Having looked at Literature, at the other end of the spectrum are the classics of the scientific world. These possess many of the same characteristics as Literary masterpieces; they can also be described as being more indisputable. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has been seen as the definitive work on the subject ever since it was published and he is one of the figures along with Newton and Faraday who are seen as instrumental in the development of science in the same way as Shakespeare is in Literature and Hobbesbawm in History. What makes Darwin’s work a classic is how it was so innovative at the time and has now become the accepted view – it is timeless and based on well founded research. However, it is interesting to note that it is now being called into question with the debate and even challenged in court.
Hence we can see that classics in the non-sociological world can be seen as a complex web of influence and are cross-referenced with other academic fields. Furthermore, a classic should be so original and innovative that it is either so assimilated into our society, such as Darwin’s work, that we cease to see it as eccentric or it is seen as a stand alone piece of work that can be revisited many times for multiple uses.
Italo Calvino has tried to canonise the description of a canon of itself in his work by devising fourteen definitions that a work should conform to make it a classic. Whilst he was also talking about Literature, his points are applicable to the work of any field and we can therefore use it for Sociology. The salient points made by Calvino are interesting, one cynical notion being that a classic is something more often talked about than read, not to say that the classics are not read, but few have actually read the whole of Durkheim’s Suicide, certainly less have read all of it than those who profess to be experts on it. In a similar vein, a classic often carries so much baggage that when you come to read it you already have a good idea of what it is about and its main point or theories. Sometimes these can be misconceptions that are proved false on closer examination. An additional interesting point being that a classic has never finished what it has to say, that's why Durkheim is still read even though his work is over well over a century old. His work can be reinterpreted and applied to modern situation as has already been mentioned, thus transcending the time span in which other works would fade. Furthering the debate is Charles Altieri, who shows us how canons or classics perform the social role of being ‘selective memories of traditions or ideals’. A classic is a permanently open time capsule that allows us in the present to see what was regarded as cutting edge and respected at the time of writing, a resource in the investigation of the development of society and culture. However, surely this can be said of most books which are written – they all say something about the period they are written in, a problem that Altiei does not address in his work.
The issue of vocabulary is an issue that Calvino sees as central to the notion of a classic, citing how writers or works contribute something to a language, the example of something being ‘Kafkaesque’ being one example and Marx’s addition of the concepts of Proletariat and Bourgeoisie which have become mainstream due to his usage. However, in my view it is the classic that makes the vocabulary mainstream, not the fact that it uses the vocabulary that makes the classic what it is. By referring back to Shakespeare, we can see that many of his words and phrases have passed into our common language, but it is because the text is so widely read that this is so – the text is not so widely read because the terms are now mainstream. Another side issue on language which is valid is that what is a classic in one language is not even heard of in another language. True, Zola’s Germinal is studied in British schools, but very few texts of African origin, which are considered classics there, are studied in Britain. Hence, a classic is dependent on geography and in particular, language.
Gianfranco Poggi makes the very valid point that ‘our approach to the classics must resist the temptation of becoming fashionable’. This is an interesting point and harks back to the point of those who profess to know a work but have never read it; they claim to be specialists because it is seen as trendy. He goes on to say that the definition of a canon does differ from time to time and place to place ‘and in any case should go beyond the usual Marx, Durkheim, and Weber’ and include other writers such as de Tocqueville, Mead and Freud. The initial statement of Poggi’s does seem to hold true when one actually asks who defines the classics, or at least who says what a classic is. As was stated earlier, Bloom gave a list of twenty six authors who wrote Literary classics – it seems rather pretentious to draw up such a list as reading and academia as a whole is based on individual interpretation, not the interpretation of an oligarchy.
This leads onto one of Calvino’s final explanations of a classic and that is the issue of free choice in calling a text a classic. This has expanded into an area of the debate which can be seen to undermine the whole argument and concept of classics. A reader, regardless of what book it is, establishes a personal rapport with the text whether it be indifference, agreement or disagreement and that one can establish one’s own classics, defined as ‘your classic’. This classic is chosen from a list of other classics that are supposedly taught at school. It is here that I feel a distinction has to be made between ‘classic’ and ‘favourite’ as the difference is often difficult to see. A classic, it seems, is part of a set of books or texts that should be read in order for one to consider themselves learned. A favourite is a text that is revisited again and again and never cease to surprise or tell the reader something new – which is surely the same as a classic. The notion that a classic means something to everyone is flawed on the grounds that no two people interpret a text in the same way. Hence, Weber’s work may be central to someone’s outlook on life and that is a valid point of view. Conversely, Weber may be seen as one of the worst writers of all time by another person, so why should they be confined to also calling it a classic. It seems that there should be an element of choice in what is a classic, with no set list of what is a classic and more importantly what is not. The same could be said for music and popular culture – everyone has different tastes and to impose certain classificatory systems on these items seems miasmic.
Having examined various schools of thought on classics in the realms of History, Literature and other disciplines and then applying it to Sociology, one can start to get a picture of what makes a classic with regards to Sociology. Innovation and influence seem to be quite important as is the ability to transcend history by still having relevance no matter what the subject or period is, in addition to a contribution to language and vocabulary. However, there seems to be a divide between those who abide by the above criteria and those who hold the view that classics do not exist, they are merely texts that some deem to be better than others and perhaps force their view on others. Personally, I believe that the term classic is perhaps outdated, or at least too narrow a term with which to define many of the works that are used in academia today. Other terms can be used to similar effect without being as restrictive, but personal interpretation is of paramount importance and it is this that defines a classic.
Bibliography:
Altieri, Charles, An Idea and Ideal of a Literary Canon in Robert von Hallberg (ed) ‘Canons’, (Chicago, 1984). Pg 41-64.
Bloom, Harold, The Western Canon, (London, 1995)
Calvino, Italo, The Literature Machine, (London, 1986), Translated by Patrick Creagh
Poggi, Gianfranco, An Alternative Justification for the Classics, in S.P. Turner (ed) ‘Social Theory and Sociology’, (Oxford, 1996)
, Accessed 11th November 2005.
Harold Bloom, The Western Canon, (London, 1995)
Bloom, The Western Canon, p. 1.
Bllom, The Western Canon, p. 6.
Italo Calvino. The Literature Machine, (London, 1986), Translated by Patrick Creagh, p. 127.
, Accessed 11th November 2005.
Charles Altieri, An Idea and Ideal of a Literary Canon in Robert von Hallberg (ed) ‘Canons’, (Chicago, 1984). Pg 41-64.
Calvino, The Literature Machine, p. 128.
Gianfranco Poggi, An Alternative Justification for the Classics, in S.P. Turner (ed) ‘Social Theory and Sociology’, (Oxford, 1996) p. 43.
Poggi, An Alternative Justification for the Classics, ‘Social Theory and Sociology’, p. 43.
Calvino, The Literature Machine, p. 129.
