Structuralism

 Structuralism 

Introduction : 

Structuralism is an interdisciplinary school of thought. It originated in France with the publication of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's book "Course in General Linguistics" (1915). In this book he explains the theory of the structure of language and this is considered as the origin of structuralism. Instead of highlighting the historical development of language, Saussure chose to Consider language in ‘atemporal terms’ as a system of differentiated signs which could have meaning within the system of which they were part. It initially relied on the ideas of Saussure who regarded the signifier (words, marks, symbols) as  arbitrary and unrelated to the concept, the sign. 

Its essence is the belief that things could not be understood in isolation; they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are a part of. An intellectual movement which began in France in the 1950's, and imported to England in the 1970's, attaining widespread influence.

Meaning of Structuralism:

Structuralism is a question that comes to our mind when we try to understand its concept. The concept of structuralism is based on the idea of a structure the structure of a language. Structure involves in its order or arrangement. 

As we talk of the structure of a tragedy, a poem or a building likewise it talks of the structure of a language. To understand it in a better way we need to divide the history of literary evaluation in two parts: the Pre-1920s and the Post 1920s. 

In the words of Richard Harland, "the stucturalist in general concerned to know the human world to uncover it through detailed Internsreta ve observational analysis and to map it out under explicatory grids. Their stance (way of thinking) is still the traditional stance of objectivity, their goal the traditional goal of Truth".

Its Aim:

The aim of classic literary structuralism is not to provide an interpretation of an individual text, but to make explicit, in a quasi-scientific way, grammar that governs the forms and meanings of all literary productions. S Jonathan Culler put it in his lucid formula, the aim of structuralist criticism is "to construct a poetics which stands to literature as linguistics stands to language". 

Structuralism is in opposition to mimetic criticism (the view that literature is primarily an imitation of reality), to expressive criticism (the view that literature expresses the feelings, temperament or creative imagination of its author) and to any form of the view that literature is a mode of communication between author and readers.

Literary Evaluation Before 1920s:

During the era of the Pre-1920s a literary text was considered to be a work in itself or a physical object. Theliterary reading was a close-ended reading and it was believed that the meaning of the text cannot be changed. It remains the same. Those theoreticians believed that the word is an Ultimate Reality unchangeable, unalterable. The meaning of the text is fixed in the mind of the writer at time of writing the text and it is the task of a reader or a critic to find it out from it. It cannot be outside the book.

Literary Evaluation After 1920s:

In the time of Post 1920s structuralism gained utmost importance and the text is thought of as a linguistic construct. It is open-ended and it has within itself the potential for various interpretations. It contains a lot of new meanings. The author has no right over the text. Everything is understood and explained properly only in terms of language. Gaining knowledge without language is impossible. Thus language is at the centre of all the activities of knowledge acquisition. To understand the concept of structuralism we need to understand the following four concepts:

The Signifier and the Signified:

A successful linguistic communication is divided into two types- the signifier and the signified. A sign gives meaning only in relation to the totality of other signs. A sign consist of a signifiertsound, word, symbol etc.) and the signified(meaning, the concept, essence). 

According to Saussure the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. To understand structuralism it is essential to understand first the linguistic foundation. It is nothing but a metaphor or a model taken from linguistic foundation.

Each linguistic unit or sign consists of a signifier and a signified representing the sound we produce and the concept respectively. According to Saussure, the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. The unit chair' gets its meaning or concept not because it refers to an object but because of its difference from other units such as table, house, or level. The signifier remains the same with the passing of time but the concept of signified goes on changing from person to person depending upon their social set up and the culture from which they belong. When we pronounce the word 'God' it may mean Lord Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, Allah or soul ( to an atheist).

Multiplicity of Meaning :

According to a structuralist critic the text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning (the message of the Author God) but a multi- dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and class. Barthes denounces the Romantic idea of genius Author-God'. The Romantics believed that the author is the final authority of the text and the meaning is to be understood keeping in mind thoughts and views of the author which he had in mind at the time of writing the text. This theory believes in the singularity of the meaning whereas structuralism favours multiplicity of meaning.

Close Connection with Culture:

Our study of structuralism leads us to the belief that it has a close affinity with culture. Cultures can be understood semiotically. Cultures are structured sign systems in their own ways, kinships of various cultures whether primitive or advanced function like semiotic relations. For instance, the exchange of gifts or women has been taken as keys leading to a whole network of cultural semiotics. In the words of Gurubhagat Singh, "each member of a culture masters these networks of relationships just like the language 'competence' of Chomsky and 'language' of Saussure. The individual responses and actions of a culture member are like the 'performance' of Chomsky and the 'parole' of Saussure''.

In the opinion of Levi-Strauss the grammar of culture is like that of the grammar of language. Like language collecting relics from the past to create arrangements of signifiers and signified in order to mean, a member of a culture construction also arranges like a 'bricoleur' which is true of primitive cultures as well. Cultures have binary oppositions like language which Roman Jakobson calls 'distinctive features' such as soft/hard, high energy/low energy, tense/released, red/green, dry/wet.

Limitations:

Each school of criticism has its validity as well as its limitations. Structuralism is no exception to this rule. It seems that the basic concern of structuralism is to study structures, recurrent patterns, binary oppositions and it does not go beyond this. It does not tell us what makes literature great and significant. Moreover, what we get in structuralist criticism, formalist criticism and Post- structuralist criticism is already there in Anglo-Saxon and particularly within the English literary tradition.

Conclusion:

It is obvious that structuralism offers a theory of literature and a mode of interpretation. Structural analysis does not move towards a meaning of a text. Structuralism is like an onion which consists of a number of layers but no heart, no kernel, no secret, no irreducible principle. Structuralism has succeeded in unmasking many signs but it has not shown how the signs work. This is what we call the limitations of structuralism.