Читать книгу Sociology of the Arts - Victoria D. Alexander - Страница 20

For the purposes of this book, theories are simplifying ideas or models that tell us about society. Metaphorically, a theory is a map of a territory (the social reality). If you wanted to get from London to Edinburgh, and you did not have SatNav in the car (or Google Maps on your phone), you might look up the best route on a paper road map. If the map were 800 miles long, like Great Britain itself, it would not fit into the car. This territory‐sized map would not be of much use. However, a map on a scale of 16 miles to the inch would fit on one large sheet that most people (or at least some people) could fold neatly and put into the glove box. A road map is suitable for the job, even though it would vastly oversimplify the terrain, leaving out things like city streets, farm tracks, and changes in elevation, to concentrate on a schematic representation of the motorways and main highways. But once you get to Edinburgh, a big map with a dot for the city is less helpful. For driving in an urban setting, you need a more detailed town plan that shows city streets, or you would magnify the map on your phone. If you walk in the surrounding countryside, you will want a more detailed map still, one that depicts footpaths and topography.

This metaphor not only shows how helpful simplification can be, it also shows that maps are not completely “true” representations of the territory. The only true representation would be the territory. A road map is not any more “true” than a topographical map. Maps, like theories, are suitable for certain purposes but not others. Of course, maps, like theories, can be wrong, if they contain errors. In this case, they should be thrown out or corrected. Many disagreements among sociologists are over which types of maps are true, rather than which contain errors that could be remedied in future research. For instance, proponents of “reception aesthetics” who come from an interpretive framework might rubbish a positivistic study of the “production of culture” merely because it comes from a different perspective. But this is like arguing over whether a town plan or a road atlas is better without asking “better for what purpose?” It is a disagreement at the level of metatheory.

The metaphor of a map is limited, however, as are all metaphors. Social reality cannot be as easily measured as the physical contours and attributes of the landscape. Indeed, theorists disagree on the fundamental nature of reality (what we are able to see and how it should be measured). This means they disagree over what the territory might be, which adds an extra layer of potential disagreement over the purpose of maps (theories) and whether they are “correct.”

What theory you use (or develop) depends on two things: (1) the metatheories you hold due to personal predilection or professional training, and (2) the types of questions you pose. Your questions are strongly influenced by your metatheories. To use another metaphor, theories are like flashlights shining light in a darkened room. Though they illuminate, they highlight only part of the view. They also cast shadows. Theories are useful, indeed essential, to understanding art. But all theories are by necessity limited.

Be critical when you evaluate theory. Look for the metatheory (explicit assumptions and hidden ones), as well as the predictions, descriptions, interpretations, or hypotheses the theory generates. Do reject the theory if it is actually wrong. But also, at least as students, take a flexible approach, and value all research which is excellent within its own perspective.⁴ Research uncovers a truth, not the truth. Ask: “Is it a useful truth?” and for what purpose. This is what I call the mosaic method of building sociological knowledge:⁵

Recognize that there are a variety of approaches and theories about society. Most are partly true, shedding light on various aspects of society and casting shadows on others; therefore, most theories can be helpful some of the time and in some situations. Thus, each theory (and piece of empirical research) is a tile in a mosaic; to get a reasonable picture, you need more than one tile.

Using different theories to understand art can lead to a richer understanding of art.