina’s political instability and the international decline of the sociology of literature sufficiently explain the period of vacancy. One nuance might be proposed here. Primarily, it is important to clarify that speaking of ‘interruptions’ may imply a teleological assumption about a presumed linear development of the sociology of literature – which should not be taken for granted. Nonetheless, when compared with previous decades, even at the basic level of published works, there is undeniable evidence of decrease. When the label did sporadically appear, it tended to be briefly mentioned, as seen in a single appearance in one paper by Benzecry (2000: 17), where the tag competes with disciplinary affiliations to the sociology of culture and the sociology of intellectuals, or was directly disregarded without any explanation, as happens in a section of La ética picaresca by Horacio González (1992: 90–92).⁹

A new text that explicitly addressed the sociology of literature with an affirmative intention and consistency did not emerge until 2002. That year, Altamirano (2002) organized a dictionary of concepts for a sociology of culture conceived from Latin America, Términos críticos de sociología de la cultura, which featured renowned contributors from the region – primarily from Argentina, but also from Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay. Among the dictionary’s entries, one was dedicated to the sociology of literature, though it was curiously written by a Brazilian professor, María Elisa Cevasco (2002). In just a few pages, the text brings together Williams, Candido, Escarpit, Bourdieu, Derrida, Adorno, Lukács, Goldmann, Bakhtin, Jameson, Schwarz, and even Altamirano and Sarlo themselves. Here, once again, a telling symptom emerges: in a dictionary with fifty entries and a majority of Argentine authors, the piece on the sociology of literature is assigned to someone from abroad.

Re-emergences

The second decade of the 21st century marked the beginning of a series of (non-isolated) re-emergences of the sub-discipline, manifested in university courses, academic events, study groups, research projects, fellowships, and publications. I do not intend to celebrate these re-emergences, but rather to contextualize them critically. Nevertheless, a more detailed account of this process is needed first – thus, the following five paragraphs will follow a descriptive approach. I can anticipate, however, the core argument to come: proliferation does not guarantee consistency.

The development of university-level teaching activities serves as a relevant indicator, since it demonstrates the public communication of specific knowledge. The University of Buenos Aires, the largest and most important in the country, has more courses than other institutions, both in the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters and in the Faculty of Social Sciences. In the former, at the postgraduate level, Susana Cella has taught a seminar called ‘Problemas de la Sociología de la Literatura’ in the Master of Comparative Literature since 2010 (though in some years, such as 2012 and 2013, she changed the title to ‘Literatura y Sociedad’). In the latter, within the Bachelor of Sociology, I created and started teaching the subject ‘Teoría Sociológica y Teoría Literaria’ in 2022, and I also led the seminar ‘Sociologías de la Literatura’ in the doctoral program of the same faculty in 2020 and 2022.¹⁰ But the undeniable expansion is not exclusive to the University of Buenos Aires: Juan Ignacio Piovani and Rodolfo Iuliano coordinated the research seminar ‘Sociología y Literatura’ for several years at the National University of La Plata’s Bachelor of Sociology (Piovani from 2006 to 2010, Iuliano from 2011 to 2013); Soledad Quereilhac taught ‘La Sociología de la Literatura: Perspectivas Teóricas y Propuestas Metodológicas’ in 2018 at the National University of San Martín’s Master in Sociology of Culture (she subsequently repeated the seminar again from 2020 to 2023 with some variations, also for undergraduate and doctoral students, eventually dropping the label ‘sociology of literature’ from the title while maintaining an explicit focus on the sub-discipline); Mariano Sverdloff has offered since 2020 ‘La Sociología de la Literatura: las Relaciones entre Literatura y Sociedad’ in the Master of Comparative Literatures at the Catholic University of Argentina. Naturally, all these subjects and seminars share common ground while also adopting divergent perspectives: depending on their interests, they prioritize different authors, theories, and problems to varying degrees (some are Marxist, while others take Bourdieu as their dominant reference; some emphasize specific time periods, ranging from the 19th to the 21st century; etc.). Despite the general disconnection among these teaching spaces, the last decade has clearly witnessed the largest – although still modest – offering of undergraduate and postgraduate subjects and seminars on the sociology of literature in the country. Far removed from this situation remain the isolated private courses taught by Beatriz Sarlo, of which Daniel Link recalls that the 1982 seminar focused on a sociology of literature from a Bourdieusian perspective (Link, 2017: 89).

Alongside teaching activities, the 21st century has also seen a rise in specific sessions at academic events, often linked to some of the subjects listed above. Within the biennial sociology conference of the National University of La Plata, Rodolfo Iuliano has directed since 2008 a session called ‘Sociología y Literatura’ (different undergraduate and postgraduate students and researchers have helped in the coordination of these sessions over the years; since 2022, the chairs alongside Iuliano are Horacio Crovetto, Paula Cuestas and Ezequiel Saferstein, and they changed the name to ‘Sociología de los mundos literarios’). In 2023, together with Martina Guevara and Eugenia Vázquez, we organized for the first time a session entitled ‘Sociologías de la literatura’ as part of another sociology conference, the one from the University of Buenos Aires (which is also biennial, and in 2025 Daniela Lucena, Lucas Rubinich, and María Belén Riveiro organized a session called ‘Sociología del arte y la literatura: de la producción a la recepción’). Beyond these sessions within general conferences, in 2024 there was the first specific event on the sub-discipline in Argentina, the ‘Jornadas de Sociología de la Literatura’ (conceived as a biennial meeting that is intended to continue in the future), proposed and organized by the Study Group on the Sociology of Literature (GESoL, according to its initials in Spanish: Grupo de Estudios de Sociología de la Literatura) and with the institutional support of the Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani (the main research institution of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires). This first event featured four sessions related to the editorial dimension in the context of literary production, the institutionalization of literary studies, the theory and history of the sociology of literature, and the debates on the tensions between autonomy and heteronomy in the literary production. It remains to be seen what the future holds for this conference in a few years’ time, but its creation is undoubtedly a great achievement for the Argentine (and Latin American) sociology of literature, as academic meetings were historically concentrated in Europe.

The reference to the ‘Jornadas de Sociología de la Literatura’ leads to the establishment of study groups and research projects. In 2020, within the Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani, the aforementioned GESoL was created, with Lucas Rubinich (a senior sociology professor), María Belén Riveiro, and Victoria Saez as founding members who continue to participate, plus the incorporation of undergraduate students. I was also able to start supervising accredited projects both at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires since 2024 and at the Faculty of Languages and International Studies at the University of Belgrano since 2025. Nevertheless, as often happens in Argentine social sciences and humanities, the existence of groups and projects may imply formal recognition, though usually without any type of funding – and even when financial support is available, the infinitesimal payment in Argentine pesos is derisory.

The recurrence of certain names reveals another significant dimension of this description: the awarding of doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships, commonly through regular calls launched by the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET, by its acronym: Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas). Some of the aforementioned scholars obtained fellowships for projects explicitly inscribed within the sociology of literature, such as María Belén Riveiro and myself. The list extends beyond these cases when considering fellowship recipients whose work may not directly address the sub-discipline but are clearly intertwined with it, as seen in books based on doctoral dissertations: Lucía Tennina’s ethnographic approach to oral poetry in Brazil (Tennina, 2017), Oriana Seccia’s essayistic interpretations of middle classes through scholarly texts and fiction (Seccia, 2019), Daniela Szpilbarg and Ezequiel Saferstein’s studies of the national publishing industry (Saferstein, 2021; Szpilbarg, 2019), or Martina Guevara’s inquiry into configurations of the Argentine nation through cult writer Juan Filloy (Guevara, 2022).¹¹ Furthermore, while young scholars (defined here, for simplification, as those born since 1980) have helped increase the number of individual projects and fellowships, it is also important to note that the sociology of literature has been present, in varying degrees and forms, in the research agendas of individuals with long-established permanent positions. These include Alejandro Blanco’s research on Adolfo Prieto as a key figure in a sociological branch of literary criticism (Blanco and Jackson, 2011, 2015), Alejandrina Falcón’s study of Argentine translators in Spanish exile (Falcón, 2018), Rodolfo Iuliano’s reflections on a sociology of creativity through ‘talleres literarios’ [creative writing workshops] and amateur practices of writing (Iuliano, 2021), or Analía Gerbaudo’s ambitious examination of the history of literary studies in the country through a theoretical framework that combines Derrida and Bourdieu (Gerbaudo, 2024), just to mention a few representatives of older generations, as the list could be longer and serves only to illustrate another profile of scholars interested in this area.

Beyond the emergence of the sociology of literature in the four aforementioned cases – manifesting respectively as a sociology of literary criticism, a sociology of translation, a sociology of creative writing practices, and a sociology of literary studies – young scholars have become the primary catalysts behind publications spanning a considerable range of subjects, predominantly through journal articles (in keeping with 21st-century academic demands): Renata Aller et al. (2022) ethnographies of Harry Potter fans; Silvana Casali (2022) on literature by the children of the ‘disappeared’ during Argentina’s last military dictatorship; a paper of mine on the theoretical design of a sociology of literature (Maltz, 2023); Giuliana Pates (2021) on the publishing industry and young readers; María Belén Riveiro (2021) on the trajectory of writer César Aira; Victoria Saez (2022) on the figures of ‘bookfluencers’ and their connections with the publishing industry; Paula Simonetti (2023) on representations of writers’ working conditions; and so forth. As is customary, this alphabetically ordered list is far from exhaustive, though it suffices to demonstrate the proliferation of publications in recent years (there are other authors and additional papers by those mentioned as well).

The five previous descriptive paragraphs are not based on readily available information. Now I can pose one caveat and three substantial analytical comments regarding the summary of these years of re-emergence. The caveat is that references here do not include connections with scholars from abroad, despite the fact that many of these individuals participate in international networks (with Brazil, Mexico, Spain, France, and other countries). As for the main observations: first, this period is not dominated by literary scholars, nor does it occur outside institutionalized sociology (in clear opposition to what Alabarces (2012: 707) affirmed for an earlier moment in the sociology of culture), and it includes participants not only with initial training in literary studies or sociology, but also in communication, anthropology, etc. Second, where others might celebrate the proliferation of teaching spaces, publications, conferences, and more, the truth is that mere quantitative criteria do not necessarily indicate that the situation of the sociology of literature is solid (although the developments listed are indisputable, a qualitative assessment is more complex, and it would be imprudent to assert that this area of study is robust or stable). Third, even though recent times may be perceived as witnessing an ‘increase’ in the sub-discipline, the scenario of the last decade has been one of instability and budget reductions; in this regard, given that CONICET has played an important role in funding doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships, it is worth recalling what Gerbaudo (2024: 47) affirmed: periods of expansion in Argentina’s national scientific system have been more the exception than the norm.

Final considerations

It is undeniable that Argentina has a valuable tradition in the sociology of literature, distinct from both the sociology of culture and sociology tout court. Through a review of five descriptive, analytical, chronological periods, it is possible to appreciate its significance within a three-quarter century timespan that encompasses publications, local editions of foreign works, theoretical developments and empirical research, teaching activities, conferences, fellowships, and more. Nevertheless, let me reiterate that these lines do not claim to constitute the definitive history of the sociology of literature, but rather aim to provide key elements for reflection on it (each period merits further discussion, beginning with its designation and potential comparisons with developments in other countries and regions). With this in mind, allow me to conclude with a final observation on the current situation.

After the years of what may be termed ‘interruptions’ (I have already expressed my caution regarding the use of this label), the recent period of re-emergences does not necessarily indicate that the sociology of literature in Argentina is in a strong position. If some years ago Alabarces (2012: 706, 712–714) employed the metaphor of a healthy situation for the local sociology of culture, it would not be prudent to make the same claim for the sociology of literature. In any case, there are reasons for both optimism and pessimism: on the one hand, the significant previous tradition and the quantitative evidence presented in the last section along with its potential; on the other hand, the terrible situation of the scientific system and the universities. One formulation by Parkhurst Ferguson et al. (1988) may prove illuminating:

Without some elements of common understanding the sociology of literature will never possess significant institutional space – the space filled by university departments and research centers, by courses, majors, degrees, and appointments within existing departments, or by a professional support network, the journals, colloquia, and associations that assure the exchange of information and ideas essential to any organized intellectual enterprise. (pp. 424–425; italics added)

As we have seen, there is an indubitable trajectory of institutionalization of the sociology of literature in Argentina, although this occurs in the absence of central consensus regarding the conceptual framework – the overall situation still resembles atomized scholars working on individual and highly specific projects without organic cohesion among them. Furthermore, this takes place amid the aggravation of the economic situation, both of the country in general and of the scientific system and public universities in particular. Nevertheless, let me invoke Gerbaudo’s (2024: 28, 78) formulation (borrowed from Sarlo) about literary studies in Argentina, ‘tanto con tan poco’ [‘so much with so little’], to suggest that there are grounds for an optimistic outlook. For now, the five periods delineated in this text can help illuminate its fluctuating history and current attempts at reinvigoration, and allow us to appreciate not only the relative independence of the sub-discipline, but also the itineraries where sociology exists in close proximity to literary studies.¹²

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This text has roots stretching back perhaps 14 years, to when I bought my copy of Conceptos de sociología literaria in 2012 (though one could argue such roots extend back to literacy itself). But the commitment to write this particular article and submit it to Current Sociology took shape in late 2024, in conversation with Jan Váňa, whom I thank for reading the first version and for accepting that this work could contribute, however modestly, to a more ambitious project on the history of relations between the literary and the social. I am particularly grateful to the editors of the journal (especially Zarine Rocha) for their work in finding reviewers, and to the three external reviewers for their careful reading and dedicated engagement; their suggestions, though not fully incorporated, undoubtedly improved the text and helped me keep ruminating on the sociology of literature (special thanks to Reviewer 3 for coining the term ‘nominalist criterion’). My thanks also go to Raúl Illescas, Mariano Sverdloff, Cecilia Lasa, Marina Moguillansky, Soledad Quereilhac, and Rodolfo Iuliano for specific data they provided for the ‘Re-emergences’ section, and to Victoria Fondón for sending photos of a distant book. Finally, my deepest appreciation to four Czech women who unknowingly contributed to this article: to Marcela Matějčková and Sabina Danková, for their essential housekeeping; to Kamila Linková, for managing to make me smile during my renewed attempts to learn some Czech; and to Lenka Riva Ryšková, for the best morning humor during early Sundo classes and for helping me avoid back pain.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This publication is the result of research funded by the Czech Science Foundation as part of project GA ČR 24–12400M ‘The Sociology of Literature Revisited: Towards Epistemological Symmetry within Literature-and-Society Research’ (Institute of Czech Literature of the Czech Academy of Sciences).

ORCID iD

Hernán Maltz

Notes

Author biography

Hernán Maltz is a sociologist and holds a PhD in Literature, both degrees from the University of Buenos Aires. He works as postdoctoral fellow at the Czech Academy of Sciences and as professor at the University of Buenos Aires and the University of Belgrano. His current research interests are focused on the theory and history of the sociology of literature.

References

Aguado

(2014) 1956–1975. La consolidación del mercado interno. In: De Diego

(dir.) Editores y políticas editoriales en Argentina (1880–2010). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp.135–171.

Alabarces

(2012) Culture and the periphery: Nomadic wanderings in the Argentine sociology of culture. Current Sociology 60(5): 705–718.

Aller

Cuestas

Ibarrola

(2022) Activismo y participación política en el fandom de Harry Potter en Argentina. Contratexto 38: 73–100.

Altamirano

(2019) Estaciones. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ampersand.

Altamirano

(dir.) (2002) Términos críticos de sociología de la cultura. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.

Altamirano

Sarlo

(1980) Conceptos de sociología literaria. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Centro Editor de América Latina.

Altamirano

Sarlo

(1983a) Literatura/sociedad. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Hachette.

Altamirano

Sarlo

(1983b) Ensayos argentinos. De Sarmiento a la vanguardia. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Centro Editor de América Latina.

Altamirano

Sarlo

(eds) (1977) Literatura y sociedad. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Centro Editor de América Latina.

10.

Aron

Viala

(2006) Sociologie de la littérature. París: Presses Universitaires de France.

11.

Benzecry

(2000) El almuerzo de los remeros. Profesionalismo y literatura en la década del ’90. Hispamérica 87: 17–30.

12.

Blanco

(2006) Razón y modernidad. Gino Germani y la sociología en la Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno.

13.

Blanco

(2014) Prólogo. In: Prieto

(dir.) Literatura y subdesarrollo. Notas para un análisis de la literatura argentina. Ciudad Autónoma De Buenos Aires, Argentina: Eudeba, pp.11–24.

14.

Blanco

Jackson

(2011) Intersecciones: crítica literaria y sociología en la Argentina y el Brasil. Prismas. Revista de historia intelectual 15: 31–51.

15.

Blanco

Jackson

(2015) Sociología en el espejo. Ensayistas, científicos sociales y críticos literarios en Brasil y en la Argentina (1930–1970). Bernal, Mexico: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.

16.

Blois

(2018) Medio siglo de sociología en la Argentina: ciencia, profesión y política (1957–2007). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Eudeba.

17.

Bourdieu

(1995 [1992]) Las reglas del arte. Génesis y estructura del campo literario. Barcelona: Anagrama.

18.

Casali

(2022) Contexto, generación, ficción: una explicación de la literatura de hijos desde la sociología literaria. Badebec 11(22): 73–95.

19.

Casanova

(2004 [1999]) The World Republic of Letters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Casas

(2020) Lo social, lo político y lo literario. La sociología de la literatura en las coordenadas de su disgregación. In: Abuín González

Cabo Aseguinolaza

Casas

(eds) Textualidades (inter)literarias. Lugares de lectura y nuevas perspectivas teórico–críticas. Madrid and Frankfurt: Iberoamericana, Vervuert, pp.215–261.

21.

Castagnino

(1963) Sociología del teatro argentino. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Nova.

22.

Castagnino

(1966 [1954]) ¿Qué es literatura? Buenos Aires, Argentina: Nova.

23.

Cevasco

(2002) Literatura, sociología de la. In: Altamirano

(dir.) Términos críticos de sociología de la cultura. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós, pp.161–167.

24.

De Diego

(2003) ‘¿Quién de nosotros escribirá el Facundo?’ Intelectuales y escritores en Argentina (1970–1986). La Plata, Argentina: Al Margen.

25.

English

(2010) Everywhere and nowhere: The sociology of literature after ‘the sociology of literature’. New Literary History 41(2): v–xxiii.

26.

Escarpit

(1962 [1958]) Sociología de la literatura. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Compañía General Fabril Editora.

27.

Falcón

(2018) Traductores del exilio. Argentinos en editoriales españolas: traducciones, escrituras por encargo y conflicto lingüístico (1974–1983). Madrid and Fráncfort del Meno: Iberoamericana, Vervuert.

28.

Garasa

(1973) Literatura y sociología. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Troquel.

29.

García

(2022) Historia del arte y ciencias sociales: inflexiones de una disciplina en la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Arte, Individuo, Sociedad 34(4): 1317–1333.

30.

Gerbaudo

(2024) Tanto con tan poco. Los estudios literarios en Argentina (1958–2015). Santa Fe, Argentina: Ediciones UNL.

31.

Gilman

(2003) Entre la pluma y el fusil. Debates y dilemas del escritor revolucionario en América Latina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno.

32.

Glinoer

(2019) Introduction. The Literary and the Social. Available at: https://livingbooksabouthistory.ch/en/book/the-literary-and-the-social#chapter-intro

33.

Goldmann

Leenhardt

Pospelov

, et al. (1971 [1967]) Sociología de la creación literaria. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Nueva Visión.

34.

González

(1992) La ética picaresca. Montevideo, Uruguay: Altamira.

35.

Guevara

(2022) Juan Filloy en la década del 30. Villa María, Argentina: Eduvim.

36.

Gurvitch

(dir.) (1962 [1958]) Tratado de sociología (Tomo Primero). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Kapelusz.

37.

Gurvitch

(dir.) (1963 [1960]) Tratado de sociología (Tomo segundo). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Kapelusz.

38.

Iuliano

(2021) Sociología de la creatividad amateur: los talleres literarios y el escritor aficionado. In: Iuliano

Boix

(eds) La cultura como dimensión transversal de lo social. Objetos, conceptos y debates actuales acerca de los mundos del arte contemporáneos. La Plata, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Teseo, pp.149–166.

39.

Jitrik

(1975) Producción literaria y producción social. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Sudamericana.

40.

Keunen

(2001) Introduction: The rise and fall of literary sociology. . . and its survival. In: Keunen

Eeckhout

(eds) Literature and Society: The Function of Literary Sociology in Comparative Literature. Brussels: P. I. E. (Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes), Peter Lang, pp.9–18.

41.

Lepenies

(1992) Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Link

(2017) La lectura: una vida. . .. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ampersand.

43.

Maltz

(2023) Sobre el diseño teórico de una sociología de la literatura. Revista Mexicana de Sociología 85(3): 557–579.

44.

Maltz

(2024) La fundación teórica de una sociología de la literatura en la Argentina: sobre tres trabajos de Carlos Altamirano y Beatriz Sarlo (1977–1983). Revista Letral 32: 297–326.

45.

Memmi

(1963 [1960]) Problemas de la sociología de la literatura. In: Gurvitch

(dir.) Tratado de sociología (Tomo Segundo). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Kapelusz, pp.353–371.

46.

Mercader

(2021) Punto de Vista’ and the Argentine Intellectual Left. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

47.

Nisbet

(1976) Sociology as an Art Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

48.

Panesi

(2019) El entusiasmo teórico. Conversaciones con Marcelo Topuzian. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Editorial de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad de Buenos Aires.

49.

Parkhurst Ferguson

Desan

Griswold

(1988) Editor’s introduction: Mirrors, frames, and demons: Reflections on the sociology of literature. Critical Inquiry 14(3): 421–430.

50.

Pates

(2021) ‘El mercado es como la marea’. Editoriales, editores/as y literatura juvenil en Argentina. Badebec 11(21): 86–109.

51.

Peller

(2016) Pasiones teóricas. Crítica y literatura en los setenta. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Santiago Arcos.

52.

Portantiero

(1961) Realismo y realidad en la narrativa argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Procyon.

53.

Prieto

(1956) Sociología del público argentino. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Leviatán.

54.

Prieto

(1968) Literatura y subdesarrollo. Notas para un análisis de la literatura argentina. Rosario, Argentina: Editorial Biblioteca.

55.

Prieto

(dir.) (1963) Encuesta: la crítica literaria en la Argentina. Santa. Santa Fe, Argentina: Universidad Nacional del Litoral.

56.

Rest

(1967) Literatura y cultura de masas. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Centro Editor de América Latina.

57.

Riveiro

(2021) Un ejercicio de sociología de la literatura: la trayectoria temprana de César Aira (1970–1980, Buenos Aires). Pilquen. Sección Ciencias Sociales 24(2): 86–98.

58.

Saez

(2022) La incorporación de ‘bookfluencers’ en la industria editorial Argentina. Vinco. Revista de Estudos de Edição 2(2): 61–89.

59.

Saferstein

(2021) ¿Cómo se fabrica un best–seller político? La trastienda de los éxitos editoriales y su capacidad de intervenir en la agenda pública. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno.

60.

Sapiro

(2016 [2014]) La sociología de la literatura. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

61.

Sarlo

(2007 [2001]) La batalla de las ideas (1943–1973). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Emecé.

62.

Sarlo

(2025) No entender. Memorias de una intelectual. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno.

63.

Sarmiento

(2018 [1845]) Facundo, o, Civilización y barbarie. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Biblioteca del Congreso de la Nación.

64.

Sayre

(2011) La Sociologie de la littérature. Histoire, problématique, synthèse critique. Paris: L’Harmattan.

65.

Seccia

(2019) ¿Clase media? Ensayos de literatura y sociedad desde Gino Germani a la nueva narrativa argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ubu Ediciones.

66.

Simonetti

(2023) Trabajo y literatura. Representaciones en torno al oficio de escritoras y escritores en la Argentina (2008–2021). Estudios de Teoría Literaria. Revista digital: artes, letras y humanidades 12(29): 134–150.

67.

Szpilbarg

(2019) Cartografía argentina de la edición mundializada. Temperley, Argentina: Tren en Movimiento.

68.

Tennina

(2017) ¡Cuidado con los poetas! Literatura y periferia en la ciudad de São Paulo. Rosario, Argentina: Beatriz Viterbo Editora.

69.

Vanoli

(2019) El amor por la literatura en tiempos de algoritmos. 11 hipótesis para discutir con escritores, editores, lectores, gestores y demás militantes. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno / Crisis.

70.

Viñas

(1964) Literatura argentina y realidad política. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Jorge Alvarez Editor.

71.

Zéraffa

(1973 [1971]) Novela y sociedad. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu.