Structuralism Notes

Structuralism

Structuralism seeks to identify the fundamental units or elements that constitute anything. It originates from Aristotelian science and advancements in 19th-century chemistry and physics, which demonstrated that all matter consists of molecules, which in turn consist of atoms. Atoms are considered the fundamental building blocks of all matter, even though they comprise subatomic particles.

A structuralist analysis examines how atoms combine in specific patterns and follow rules to create things like a pencil. Structuralism is applied across various disciplines, including anthropology, linguistics, mathematics, and literary criticism. Structuralists aim to discover the basic elements and rules governing their combination within a system. Structuralist analysis focuses solely on the interrelationship of units and rules.

In literature, structuralism begins by identifying the basic units of a text, which are linguistic. Therefore, a structuralist analysis of literature involves a structural examination of language.

Linguistics and Language

Linguistics was among the earliest disciplines to embrace structuralism because language operations fit well within a structuralist framework. All languages consist of units that combine according to rules to convey meaning.

The fundamental unit of language is the word (or phonemes), and the rules are grammatical forms dictating how words combine to form sentences. While grammar rules, words, and phonemes vary across languages, the structure of language remains consistent: words combine within a grammatical system to create meaning.

Structuralism appeals because, like science, it simplifies complex systems into their basic components. Similar to science, structuralist analysis asserts universality by identifying structures or elements common to all cultures across time and regions. It addresses the problem of masking differences by focusing solely on structure, a framework upon which specific content is built. Structuralism posits that all humans are fundamentally alike, sharing the same skeletal structure regardless of individual characteristics. Similarly, all languages share the same structure, irrespective of word differences.

An example to illustrate the structure of language is Mad Libs, where players provide parts of speech without knowing their context in a story. The resulting sentences are grammatically correct due to the consistent structure of language, regardless of the specific words used.

Another example involves providing characters (princess, stepmother, prince) and prompting for a story, typically resulting in variations of 'Cinderella.' From a structuralist perspective, diverse stories share the same structure: a persecuted princess, a cruel stepmother, and rescue by a prince. The core components are stock characters, and the rules dictate their roles. Structuralist analyses of narratives aim to identify this basic structure.

Such analyses reduce stories to their fundamental structure, as critics like Vladimir Propp and the Russian Formalists sought to identify the 'atoms' of myth and literature by finding common components. Propp identified 31 functions in all folk tales, which remained consistent despite variations in details. To those accustomed to interpreting complex meanings in literature, this structuralist approach may appear overly reductive and dehumanizing.

Structuralism as a 'Science' of Humankind

Structuralism views itself as a 'science' of humankind that seeks to uncover the structures underlying human actions, thoughts, perceptions, and feelings across various fields: mathematics, biology, linguistics, religion, psychology, and literature. Structuralists believe that the human mind organizes units and rules into meaningful systems, acting as a structuring mechanism. This implies that the order perceived in the world stems from the organizing capacity of the human mind rather than being inherent in the world itself.

This perspective aligns with humanist ideas, suggesting that the natural world is incomplete, and art imposes order and meaning. Similarly, structuralism sees the human mind creating order where none exists, mirroring art's function. Both share the belief in a universal human characteristic: the capacity of the human mind to create organizing systems that are fundamentally the same across time and place. For instance, every culture possesses language with a consistent structure: sounds combined according to grammar to produce meaning. Similarly, social organizations, kinship systems, and economic systems follow universal structures.

Ferdinand de Saussure

The ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure, a linguistics theorist, are crucial to literary theory. Literature is made of language and understanding how literature works requires knowledge of how language functions. Saussure, as a structuralist, examined the universal structure of language applicable to any language or signifying system.

A 'signifying system' involves units and rules for conveying meaning, encompassing codes, symbols, signs, and signals. According to Saussure, these systems operate based on the association of a word with an idea or thing.

In humanist theory, language is a straightforward medium for naming objects. Saussure complicates this view, suggesting that while the connection between words and things is useful, structuralist linguistics moves beyond the notion that words derive meaning from what they represent.

A linguistic unit, or sign, consists of a 'concept' and a 'sound image.' The sound image is the psychological impression of a sound, not the physical sound itself. The linguistic sign is the union of a concept and a sound image, closely linked; the concept 'tree' corresponds to its sound image in different languages. Meaning arises from the association between the sound image and the concept, varying widely but aligning with cultural agreement.

The linguistic sign comprises the signifier (sound image) and the signified (concept). The word is a signifier, and the thing it represents is the signified (also called sign and referent).

The sign, combining signifier and signified, has two key characteristics:

1. The bond between the signifier (sfr) and signified (sfd) is arbitrary, lacking a natural or logical connection. Different languages use different words for the same thing ('dog' in English, 'hund' in German, 'chien' in French, 'perro' in Spanish). If there were an inherent connection, the word for 'dog' would be similar across languages.

This arbitrariness allows for the separation of signifier and signified and enables ambiguity and multiple meanings. Some signs, like pantomime or gestures, may seem less arbitrary but are meaningful due to community agreement, not intrinsic meaning.

Saussure argues that symbols and onomatopoeia are also based on community agreement. Animal sounds, like a rooster's crow, vary in transcription across languages (English 'cock-a-doodle-do' vs. Spanish 'cocorico'). Interjections also differ (English 'ouch!' vs. French 'Aie!').

Saussure's structuralist approach is synchronic, examining a system at a specific moment. Analyses accounting for changes over time are diachronic.

2. The signifier exists in time and is linear. Language operates as a linear sequence, forming a chain where elements connect sequentially. Sentences exemplify this linearity: words appear one at a time and connect to generate meaning.

Another fundamental concept in Saussure's theory is that all thought occurs in the medium of language. Thought alone is a shapeless mass ordered by language. Language shapes ideas, making them expressible; according to Saussure, thought cannot exist without language. Language speaks us, rather than the reverse.

Sound serves as the signifier for ideas (signifieds). Signs are both material/physical (sound) and intellectual (ideas). Language is not a substance but a form, a system. Sound and thought are inseparable, like the front and back of a piece of paper.

Saussure focuses on language as a whole system rather than individual parts. He terms the system 'langue' and individual parts 'parole.' Structuralist linguistics emphasizes langue.

The arbitrary nature of the sign means that langue arises from social relations. A community establishes the relations between sound images and concepts to form paroles. Individuals create their own codes, but communication requires shared agreement on signifier-signified associations.

Meaning arises when a signifier and signified combine. Saussure differentiates between signification (connection at the parole level) and value (relation between signs within langue). Language is a system of interdependent terms where each term's value stems from the presence of others (Value = \frac{term1}{term2 + term3 + … + termn}).

Value originates from a term's position within a system. For example, a dollar bill's value comes from its relation to other elements in the exchange system. It can be exchanged for goods or other currency. The most important relation between signifiers is difference. A signifier's value comes from not being other signifiers in the system.

Signification is a positive relationship linking a signifier to a signified, whereas value is a negative relation: we know what 'cat' is because it's not 'hat,' 'bat,' 'cut,' or 'cap.'

Consider the letters of the alphabet: the sound 'tuh' is represented by 't.' Because the connection is arbitrary, another symbol could represent the sound. Connecting a sound to a symbol is signification. The sound 'tuh' also has value because it is not 'buh' or 'kuh.' In a system where 'tuh,' 'buh,' and 'kuh' are symbolized by %, #, and &, differentiating between sounds and symbols is crucial. O has meaning because it's not 1, and vice versa, in digital language.

Relations Within Signifying Systems

Saussure explains that signifying systems operate based on relations between units, involving signification and value. Units form relationships in syntagmatic and associative patterns.

Syntagmatic relations are linear. In language, words appear one by one, forming a chain where units link sequentially. Word order in English governs meaning ('The cat sat on the mat' vs. 'The mat sat on the cat'). The structure of English is subject-verb-object. Other languages have different structures.

Combinations formed by position are syntagms ('under-achiever,' 'by the way'). Terms within a syntagm gain value by opposing others in the sequence. Syntagmatic relations are vital in discourse where time, linearity, and syntax intertwine.

Signs are stored in memory in associative groupings, rather than syntagmatic chains. 'Education' may link to words ending in '-tion' or to experiences like 'teacher,' 'textbook,' or even seemingly random associations like 'baseball' or 'guacamole.'

Associative relations exist in the mind, while syntagmatic relations arise from structure. Syntagmatic relations enable neologisms, while associative relations break grammatical patterns, allowing for metaphors.

Claude Lévi-Strauss and Myth

A signifying system is any cultural element containing signs interpretable through signification and value. Saussure applies this to language, while Claude Lévi-Strauss applies it to kinship and cultural organization, including myth.

Lévi-Strauss views structuralist analysis as a means to discover universal human truths using an objective methodology. He seeks to identify the structural commonalities among humans, such as kinship systems. Kinship operates like Saussure's langue, comprising labeled units (men, women, children) and rules for connecting them. Lévi-Strauss highlights two functions of kinship: structuring the exchange of goods, ideas, and people and forming cultural relations.

Important is that relations occur in binary pairs, either similar or different. This aligns with metaphor and metonymy in linguistics: metaphor establishes similarity, while metonymy establishes contiguity. Relations between units are analyzed in pairs, comparing A:B, A:Q, and A:%. The relation between units in binary pairs is important.

Lévi-Strauss's writings use algebraic equations to represent relational pairs. Clans within a tribal system are comprehensible through their structural relation to each other. Practices relate to the structural relationship between clan animals, expressing the structural relationship as A:B::C:D.

Binary pairs, particularly opposites, form the basis of human cultures, thoughts, and signifying systems. A common human condition involves structuring the world in terms of binary opposites (raw/cooked, good/evil, light/dark). One term is typically favored over the other. This concept is essential to Lévi-Strauss's analysis of myth and poststructuralist ideas.

Lévi-Strauss examines the similarity of myths across different cultures, noting shared narratives. Rather than focusing on content, he analyzes the structure of myths, which remains nearly identical despite varying characters and actions. Myth is a language with both langue and parole, structure and specific details. Lévi-Strauss adds 'reversible time' for langue and 'non-reversible time' for parole. Specific events exist in linear, non-reversible time. Langue exists in reversible time, remaining constant. Myths, like language, consist of units combined by rules and relations based on binary pairs.

Unlike language, myths operate on a higher level, using mythemes as basic units. Mythemes are the smallest units conveying meaning. Lévi-Strauss examines the sets of relations among mythemes, creating a two-dimensional structure for myth. Language is a line, while myth is a square with horizontal and vertical dimensions, similar to a musical score. Reading music horizontally represents melody, while reading vertically represents harmony. These two dimensions are where Lévi-Strauss finds relations among mythemes.

Structuralist analysis identifies mythemes and lays them out to be read horizontally and vertically, diachronically and synchronically (plot and theme). The story exists on the vertical axis, while themes exist on the horizontal axis. Relations between mythemes form the basic structure.

In 'The Structural Study of Myth,' Lévi-Strauss analyzes the Oedipus myth and identifies themes in the vertical relations, such as the problem of walking upright. He considers this theme an expression of tension between chthonic and autochthonic creation, present in other cultures' myths. This highlights universal structural relations in the form of binary oppositions.

Lévi-Strauss's analysis is considered subjective interpretation rather than an objective reading of structure, depending on the selected mythemes and layout.

Lévi-Strauss presents structuralist analysis as a scientific method, bringing order to chaos akin to scientific theory. Structuralist analysis reveals logical processes underlying mythical thought and provides a logical model to overcome contradictions, like opposing beliefs. Every culture organizes knowledge into binary opposites reconciled by myth's logic.

Lévi-Strauss considers structuralist analysis as rigorous as scientific logic and aims for scientific authority for interpretation. However, he sets up an opposition between science and myth, favoring science as the preferred method of truth, even as he asserts that myth is just as 'true' as science.

Humanism vs. Structuralism

Humanist criticism, dominant until challenged by structuralism and poststructuralism in the 1970s, shared assumptions about what literature was, how humans interacted with it, and why it was important:

1. Good literature is timeless and speaks to all generations.

2. The literary text's meaning is self-contained.

3. Study the words without a predefined agenda.

4. Texts reveal unchanging, universal truths about human nature.

5. Texts speak to inner truths, sharing universal constants.

6. Literature enhances human life and propagates humane values disinterestedly.

7. Form and content are integrally connected.

8. Literary works are sincere, reflecting truth about the human condition.

9. Literature shows true nature pleasurably, revealing truths science cannot.

10. Literary critics interpret texts to judge quality and guide readers.

These assumptions justify studying literature, explaining its academic purpose and benefits.

Structuralism challenges humanist thinking by presenting itself as an objective, scientific investigation. It gains objectivity by prioritizing langue over parole, studying system structure abstractly. Structuralist literary theory ignores text specificity, treating them as products of impersonal forces rather than human effort. Individuality disappears in favor of patterns and universal structures. The author is negated as a function of a signifying system.

Structuralism challenges the Romantic humanist idea of the author as creator and origin. It argues that writing has no origin and that authors inhabit pre-existing structures. Language speaks us, and originality is the recombination of elements within the system. Every text is made of the 'already written'.

Structuralism neglects history and change through synchronic analysis. It cannot account for development or shifts in signifier-signified connections. Structures are considered universal and timeless, appealing to humanist theorists.

Structuralism erases the author, text, reader, and history, challenging humanism. It relies on different philosophical assumptions. The humanist model presupposes a real external world apprehended through senses. Language represents that world accurately.

Structuralism assumes language produces reality; thinking is framed by language. Humanism sees language as a product of the individual's mind, expressing their essence and truth. Structuralism argues that language speaks us, with meaning arising from language structure, not individual experience.

Humanism regards the human as the source of all, with a unique yet universal self. This self is central to identity and meaning, expressed through language.

Structuralism maintains that the self is a product of language; 'I' is a signifier marking a subject position. The structure shapes meaningful activity.

Structuralism shook humanism, with subsequent theories critiquing and discarding its assumptions. Poststructuralist theories examine language, the self, reality, and truth:

• Things thought of as constant, including identity (gender, national), are fluid and socially constructed. Poststructuralism rejects absolutes, focusing on construction and provision.

• Experiences, beliefs, and ideologies shape everything; there is no objectivity. Claims of objectivity mask ideological positioning. Truth is relative.

• Language shapes our conceptions. It creates and structures reality. We are products of language, not speakers of it.

• There is no definitive meaning; only ambiguity and multiplicity.

• There is no total theory explaining everything.

Poststructuralist theory is difficult because it highlights the provisionality and ambiguity of meaning. It resists clarity to avoid affirming absolute meaning.

Understanding may mean misunderstanding. The challenge is to understand the ideas and their purpose.