This article undertakes a critical analysis of the work of Gisèle Sapiro, with reference to sociology of literature. From 1999 (Sapiro, 2014a), Sapiro has developed the Bourdieusian research tradition, amplifying especially Bourdieu’s theory of crisis. Focusing on the antagonisms between literary “prophets” and “priests”, she has drawn on a rich sample of 184 writers to elucidate the struggles inherent in World War II between writers from different field positions and literary habitus. Further, her historical analyses of the ethical commitments of nineteenth century writers via a fresh microsociology of literary trials (Sapiro, 2011) has reminded us of the importance of popular poets in articulating the suffering of the subordinate classes. Her most recent book (Sapiro, 2018) has expanded on her earlier themes, whilst identifying the recuperation of certain 1930s’ fascist worldviews within contemporary literature. This article notes that there is a telling divergence between Bourdieu and Sapiro on the issue of interests behind disinterestedness, exemplified in the case of Zola. On this issue, Sapiro’s reading (Sapiro, 2011) is found convincing. Finally, the dialectic of avant-garde consecration and routinisation is questioned as a universal structure. It is suggested that certain avant-garde – the Harlem Renaissance, for example – did not undergo swift consecration or routinisation, although this contention deserves greater research. The paper concludes by showing that Sapiro’s conception of writers’ responsibility owes its origins less to Sartre than to the Durkheimian/ Bourdieusian notion of the expertise of the “specific intellectual”. It welcomes Sapiro’s concern for literature as a potential force for social change.

本文参考文学社会学，对吉赛尔·萨皮罗 (Gisèle Sapiro) 的作品进行了批判性分析。从 1999 年开始（Sapiro，2014a），Sapiro 发展了布迪厄的研究传统，尤其是放大了布迪厄的危机理论。她着眼于文学“先知”与“牧师”之间的对立，以丰富的184位作家为样本，阐释了二战中不同领域立场和文学习惯的作家之间的内在斗争。此外，她通过新的文学审判微观社会学（Sapiro，2011）对 19 世纪作家的伦理承诺进行了历史分析，这提醒我们流行诗人在阐明从属阶级的苦难方面的重要性。她最近的书（Sapiro，2018 年）扩展了她早期的主题，同时确定当代文学中某些 1930 年代法西斯世界观的恢复。本文指出，在无私背后的利益问题上，布尔迪厄和萨皮罗之间存在明显的分歧，佐拉的例子就是例证。在这个问题上，Sapiro 的阅读（Sapiro，2011）令人信服。最后，前卫的奉献和常规化的辩证法被质疑为一种普遍结构。有人认为某些前卫艺术——例如哈莱姆文艺复兴时期——并没有经历迅速的奉献或常规化，尽管这种论点值得进行更多的研究。论文最后表明，萨皮罗关于作家责任的概念不是源于萨特，而是源于涂尔干/布迪厄斯的“特定知识分子”的专业知识。.