STRUCTURALIST CRITICISM

Structuralism is a psychological approach that emphasized studying the elemental structures of consciousness. The term “structure” as we know it is a term that evokes/provokes the idea of order. Structuralism in the field of linguistics is based upon the realization that if human actions/productions have a meaning, there must be an underlying system of distinctions and conventions which makes this meaning possible. So, structuralism is a set of theories in the humanities, social sciences and economics. It can be described as approach in academic disciplines in general that explores the relationships between fundamental principal elements in language, literature, and other fields upon which some higher linguistic, social or cultural “structures” and “structural networks” are drawn. Through these networks meaning is produced within a particular person, system or culture. The meaning then frames and motivates the actions of individuals and groups.

Like New Criticism, Structuralism concentrates on elements within works of literature without focusing on historical, social, and biographical influences. Structuralism, however, is grounded in linguistics and developed by Ferdinand de Saussure. He claimed that language is a system of signs. When applied to literature, this form of criticism is generally known as Semiotics. Structuralism appeared in academia in the second half of the 20^th century and grew to become one of the most popular approaches in academic fields concerned with the analysis of language, culture, and society.  The work of Ferdinand de Saussure concerning linguistics is generally considered to be a starting point of structuralism. Structuralism is closely related to semiotics. Post-structuralism tries to distinguish itself from the simple use of the structural method, whereas Deconstruction can be considered as an attempt to break with structuralist thought. Some intellectuals like Julia Kristeva, for example, took structuralism (and Russian formalism) for a starting point to later become prominent post-structuralists. Structuralism has had varying degrees of influence in the social sciences, a great deal in the field of sociology.

The word structure, as used in structuralism, means a conceptual framework that underlines the world’s surface phenomena. Structuralist activity or the structural approach in a literary study means examining the structure of a large number of texts to discover the underlying principles. Structuralism is considered a human science that studies the fundamental structures that underline all human experience, and all human behaviour and production (including language and literature). Structuralists believe that structures are the product of the human mind. Our mind possesses the capacity of structuring anything. The idea that the human mind functions on a specific structural pattern is considered an important radical idea. It means that the order we see in the world is the order we impose on it. It means, we see things in a particular way, because our mind has been trained to see them in that way. Things that we see or perceive in the world don’t shape our minds. It is our mind that is already shaped in a particular way. We think that we see certain structures in the world, but it is only the projection of the inborn structure of our consciousness. Structures aren't physical realities; they are conceptual entities.

STRUCTURAL LINGUISTICS (SAUSSURE)

Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss critic and the father of modern linguistics, developed structural linguistics. Saussure changed the symbolic system of language into sign system.

Before Saussure, priority was given to the diachronic (historical) study of language. It means language was studied in terms of historical change. But Saussure developed synchronic study of   language. He developed langue (linguistics: language as a system rather than language in use; the formal rules, structures, and limitations of language) and parole (password/A secret word or phrase known only to a restricted group).  

Langue is the language system whereas parole is the individual realization of language. To justify his idea, he presented sign = signified/signifier. Signified is the sound image whereas, signified is the concept image. The relationship between signifier and signified is not natural, but cultural. This is known as arbitrary (absolute) nature of language. Saussure explains that words can only be defined in relation to each other words. For example, a word raft, boat, ship, ocean liner is synonym to each other. Each of these words takes its existence from its relationship to the other words. A boat is bigger than a raft, but smaller than a ship. The ocean liner is a big ship. So, he stresses the way in which words have no real relationship to that which they are describing.

If the word raft didn't exist, we’d have to either call the raft a boat, or invent a new word to raft. If we call the raft a boat, it would necessarily change the meaning of the word boat. According to Saussure, it is possible to understand language only by means of differences. The differences occur at the level of sound image.

In this way, Saussure was the first linguist to establish a foundation for the structuralism. By means of scientific analysis of language, he developed structural criticism. Greims, Tzvetan Todorov, Gerole Gennette further developed this criticism.

STRUCTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY (LEVI STRAUSS)

The Structural Study of Myth

Claude Levi Strauss is a French anthropologist, most well-known for his development of structural anthropology. He developed structural anthropology during the middle half of 20^th century. Every culture has some specific processes. He argued that kinship relations-which are fundamental aspects of any culture’s organisation represent a specific kind of structure. In his book The Raw and the Cooked, he explains how the structures of myths provide basic structures of understanding cultural relations. What is “raw” is opposed to what is “cooked”, and the “raw” is associated with nature while the “cooked” is associated with culture.

In The Structural Study of Myth, he explains why myths from different cultures from all over the world seem so similar. On the basis of cultural differences friends’ selection, kinship ties and other relationships are established. Culture is identified by means of food, dress and day-to-day activities. Levi Strauss deals not with the cultural differences, but with similarities. Cultural similarities reveal that certain human activities are similar. Despite religious differences, there are similarities in myth. From the structuralist perspective, different myths are called mythemes. He relates mythemes with the subject-verb relationship. He also studied nature and culture to create binary opposition.

A myth, according to Levi Strauss, is both historically specific-it’s almost always set in some time long ago-and ahistorical, meaning that its story is timeless. As history, myth is parole; as timeless, it’s langue. And in addition to langue and parole, he says that myth is a language of its own. He says that myth can be translated, paraphrased, reduced, expanded, and otherwise manipulated – without losing its basic shape or structure. In this way Levi Strauss developed structural anthropology. He asserts that there is no true or original version of any myth. Myth is the means to analyze the narrative structure. 

SEMIOTICS (RONALD BARTHES)

In its simplest form, semiotics can be described as the study of signs. Not signs as we normally think of signs, but signs in a much broader context that includes anything capable of standing for or representing a separate meaning. Semiotics refer to the study of the sign system. Within the sign system, objects and behaviours are analysed. Semiotics can be perceived by the senses. On the basis of visual perception as well some of the concepts are presented. These sign systems are understood only on the basis of the convention. By means of the cultural link between signifier and signified, it is possible to understand the language. Semiotics as well is studied as the union between signifier and signified. Signs contain three different classes-index, icon and symbol. An index contains a concrete relationship, an icon is a sign in which the signifier is physically combined with the signified and a symbol has implied meaning. But this implied meaning is not natural but cultural. Language is a sign system because it has a relationship with the image. The sound image and the concept image are linked by means of the convention. From one culture to the next culture the same signs might have different meanings. These are to be studied diachronically and synchronically. Semiotics codes can only be studied with the help of synchronic and diachronic studies.

Roland Barthes was one of the earliest structuralist or post-structuralist theorists of culture. Barthes is one of the leading theorists of semiotics, the study of signs. He is often considered a structuralist, following the approach of Saussure, but sometimes as a post-structuralist. A sign, in this context, refers to something which conveys meaning – for example, a written or spoken word, a symbol or a myth. As with many semanticists, one of Barthes’s main themes was the importance of avoiding the confusion of culture with nature or the naturalisation of social phenomena. Another important theme is the importance in being careful how we use words and other signs.

One characteristic of Barthes’s style is that he frequently uses a lot of words to explain a few. He provides detailed analyses of short texts, passages and single images so as to explore how they work. In Saussure’s analysis, which Barthes largely uses, the distinction between signifier and signified is crucial. The signifier is the image used to stand for something else, while the signified is what it stands for (a real thing or, in a stricter reading, a sense-impression). The signified sometimes has an existence outside language and social construction, but the signifier does not. Further, the relationship between the two is ultimately arbitrary (absolute). There are many different ways a particular signified could be expressed in language, or different objects divided up. None of these ways is ultimately superior to the others.

Barthes strongly opposed to the view that there is anything contained in a particular signifier which makes it naturally correspond to a particular signified. There’s no essence of particular groups of people or objects which unifies them into a category or separates them from others. Furthermore, all signs depend on the entire system of signs. None of them have meaning aside from the system.

Barthes believes it is impossible to act (e.g. to dress) ‘innocently’ (in the sense of not conveying anything in terms of meaning). Signs of deviance from dominant norms – punk dress for example, or an archaic religious look – are just as conventional as those of the mainstream. They signify rejection of dominant norms and attachment to particular alternatives.

Signs are often used to differentiate one person or group from others. Taboos, for instance, can create a freedom to reject dominant norms by breaking them. Barthes assumes that acts of signifying are usually ‘guilty': the image they project is intended.

Furthermore, the way people use language bears little relationship to underlying intent, feelings or perceptions. Beneath each text (whether it’s a novel or a speech-act) is simply the immense structure of the language-system, from which each person borrows words in a ceaseless act of writing.

Myth is a metalanguage. It turns language into a means to speak about itself. However, it does this in a repressive way, concealing the construction of signs. The system of myths tends to reduce the raw material of signifying objects to similarity.  For instance, it uses a photograph and a book in exactly the same way.

Myths differ from other kinds of signifiers.  For one thing, they are never arbitrary.  They always contain some kind of analogy which motivates them.  In contrast to ideas of false consciousness, myths don’t hide anything.  Instead, myths inflect or distort particular images or signs to carry a particular meaning.  Myth doesn't hide things, it distorts them.  It alienates the history of the sign.

Barthes’s main objection to myth is that it removes history from language.  It makes particular signs appear natural, eternal, absolute, or frozen.  It thus transforms history into nature.  Its function is to freeze or arrest language. 

This is how semiotics in structuralism is important mostly because it deals with the study of sign system. The sign system is important because it deals with the study of sign system. The sign system is important because it contains the link between signifier and signified.

STRUCTURALISM AND LITERATURE

Structuralism is a form of criticism that deals with the mechanical dimensions of language. It values the narrative element of literature. For students of literature, structuralism is important because literature is a verbal art i.e. it is composed/made up of language. Structuralists believe that our mind possesses the structuring mechanisms which help us to make our world meaningful. When we analyze literature through structuralist approaches, we concentrate on the narrative dimension of literary texts because structuralist criticism deals mainly with narrative. The narrative is a broad idea, as it includes the history of myths, folk tales, post-modern novels, drama, poetry etc.

Any literary text is analyzed from a structuralist perspective to make it convenient to understand. Structuralists focus on the narrative dimension of a literary text. Either folktales or fairy tales are studied giving importance to the narration. Structuralism doesn't give importance to the meaning of the text rather it gives importance to the parole of the literary text. It means the grammar of the literary text is the major concern of structural criticism. Langue studies the underlying language system whereas parole studies language at the given time. Studying the narrative structure and surface phenomena of The Great Gatsby is an example of a structuralist analysis of the literary text.

Structuralist criticism studies literary text giving importance to the classification of literary genre, description of narrative operation and analysis of literary interpretation. Structuralism considers that the structures that we perceive in literature, like in other things, are projections of the structures of human consciousness. The ultimate goal of structuralism is to understand the underlying structure of human experiences, which exists at the level of language. In totality, it studies the howness of the text not the whatness of the text.

Structuralism approaches literature focus on three specific areas of literary studies. They are:

• The structure of the literary genre.
• The structure of the narrative (narratology).
• The structure of literary interpretation.

THE STRUCTURE OF LITERARY GENRE (NORTHROP FRYE)

The structuralist analysis gives importance to the analysis of different genres from a different perspectives. Northrop Frye presented the theory of myths to specify narrative patterns of the literary text. Frye’s Theory of Myths is a genre theory that attempts to reveal the structural principles underlying the Western literary tradition. He uses the term mythoi (plural of myth or mythos) to refer to the four narrative patterns that structure myth. He claims that literary text can be classified on the basis of different seasons. He relates comedy, romance, tragedy and satire with different seasons.

Mythos (mythology) of summer is related to romance. In the world of romance, there is beauty and order. It is an example of the ideal world. The genre of romance presents the ideal world that is much better than the real world. It is the world of innocence, plenitude and fulfilment. Romance presents the world in which the protagonists undertake adventurous journeys, succeed in their quest, marry with beautiful maidens, defeat the villains and achieve their goals.

Just opposite of romance is satire/irony which he relates with the mythos of winter. In the mythos of winter, there is uncertainty and failure. In this satiric world, there is a lack of harmony and unity. The world presented in the ironic and satirical works is a direct imitation of the real world, unlike romance which creates an imaginative world with imaginative characters, stories, events etc. the world of irony and satire is the world of experience, uncertainty and failure. Though irony imitates the real world, it tells the story of tragedy in which protagonists are defeated. They may try to be heroic but they never achieve success. They may dream of happiness, but they never attain it. They are human like us (not heroic characters), and so they suffer.

Mythos of autumn represents a tragedy. In tragedy, there is a harmonious beginning, conflict in the middle, and a chaotic end. A romantic hero's downfalls are because of human weakness. In tragedy, a hero with the potential to be superior, like a romantic hero, falls from his romantic height into the real world, the world of loss and defeat, from which he can never rise.

In the same way, comedy involves a movement from the real world to the ideal world. Frye called comedy the mythos of spring. Comedy is a movement from the real to the ideal world. The protagonist is transported from experience to innocence, i.e. from the mythos of winter to the mythos of summer. In comedy, a hero falls into difficulties and problems that we come across in our real life, from which he successfully rises up and finally attains happiness. The villains who obstruct the hero in comedy are portrayed as absurd and humorous characters.

This method of classification is archetypal criticism because it has a recurring image, character type, plot and pattern of actions. According to him, structuralist criticism can be placed within the four different modes. The word archetype refers to any recurring image, character type, plot formula or pattern of actions. 

THE STRUCTURE OF NARRATIVE [GREIMAS, TODOROV, GENETTE]

Narratology deals with the process in which events are presented in sequential order. It tries to study the structure of all forms of narratives. As structural criticism gives importance to the narrative of the literary text: A. J. Greimas, Tzvetan Todorov, and Gerard Genette have presented their concepts about the structure of the narrative. The inner working of the literary text is discovered by means of the study of narratology. Structuralists analyze narrative in minute detail the inner working of literary texts in order to discover the fundamental structural units.

Greimas gives importance to the binary opposition. He aims to discover the universal grammar (underlying principle that governs all narratives) of narrative by applying to it a semantic (meaning of words) analysis of sentence structure. According to him, narrative contains conflict and resolution, struggle and reconciliation, separation and union. In these processes, there is a transformation from one activity to the next. He says that we perceive every entity as having two aspects: its opposite (opposite of love is hate, white is black) and its negation <negative statement> (the negation of love is an absence of love, negation of black is an absence of black). He believes that this fundamental structure of binary opposition shapes our language, our experience and the narratives through which we articulate our experience. The fundamental structure of the narrative is similar to the subject-verb-object presentation. He presents six fundamental actions: subject-object, sender-receiver, and helper-opponent.  

In the same way, Todorov relates characters and their actions within the parts of speech. He relates units of narrative with units of language. Genette’s concept of narrative is different from Greimas and Todorov’s concept of narrative. He observes that there are three basic elements: story, narrative and narration. These elements interact with tense, mood and voice. Tense is the arrangement of events in time in a narration. It includes order (the occurrence of events in series), duration (length of event’s occurrence), and frequency (repetition of events). The mood is the atmosphere of the narrative created by distance and perspective. Voice refers to the voice of the narrator, which helps us determine the narrator’s attitude toward the story and reliability.

This is how Greimas, Todorov and Genette present the concept of narratology from different points of view. But the uniformity lies in the concept that there lies underlying structure in the literary text.

THE STRUCTURE OF LITERARY INTERPRETATION [CULLER]

Literary interpretation is not random and unsystematic, rather it contains a system of rules and codes. In every community, there are some of the codes on the basis of which a literary piece is interpreted.

Jonathan Culler views that the structure of literature is identified only on the basis of a specified system of interpretation. His application of structuralist thinking is not to the text directly, but to the reader and the act of reading. He seeks to formulate the system of conventions and rules which is brought into play when a reader interprets the text. Culler has categorized five components that form the structural rules and codes of literary interpretation: The convention of distance and impersonality, naturalization, the rule of significance, the rule of metaphorical coherence, and the rule of thematic unity (are the most important components that help to identify the structure of literary interpretation).

We take a piece of fiction or poetry as imaginative/fictional which creates a fictional distance that makes our experience impersonal. But when we are reading non-literary writings, such as letter or journal, which we think contains a factual account of human beings’ personal experience. Either we attach or detach ourselves with the text forms the rule/code that structures all our interpretations. Likewise, naturalization is the process by which we have internalized ourselves to see literary text different from everyday writing. The everyday language lacks beauty and strangeness. A reader of literature sees literary language ornamented.

In the rule of significance, we all accept that the meaning or significance of a word or a sentence in literature means something greater than in our everyday life. For example, the sentence Hari was in love with a black-haired girl in a story may mean the speaker’s frustration with Hari’s routine life. The rule of metaphorical coherence explains that being a reader we are likely to interpret two metaphors coherently or consistently related to the context of the work. Inconsistent or incoherent interpretations of metaphorical expressions can lead us to the wrong interpretation. In the rule of thematic unity, we expect every literary text to have its theme. But Culler thinks, we are trained in that way, i.e. to construct a theme when we interpret it.    

By means of these major components, structuralist critics successfully find out the structure of literary work. When there lies subjectivity in interpretation it can no longer be structuralist activity. The theoretical framework of structuralism should be guided by all these components as Jonathan Culler says. He believes that what we refer to as the structure of literature is really the structure of the system of interpretation we bring to it. In this way structuralist criticism value the structure of literary interpretation only on the basis of some of the pre-defined system of rules and codes. That’s why structuralist criticism is not a random process of interpretation.

THE STRUCTURALIST READING OF THE GREAT GATSBY

• While reading the novel from a structuralist point of view, narratology is very much important. The structure of the novel is very much powerful.
• The narrative revolves around Jay Gatsby’s pursuit, attainment and loss of Daisy Buchanan.
• The novel can be reduced to three verbs: “to seek”, “to find” and “to lose”.
• The novel produces a narrative that embeds the mythos of summer within the mythos of winter.
• The novel reveals how this formula structures the texts as a whole by structuring the narratives of the main characters.
• The “master plot” of the novel’s seek-find-lose formula is the story of its title, the character Jay Gatsby.
• The grammar of seek-but don’t find also structures the setting in the form of the numerous minor characters who populate it.
• The best developed seek-but don’t find narrative in the novel is that of Nick Carraway.
• As Nick’s narrative reveals, of course, his venture in the bond business and in the East in general also follows seek but doesn’t find a pattern.
• Nick’s most important seek-but don’t find pattern however seems to be his unfulfilled search for a purpose in life.
• The Great Gatsby is the modern novel’s rejection of the traditional quest formula. The traditional quest is structured by seeking and finding grammar.
• Perhaps most important in the real world the death of a romantic hero is not a martyrdom that saves humanity. It’s a sign that humanity is beyond saving, beyond hope. And once that sign is given, Nick knows there is nothing to do but go back home: forget his plans for the future, give up his optimism, cut his losses, and get out. In this way, Nick’s narrative grounded in the structure of irony, closes the door, so to speak, on the romantic tale it tells, that is, on the structure of romance. In another word, in The Great Gatsby, the ironic structure associated with the modern novel overrides the structure of romance as if to say that romance is no longer possible.
• At the end of the novel, the characters have the same attributes the same lack with which they began and apparently nothing is learnt in the process.
• Thus, this analysis attempted to illustrate its reliance on formulaic description, which derives from its commitment to the kind of objectivity.