Readout of sociological criticism of literary texts in Iran with reliance upon scientific articles

The sociological criticism of literary texts intends to go beyond some of the apparent and contextual similarities and to present a critical interpretation of the reality that is reflected in the literary text. Within each of the approaches for sociological criticism of literature, the relationship between the literary text and societal realities is at times depicted within the framework of an intricate and indirect framework, while at other times being displayed as an analogous and direct relationship. Given the promotion of sociological criticism of literary texts, and a rise in inclination toward sociological criticism of literature in Iran; assessment of the works and accomplishments of the researchers of this domain for presentation of a true image of the current situation and perception of its capacities and shortcomings is a must. In this article, via adoption of descriptive-analytical methodology, efforts have been made to take into account the scientific articles which have been published in this domain in Iran in the past two decades. Also efforts have been underway to select thirty articles to study the quality of literary text, and the level of precision in purposeful implementation of the theories, in a bid to identify the most important shortcomings and defects of the sociological research on literature in Iran, and to analyze the factors that impact this trend. According to findings, the sociological studies on literary texts in Iran, despite their diversity, lack creativity in implementation of theories. One of the other shortcomings in this realm is the fragility of critical thoughts; focus on a shallow presentation of relationship between the text and community; indifference toward the structural relationship and concurrently maintenance of a dialectical relationship between the form and content of the literary text; severalty of theories; an inappropriate understanding of the relationship between the text and theory; fragility of methodology; an inclination toward diminution; misunderstanding of texts; and lack of unity between the theories and implementation of theories.