The idea of the binary opposition is an inherently structurally based concept based on the Western tendency to group into hierarchy. This notion derived from Saussure's work in structuralism is a tangible point of departure into the post-structural criticism that is deconstruction.
Deconstruction's relationship with structuralism is not an antithetical one, although it shares common roots in semiotics and linguistics (Eliot and Owens 133). The binary opposition is one of the key structural ideas which deconstruction rejects.
The binary opposition is the structuralist idea that acknowledges the human tendency to think in terms of opposition. For Saussure the binary opposition was the "means by which the units of language have value or meaning; each unit is defined against what it is not" (Burgass 3). With this categorization, terms and concepts tend to be associated with a positive or negative. Derrida suggests these oppositions are not only dichotomies, but also "hierarchies in miniature"(Fry 262). For example:
(+) (-)Reason PassionMan WomanSun Moon Inside OutsidePresence AbsenceSpeech Writing
The hierarchical nature of the two oppositions is cause/effect of logocentrism.
Derrida argued that these oppositions were arbitrary and inherently unstable. The structures themselves begin to overlap and clash and ultimately these structures of the text dismantle themselves from within the text. It is this process that Derrida coins deconstruction.
Although Derrida acknowledges the human tendency to think in terms of opposites, he does so in a manner that indicates the opposite of black is not white, but not-black (Fry 262). To illustrate this idea Derrida uses différance to illuminate the inherently unstable nature of language.
The unstable nature of these dichotomies can be exemplified accordingly:
Man Androgyny WomanMan Cyborg MachineAlive Zombie Dead
Immediately the deconstructive reader would realize that although there are apparent mutually excusive dichotomies in texts, there are also ideas that overlap the dichotomies existing in both, but neither, and ultimately undoing the structure system. Additionally because these dichotomies are hierarchies in miniature, invariably the positive term slips into the "wrong" category. For example, deconstructive reading of Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte would indicate that while Jane assumes the activities of the traditional woman in opposition to the male characters in the novel, that her ultimate will and power identifies her as strong and not weak. The hierarchies are then upset and begin to unravel. It is important to note however, that the deconstruction of binary oppositions is not a task to endure by the reader or critic, yet the oppositions deconstruct from within the text.
Derrida himself exemplifies deconstruction with his explanation of différance, pharmakon, and through his interest with the speech/writing dichotomy.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Structuralism
Structuralism as a term refers to various theories across the humanities, social sciences and economics many of which share the assumption that structural relationships between concepts vary between different cultures/languages and that these relationships can be usefully exposed and explored.
More accurately it could be described as an approach in academic disciplines in general that explores the relationships between fundamental principal elements in language, literature, and other fields upon which some higher mental, linguistic, social, or cultural "structures" and "structural networks" are built. Through these networks meaning is produced within a particular person, system, or culture. This meaning then frames and motivates the actions of individuals and groups. In its most recent manifestation, structuralism as a field of academic interest began around 1958 and peaked in the late 1960s and early 1970s. (Wikipedia)
In literary theory, structuralism is an approach to analyzing the narrative material by examining the underlying invariant structure. For example, a literary critic applying a structuralist literary theory might say that the authors of the West Side Story did not write anything "really" new, because their work has the same structure as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
In both texts a girl and a boy fall in love (a "formula" with a symbolic operator between them would be "Boy + Girl") despite the fact that they belong to two groups that hate each other ("Boy's Group - Girl's Group" or "Opposing forces") and conflict is resolved by their death.
The versatility of structuralism is such that a literary critic could make the same claim about a story of two friendly families ("Boy's Family + Girl's Family") that arrange a marriage between their children despite the fact that the children hate each other ("Boy - Girl") and then the children commit suicide to escape the arranged marriage; the justification is that the second story's structure is an 'inversion' of the first story's structure: the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed.
Structuralistic literary criticism argues that the "novelty value of a literary text" can lie only in new structure, rather than in the specifics of character development and voice in which that structure is expressed. One branch of literary structuralism, like Freudianism, Marxism, and transformational grammar, posits both a deep and a surface structure. In Freudianism and Marxism the deep structure is a story, in Freud's case the battle, ultimately, between the life and death instincts, and in Marx, the conflicts between classes that are rooted in the economic "base."
Literary structuralism often follows the lead of Vladimir Propp (Fairtale) and Claude Levi-Strauss (Structure of Myth) in seeking out basic deep elements in stories and myths, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the ur-story or ur-myth. As in Freud and Marx, but in contrast to transformational grammar, these basic elements are meaning-bearing.
There is considerable similarity between structural literary theory and Northrop Frye's archetypal criticism, which is also indebted to the anthropological study of myths. Some critics have also tried to apply the theory to individual works, but the effort to find unique structures in individual literary works runs counter to the structuralist program and has an affinity with New Criticism.
The other branch of literary structuralism is semiotics, and it is based on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure.
More accurately it could be described as an approach in academic disciplines in general that explores the relationships between fundamental principal elements in language, literature, and other fields upon which some higher mental, linguistic, social, or cultural "structures" and "structural networks" are built. Through these networks meaning is produced within a particular person, system, or culture. This meaning then frames and motivates the actions of individuals and groups. In its most recent manifestation, structuralism as a field of academic interest began around 1958 and peaked in the late 1960s and early 1970s. (Wikipedia)
In literary theory, structuralism is an approach to analyzing the narrative material by examining the underlying invariant structure. For example, a literary critic applying a structuralist literary theory might say that the authors of the West Side Story did not write anything "really" new, because their work has the same structure as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
In both texts a girl and a boy fall in love (a "formula" with a symbolic operator between them would be "Boy + Girl") despite the fact that they belong to two groups that hate each other ("Boy's Group - Girl's Group" or "Opposing forces") and conflict is resolved by their death.
The versatility of structuralism is such that a literary critic could make the same claim about a story of two friendly families ("Boy's Family + Girl's Family") that arrange a marriage between their children despite the fact that the children hate each other ("Boy - Girl") and then the children commit suicide to escape the arranged marriage; the justification is that the second story's structure is an 'inversion' of the first story's structure: the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed.
Structuralistic literary criticism argues that the "novelty value of a literary text" can lie only in new structure, rather than in the specifics of character development and voice in which that structure is expressed. One branch of literary structuralism, like Freudianism, Marxism, and transformational grammar, posits both a deep and a surface structure. In Freudianism and Marxism the deep structure is a story, in Freud's case the battle, ultimately, between the life and death instincts, and in Marx, the conflicts between classes that are rooted in the economic "base."
Literary structuralism often follows the lead of Vladimir Propp (Fairtale) and Claude Levi-Strauss (Structure of Myth) in seeking out basic deep elements in stories and myths, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the ur-story or ur-myth. As in Freud and Marx, but in contrast to transformational grammar, these basic elements are meaning-bearing.
There is considerable similarity between structural literary theory and Northrop Frye's archetypal criticism, which is also indebted to the anthropological study of myths. Some critics have also tried to apply the theory to individual works, but the effort to find unique structures in individual literary works runs counter to the structuralist program and has an affinity with New Criticism.
The other branch of literary structuralism is semiotics, and it is based on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Roland Barthes "The Death of the Author"
The initial reaction from reading Barthes text “The Death of the Author” is just that: the elimination of the author’s personality and intention from his/her writing makes room for a more education undertaking by the reader to gain insight from the text.
One of the more noticeable aspects of the texts is his use of virtually run-on sentences. At three pages, the text is relatively short, but the sentences make is seem excruciatingly long, some up to 10 lines long. Is he just rambling or is he trying to make a point from this?
Barthes deconstructionist view of authorless deciphering of poetry and prose is an interesting stance, but not necessarily a new one. It mirrors somewhat New Criticism theorist views of looking only at the words of the text and not contemplating external or internal variations that may have been planted by the author.
Barthes makes a biting point of killing off the author so the writing can live, which makes me think in analogy of a space shuttle, fueled by external fuel tanks. Once the shuttle is in orbit, there is no need for the fuel tanks anymore, so they are ejected. The obvious metaphor here is the shuttle is the work and the fuel tank is the author. But we still have a driving force within the shuttle, the astronaut, which dictates direction. Where is this astronaut in Barthes theory? It seems his control is the reader, but where is this reader at take-off? Just watching?
This analogy may have gone too far, but it is something to think about, keeping in mind that at one time Barthes was a structuralist at one time, so it is not necessarily surprising that some of these undertones can possibly pop up in his theory.
One of the more noticeable aspects of the texts is his use of virtually run-on sentences. At three pages, the text is relatively short, but the sentences make is seem excruciatingly long, some up to 10 lines long. Is he just rambling or is he trying to make a point from this?
Barthes deconstructionist view of authorless deciphering of poetry and prose is an interesting stance, but not necessarily a new one. It mirrors somewhat New Criticism theorist views of looking only at the words of the text and not contemplating external or internal variations that may have been planted by the author.
Barthes makes a biting point of killing off the author so the writing can live, which makes me think in analogy of a space shuttle, fueled by external fuel tanks. Once the shuttle is in orbit, there is no need for the fuel tanks anymore, so they are ejected. The obvious metaphor here is the shuttle is the work and the fuel tank is the author. But we still have a driving force within the shuttle, the astronaut, which dictates direction. Where is this astronaut in Barthes theory? It seems his control is the reader, but where is this reader at take-off? Just watching?
This analogy may have gone too far, but it is something to think about, keeping in mind that at one time Barthes was a structuralist at one time, so it is not necessarily surprising that some of these undertones can possibly pop up in his theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
