Scribd
Upload
24 views3 pages

Understanding Structuralism in Literature

Structuralism is an intellectual movement that began in France in the 1950s led by anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and literary critic Roland Barthes. It is based on the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation and must be seen in the context of larger structures. Meaning is attributed by the human mind and exists outside of things themselves. Structuralist analysis focuses on abstract questions about genre, history and philosophy rather than close analysis of individual texts. It examines how literature relates to wider abstract structures rather than just interpreting specific works. Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's work on the arbitrary and relational nature of language greatly influenced structuralism by providing a model for how sign systems operate through relationships within

Uploaded by

Ana
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
24 views3 pages

Understanding Structuralism in Literature

Structuralism is an intellectual movement that began in France in the 1950s led by anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and literary critic Roland Barthes. It is based on the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation and must be seen in the context of larger structures. Meaning is attributed by the human mind and exists outside of things themselves. Structuralist analysis focuses on abstract questions about genre, history and philosophy rather than close analysis of individual texts. It examines how literature relates to wider abstract structures rather than just interpreting specific works. Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's work on the arbitrary and relational nature of language greatly influenced structuralism by providing a model for how sign systems operate through relationships within

Uploaded by

Ana
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

W6: Structuralism

 Structuralist chickens and liberal humanist eggs


Structuralism is an intellectual movement which began in France in the 1950s and is first seen in the
work of the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and the literary critix Roland Barthes

- its essence is the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation – thay have to be seen in the
context of the larger structures they are part of

- meaning or significance isn't a kind of core or essence inside things: rather meaning is always
outside – meaning is always an attribute of things, in the literal sence that menaings are attributed to
the things by the human mind, not contained within them

- structuralist approach is actually taking you further and further away from the text, and into large
and comparatively abstract questions of genre, history, and philosophy, rather than closer and closer
to it

- in the structuralist approach to literature there is a constant movement away from the
interpretation of the individual literary work and parallel drive towards understanding the larger,
abstract structures which contain them

- these abstract structures, such as notion of the literary or the poetic, or the nature of narrative
itself, rather than mere concrete specifics

- Cambridge recolution in English studies in the 1920s had promulgated the opposite to all: it
enjoined close study of the text in isolation from all wider structures and contexts: it was relentlessly
text based and tended to exclude wider questions, abstract issues, and ideas

 Signs of the fathers – Saussure


- Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure was a key figure in the development of modern approaches to
language study – he concentrated on how meanings are maintained and established and on the
functions of grammatical structures

- firstly, he emphasised that the meanings we give to words are purely arbitrary, and that these
meanings are maintained by convention only – words are unmotivated signs, meaning that there is
no inherent connection between a word and what it designates

- secondly, Saussure emphasised that the meanings of words are realtional – no word can be definad
in isolation from other words, the definition of any given word depends upon its reation with other
adjoining words

- thirdly, for Saussure, language constitutes our world, it doesn't just record i tor label it – meaning is
always attributed to the object or idea by the human mind, and constructed by and expressed
through language: it is not already contained within the thing

- Saussure's thinking stressed the way language is arbitrary, realtion, and constitutive, and this way of
thinking about language greatly influenced the structuralists, because it gave them a model of a
system which is self-contained, in which individual items realte to other items and thus create larger
structures

- one other distinction made by Saussure gave strucutalists a way of thinking about the larger
structures which were relevant to literature – he used the terms langue and parole to signify,
respectively, language as a system or structure on the one hand, and any given utterance in that
language on the other

- structuralists make use of the langue/parole distinction by seeing the individual literary work as an
example of literary parole – it too only makes sense in the context of some wider containing
structure

 The scope of structuralism


- when Saussure's work was co-opted by the people we now call structuralists, their feeling was that
Saussure's model of how language works was transferable, and would also explain how all signifying
systems work

- the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss applied the structuralist outlook to the interpretation of
myth – he suggested that the individual tale from a cycle of myths did not have a separate and
inherent meaning but could only be understood by considering its position in the whole cycle and the
similarities and difference between that tale and others in the sequence

- concrete details from the story are seen in the context of a larger structure, and the larger strucure
is then seen as an overall network of basic dyadic pairs which have obvious symbolic, thematic, and
archetypal resonance

- this is the typical structuralist process of moving from the particular to the general, placing the
individual work within a wider structural context

- the other major figure was Roland Barthes, who applied the structuralist method to the general
field of modern culture – he also made specific examinations of aspects of literature, and by the
1970s structuralism was attracking widespread attention in Paris and world-wide

 What structuralist critics do


1. They analyse prose narratives, relationg the text to some larger containing strucutre, such as:
the concentions of a particular literary genre
a network of intertextual connections
a projected model o fan underlying universal narrative structure
a notion of narrative as a complex of recurrent patterns or motifs
2. They interpret literature in terms of a range of underlying parallels with the structures of
language, as described by modern linguistics
3. They apply the concept of systematic patterning and structuring to the whole field of
Western culture, and across cultures, treating as systems of signs anything from Ancient
Greek myths to brands of soap powder
 Structuralist criticism

- the most basic difference between liberal humanist and structuralist reading is that the
structuralist's comments on structure, symbol, and design become paramount and are the main
focus of the commentary, while the emphasis on any wider moral significance, and indeed on
interpretation itself in the broad sense, is very much reduced – instead of going straight into the
content, in the liberal humanist manner, the structuralist presents a series of parallels, echoes,
reflections, patterns, and contrasts, so that the narrative becomes highly schematised – is translated

Common questions

Powered by AI

The structuralist approach redefines the understanding of meaning in literary texts by considering meaning as relational and context-dependent, rather than inherent to the text. It posits that meaning is generated through structures of relationships and patterns rather than through isolated textual elements, focusing on how texts function within larger systems of signification .

Saussure's concept of 'langue and parole' influences structuralist approaches by providing a framework in which language is seen as a self-contained system (langue) and individual utterances as instances within this system (parole). Structuralists interpret individual literary works as literary 'parole', which can only be understood in the context of a larger structural 'langue' consisting of conventions, intertextual connections, and universal narrative structures .

Structuralist critics prioritize abstract structures over the interpretation of individual literary works because they believe these structures provide the broader context within which meaning is generated. This approach moves analysis away from isolated readings, encouraging the exploration of systemic relations and patterns that give rise to narrative, thematic, and cultural significance .

The structuralist view of language as a system of signs implies that literature should be understood through its systemic connections rather than as solitary texts. This perspective suggests that literary meaning is constructed through interconnections within the language system, making texts interpretable as parts of cultural signifying systems rather than standalone creations .

The key differences between structuralist and liberal humanist approaches lie in focus and methodology. Structuralists prioritize structures, symbols, and design over interpretation and moral significance, focusing on parallels, patterns, and systems of signs. Liberal humanists, on the other hand, emphasize interpretation and content, considering texts in isolation rather than as part of a wider structure .

Structuralism expanded the scope of literary analysis by relating narratives to larger structural contexts, such as genre conventions, intertextual networks, and universal patterns. It also applied structural principles beyond literature to entire cultural systems, treating them as systems of signs. This expansion allowed for an analysis that considered not just text but its place within a broader signifying structure .

Structuralism's focus on systemic patterning contrasts with the Cambridge English studies' approach by emphasizing relational structures over isolated text analysis. While Cambridge studies promote close textual reading without wider context consideration, structuralism advocates for understanding works as part of broader systematic patterns and cultural contexts .

Roland Barthes contributed to the spread and application of structuralist methods beyond literature by applying them to modern culture at large. He explored cultural phenomena as systems of signs, expanding structural analysis to include diverse cultural texts and thereby attracting global attention to structuralism's applicability across cultural and literary fields .

Saussure's notion of language as a 'self-contained system' plays a pivotal role in structuralist theory by providing a model where meanings emerge from relationships between elements within the system. Structuralists apply this principle to literary analysis, viewing texts as part of an interconnected web of signs where meaning is constructed through relational patterns .

Claude Levi-Strauss applied structuralism to the study of myths by analyzing individual myths as parts of a larger cycle, emphasizing their relational meanings rather than inherent ones. This approach reveals a core principle of structuralist methodology, which is to move from the particular to the general, interpreting narratives within a broader structural context rather than focusing on isolated meanings .

You might also like