Anglo-American New Criticism

I. Concepts:1. Practical criticism: Practical criticism focuses upon the text and the text alone. It was an ideal

program for teasing out all the opposites that were reconciled and transcended in poetry, often

through the use of irony. Practical criticism became a major instrument in spreading the idea that

the best poems created a vulnerable harmony – a precarious coherence – out of conflicting

perspectives and emotions.

2. Scientific language: Scientific language refers to the real world and makes statements that are

either true or false.

3. Emotive language: Emotive language, however, wants to produce certain emotional effects and a

certain attitude in those to whom it addresses itself. Literature, then, conveys a certain type of

knowledge which is not scientific and factual but has to do with values and meaningfulness and

which makes use of language that expresses and manipulates emotions.

4. Intentional fallacy: intentional fallacy is to confuse what the author intended in the writing of a

poem (or other work of literature) with what is actually there on the page. While the ‘intentional

fallacy’ has to do with the author.

5. Affective fallacy: the affective fallacy has to do with the reader. It is to confuse the readers’

emotional response to the poem with what the poem really tells them. The way the poem affects

them blinds them to its reality.

6. Close reading: Close reading is to focus on the text with the author’s intentions and the reader’s

response removed from the scene. Through close reading, the study of literature restricted itself to

analysing the techniques and strategies that poems used to deliver their paradoxical effects: the

system of checks and balances that creates the diversity in unity that we experience.

7. The Heresy of Paraphrase: it is the habit that we all have of summarizing a poem – and other

works of literature – in one or two phrases. For the New Critics, paraphrasing is a deadly sin

against the poem and against our own experience of the poem. Turning a poem into a thematic

statement was for them the ‘heresy of paraphrase’.

8. Paradox vs. Ambiguity: Paradox refers to the parts of the text which appear to conflict with one

another. Ambiguity refers to the gaps of meaning that appear in a text; these gaps can generally be

resolved through a close reading of the text.

[1]

II. The Basic Tenets of the New CriticismIt is yet too early to make any definitive evaluation of their work and contribution.

Therefore, it would be more fruitful to consider their basic tenets, tenets to which they all subscribe

despite their individual differences. These basic tenets of the New Criticism may be summarized as

follows:

(a) To the New Critics, a poem, or a work of art, is the thing in itself. The critic must concentrate on the

text and illuminate it. The function of the critic is to analyse, interpret and evaluate a work of art. A

poem is distinct from the poet and his social milieu; it is a definite entity in itself and must be

studied as such. The critic must devote himself to close reading of the text.

(b) Moral and religious considerations, social, political and environmental conditions, the details of the

poet's biography, are irrelevant and are obstacles in the way of a real understanding of a, work of

literature. The literary critic must rid himself of all such extrinsic bias and prejudices. He must

approach the work with an open mind, ready to study it, "as is in itself."

(c) The critic must not allow himself to be hampered and prejudiced by any literary theory.

(d) A poem has both form and content and both should be closely studied and analysed before a true

understanding of its meaning becomes possible.

(e) Words, images, rhythm, metre, etc., constitute the form of poetry and are to be closely studied. A

poem is an organic whole and these different parts are inter-connected and these inter-connections,

the reaction of one upon the other, and upon the total meaning, is to be closely followed and

examined.

(f) The study of words, their arrangement, the way in which they act and react on each other is all-

important. Words, besides their literal significance, also have emotional, associative, and symbolic

significance, and only close application and analysis can bring out their total meaning.

(g) Poetry is communication and language is the means of communication, so the New Critics seek to

understand the full meaning of a poem through a study of poetic language.

(h) The New Critics are opposed both to the historical and comparative methods of criticism. Historical

considerations are extraneous to the work of literature, and comparison of works of art is to be

resorted to with great caution and in rare instances alone for the intent and aim of writers differ, and

so their method, their techniques, their forms, are bound to be different.

(i) They are also anti-impressionistic. Instead of giving merely his impression, which are bound to be

vague and subjective, the critic must make a close, objective and precise study of the poem

concerned.

[2]

Reader-Oriented Theories

I. Concepts:

Phenomenology: Phenomenology claims to show us the underlying nature both of human

consciousness and of ‘phenomena’. It is an attempt to revive the idea eclipsed since the Romantics

that the individual human mind is the centre and origin of all meaning. In literary theory this

approach did not encourage a purely subjective concern for the critic’s mental structure. It is a type

of criticism which tries to enter into the world of a writer’s works and to arrive at an understanding

of the underlying nature or essence of the writings as they appear to the critic’s consciousness.

Paradigm: Hans Robert Jauss borrows from the philosophy of science the term ‘paradigm’.

Paradigm refers to the scientific framework of concepts and assumptions operating in a particular

period. For Jauss, ‘ordinary science’ does its experimental work within the mental world of a

particular paradigm, until a new paradigm displaces the old one and throws up new problems and

establishes new assumptions.

Horizon of Expectations: Hans Robert Jauss uses the term ‘horizon of expectations’ to describe

the criteria readers use to judge literary texts in any given period. These criteria will help the reader

decide how to judge a poem as, for example, an epic or a tragedy or a pastoral; it will also, in a

more general way, cover what is to be regarded as poetic or literary as opposed to unpoetic or non-

literary uses of languages. Ordinary writing and reading will work within such a horizon. For

example, if we consider the English Augustan period, we might say that Pope’s poetry was judged

according to criteria which were based upon values of clarity, naturalness and stylistic decorum (the

words should be adjusted according to the dignity of the subject). However, this does not establish

once and for all the value of Pope’s poetry. During the second half of the eighteenth century,

commentators began to question whether Pope was a poet at all and to suggest that he was a clever

versifier who put prose into rhyming couplets and lacked the imaginative power required of true

poetry. Leapfrogging the nineteenth century, we can say that modern readings of Pope work within

a changed horizon of expectations. We now often value his poems for their wit, complexity, moral

insight and their renewal of literary tradition. The original horizon of expectations only tells us how

the work was valued and interpreted when it appeared, but does not establish its meaning finally.

[3]

Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics was a term originally applied to the interpretation of sacred texts; its

modern equivalent preserves the same serious and reverent attitude towards the secular texts to

which it tries to gain access.

The implied reader: the implied reader is the reader whom the text creates for itself and

amounts to ‘a network of response-inviting structures’ which predispose us to read in certain

ways.

Interpretive communities: interpretive community is a concept, articulated by Fish, that

readers within an "interpretive community" share reading strategies, values and interpretive

assumptions. The strategies of a particular interpretative community determine the entire pro -

cess of reading – the stylistic facts of the texts and the experience of read ing them.

Ungrammaticality: Ungrammaticality means that the elements (signs) in a poem often

appear to depart from normal grammar or normal representation. In other words, the poem

seems to be establishing significance only indirectly.

Matrix: Matrix is the word that becomes the key interpretation of a poem which is

concretized. It used to ‘open’ the poem and makes it easy to understand. It can be reduced

to a single sentence or even a single word. The matrix can be deduced only indirectly and is

not actually present as a word or statement in the poem.

Hypograms: hypograms are the actual versions that connect the poem to its matrix. The

hypograms take the form of familiar statements, clichés, quotations, or conventional

associations. A poem often gets its true meaning by comparing it to its hypogram .

II. The Basic Tenets of Reader-oriented TheoriesIn the 1930s, students and authors became disenchanted with the supposition that the reader was not

important in evaluating a piece of literature. In 1938, Louise Rosenblatt thought that criticism

should “involve a personal sense of literature”; a “spontaneous and honest reaction”. Reader-

oriented theories focuses on how and why a reader responds to a specific text in a specific manner.

Reader-oriented theories embraces the idea that one text can mean something vastly different to

each reader.

(a) Reader-oriented theory allows for inferences and insights by the reader. These basic tenets of

reader-oriented theory may be summarized as follows:

[4]

(b) Reader-oriented theory accepts that a reader’s background knowledge and experiences impact

his/her interpretation of a text.

(c) Reader-oriented theory encourages the reader to explore his/her emotional response to a literary

work.

(d) Reader-oriented theory also expects readers to work as a community to share ideas and seek

common ground (Lynn 69).

(e) A reader should not passively accept a text, but should actively make meaning of the work.

(f) No work of literature ever comes alive until it is read and contemplated by the reader. The reader

“completes” the work.

(g) The reader builds a connection with the text by reflecting on his/her mental perceptions based upon

the text.

(h) The reader seeks common ground with other readers while learning from each person’s unique

response to the literature.

(i) Any literary work cannot be enjoyed unless a reader becomes actively involved in the words woven

together.

(j) Instead of a literary work standing alone, a literary work is coordinately as important as the reader.

(k) The literary work depends upon the reader to assimilate and actualize the text.

(l) The literary work serves as a vehicle with a built-in GPS, while the reader drives the work to the

final destination. Both work in concert to arrive at an understanding.

(m)Reader-Response Theory allows for a reader to respond differently to a text each and every time

he/she reads the text.

(n) As personal experiences and exposures to literature grow, a person’s response to a text changes.

(o) Readers focus on the aesthetic – the emotional response rather than the efferent – the informational

component – of reading.

(p) Aesthetic reading also calls for empathy – the reader puts himself/herself in the place of characters

to determine if the way a character reacts is realistic or morally similar to the reader’s response

[5]

Structuralism

I. Concepts:1. Langue versus Parole: according to Saussure, langue refers to the overall system of signs (along

with its rules for grammar, syntax, and standard usage) that allows people to communicate with and

understand each other. The langue lies deeper than thought and is accepted unconsciously, rather

than chosen consciously, by those who use it. Saussure distinguishes langue from parole, a specific

instance of speech or writing that arises from (and is the product of) the controlling langue.

2. Diachronic versus Synchronic: The diachronic study of language concerns itself with the study of

the history and progression of a given language. The synchronic study of language concerns itself

with the contemporary study of a language as it manifests itself at a given moment in time.

3. Binary opposition: Binary oppositions are the natural tensions that present themselves throughout

any system of language. According to Saussure, we only know the meaning of hot because of its

opposition to cold; we only know death becomes of its opposition to life; and so on. It is the task of

the structuralist critic to discern the represented binary oppositions in a given text and to determine

which side of the opposition the text favours.

4. Sign: In the theories of Saussure, the sign is the basic linguistic unit: it is formed by the union of a

signified and signifier.

5. Signified vs. Signifier: In the linguistic theories of Saussure, the signified is the concept toward

which the sound-image (or signifier) refers. The relationship between the signified and signifier is

arbitrary. There is no essential reason why one sound should be chosen over another to represent

a given concept. In addition, the signified, though it serves as a reference point for the signifier,

possesses no inherent life or truth of its own. Though Saussure stated that the relationship between

signified and signifier was arbitrary, the deconstructionists went beyond this statement to assert a

more radical breakdown between the two.

6. Semiotics: Initiated by the linguistic studies of Saussure, semiotics is the study of signs. It seeks to

study the way signifiers function in any given society and to uncover the controlling system of

signs (or langue) that determines how members of that society will interpret, not just the

signifiers of poetry, but all signifiers in general.

II. The Basic Tenets of the Structuralism

[6]

Structuralism is not interested in what a text means, but in how a text means what it means. After all,

structuralism believes that the structures we perceive in literature, as in everything else, are projections

of the structures of human consciousness. The final goal of structuralism is to understand the

underlying structure of human experience, which exists at the level of langue, whether we are

examining the structures of literature or speculating on the relationship between the structures of

literature and the structures of human consciousness. The assumptions of structuralism can be

summarized as follows:

(a) According to structuralists, a language is a complete, self-contained system and deserves to be

studied as such. Saussure argued that, instead of studying language diachronically (through

times), linguists should study language synchronically (how it functions in the present, how its

parts interrelate to make up a whole system of communication).

(b) Structuralists claimed that a language is a system of signs. Saussure defined a sign as consisting

of a sound plus the thing the sound represents. He called the sound the signifier and the thing

represented the signified.

(c) Structuralist said that the sounds that make up a language system are arbitrary. Any sound, it

does not matter which one, could represent a given thing.

(d) For the Structuralists, any given language is self-contained. The signs that make up a language

have no meaning outside the system of that language.

(e) Structuralists distinguished between the whole system, the langue (French for "language"), and

one person's use of the system, the parole (French for "word" or "speech"). Langue consists of

everything that makes the system work, such as words, syntax, and inflections. Parole consists

of these same elements but with variations from user to user. Each speaker of a language uses

the same system but does so in a slightly different way.

(f) Another structuralist principle is that difference has a crucial, enabling function. Without

difference, there would be no language and meaning at all. The role that difference plays in its

turn implies that meaning is impossible without the whole system of differences: the structure

within which difference operates.

(g) Structuralism notes that much of our imaginative world is structured of, and structured by,

binary oppositions (being/nothingness, hot/cold, culture/nature); these oppositions structure

meaning, and one can describe fields of cultural thought by describing the binary sets that

compose them.

(h) Structuralism forms the basis for semiotics, the study of signs: a sign is a union of signifier and

signified, and is anything that stands for anything else.

[7]

(i) Central too to semiotics is the idea of codes, which give signs context — cultural codes, literary

codes, etc. The study of semiotics and of codes opens up literary study to cultural study, and

expands the resources of the critic in discussing the meaning of texts.

(j) Some signs carry with them larger cultural meanings, usually very general; are Roland Barthes

called these cultural meanings “myths”, or second-order signifiers. Anything can be a myth.

(k) Through structuralism, literature is seen as a whole: it functions as a system of meaning and

reference no matter how many works there are, two or two thousand. Thus, any work becomes

the parole, the individual articulation, of a cultural langue, or system of signification. As

literature is a system, no work of literature is an autonomous whole; similarly, literature itself is

not autonomous but is part of the larger structures of signification of the culture.

[8]

Deconstruction

I. Concepts:1. The Illusion of Presence (The metaphysics of presence): The assumption that the physical

presence of a speaker authenticates his speech. Speaking would then precede writing (the sign of a

sign), since the writer is not present at the reading of his text to authenticate it. Spoken language is

assumed to be directly related to thought.

2. Logocentrism: “In the beginning was the word.” Logocentrism is the belief that knowledge is

rooted in a primeval language (now lost) given by God to humans. God (or some other

transcendental signifier: the Idea, the Great Spirit, the self, etc. ;) acts a foundation for all our

thought, language and action. He is the truth whose manifestation is the world. He is the

foundation for the binaries by which we think: God/Man, spiritual/physical, man/woman, and

good/evil. The first term of the binary is privileged over the second, and a chain of binaries

constitutes a hierarchy.

3. Trace: The indications of an absence that define a presence. (The present is known as the present

only through the evidence of a past that once was a present.) The traces of other signifiers in any

signifier means that it must always be read under erasure.

4. Différance: A pun coined by Derrida that is composed of two French words: one meaning

difference, the other meaning to defer. The word functions on two levels. First, it links Saussure’s

notion that language and meaning are based on and produced by differences rather than

similarities with the notion that meaning is perpetually deferred. Second, it deconstructs the

traditional binary of speech/writing by privileging the written word over the spoken word.

Because différance and the properly spelled différence are pronounced the same in French, the

listener can only determine which word is being spoken by seeing it in written form.

II.The Basic Tenets of Deconstruction:

Deconstruction is the most prominent poststructuralist theory and it is associated with the work of

Jacques Derrida. Its major assumptions are summarized as follows:

[9]

(a) Deconstruction is a critique of Logocentrism. Logos in Greek means “word, speech, reason etc.” but

is now understood to mean anything which can act as a centre and provide meaning to a structure.

The idea is that structures derive meaning from centres that lie outside the structure. For example,

we have the idea of right and wrong, virtue and sin because we believe that there is God (who by

definition is beyond this world) who has dictated that certain actions are virtuous and that certain

others are not. Another example is that of the author. The author exists outside the structure of the

text. However, we understand a text on the basis of its author. If an award winning novelist’s novel

seems obscure to us, we assume that the novel must be too complex for us and not that the novel is

devoid of any meaning. Simply put, deconstruction is what happens when we begin to question

these various ‘centres,’ which fixes the meaning of structures.

(b) Centre is that which restricts and fixes the meanings of elements within a structure and if one

accepts this centre, then that attitude is Logocentrism. That is, one assumes that there is a logos (or

reason) at the centre of that structure which provides stable meaning. Deconstructive critics

question Logocentrism. For instance, if we question the conventional equivalence between the

signifier and the signified (which can be said to be centre of language) then language has no

meaning. It can be understood via the following examples:

a. For if, one claims that “phone” no longer needs to be the name of a device for communication and if

s/he decides to use the word “phone” to refer to a disease, his speech will make no sense to others.

b. If we question the existence of God, then there is no meaning for religious rituals, the ideas of right

and wrong etc.

c. If we question the ‘author’, then a work of literature no longer needs to be understood in the way in

which the author intended. That is, the author can no longer be the ‘centre’ that limits the meaning

of a work. For instance, one can speculate that Shakespeare probably understood The Tempest as

the story of Prospero, his trials and tribulations and his justifiable revenge on the villains. From that

point of view, Prospero imprisoned Caliban because Caliban was a savage and he deserved to be

mistreated. However, when one sees Caliban as the colonized and Prospero as the colonizer, the

reader is accepting that text can have meanings that are outside the author’s control. Shakespeare

may have created an allegory of colonialism without intending to do so. Thus readers who

understand The Tempest this way have questioned the assumptions of the text (that Prospero is the

hero) and have concluded that the text can also indicate a tale of unjust colonization. Such readers

have deconstructed The Tempest !

(c) Derrida’s starting point is that recognition of the signifier (the word) and the signified (its reference)

does not form a unity: their relationship is arbitrary and changeable. Contradiction is inherent in a

text because words cannot stabilise meaning: if we say one thing we must leave out something else.

[10]

A deconstructive critic believes that a text always contains a gap or a space that cannot be filled.

The choice of meaning is infinite.

(d) One basic assumption of deconstruction is that meaning is created through binary oppositions in

which one element is favoured. The hierarchy of elements is arbitrary and reversible. Unity in a text

must be dispelled. Deconstructionists questions the basic assumptions of a text. Consequently, such

critics question the binary oppositions present in the text. The idea is that every text develops

certain binary oppositions and one of them is privileged. For example in The Tempest, one binary

opposition is that of hero/villain i.e. Prospero/Caliban. What a deconstructive critic does is to argue

that since the centre is fictitious, these binary oppositions should be questioned. Thus, they reverse

the binary opposition and to continue with the example of The Tempest, Prospero becomes the

villainous colonizer and Caliban the hero.

(e) The aim of the deconstructionist is to subvert or undermine the supposition that language is able to

provide boundaries, coherence or unity. The deconstructive critic argues that a text has no definitive

meaning: a text is a series of conflicting forces that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways.

(f) According to the deconstructive critics, texts contain gaps, ambiguities and oppositions that preclude

determinate meaning. All reading is misreading.

Structuralism vs. Deconstruction

Definitely speaking, structuralism is a mode of thinking and a method of analysis practiced in 20 th

century social sciences and humanities. Methodologically, it analyses large-scale systems by examining

the relations and functions of the smallest constituent elements of such systems that range from human

languages and cultural practices to folktales and literary texts. Structuralism had its origins in the

linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist whose Course in General Linguistics (1916)

became the most important source of Structuralism. Saussure’s insight was cantered not on speech itself

but on the underlying rules and conventions enabling language to function. By analyzing the social or

collective dimension of language rather than individual speech, he pioneered and promoted the study of

grammar rather than usage, rules rather than expressions, models rather than data, langue (language)

rather than parole (speech). Saussure was interested in the infrastructure of language that is common to all

speakers and that function on an unconscious level. His inquiry was concerned with deep structures rather

than surface phenomena and made no reference to historical evolution. In structuralist terminology, it was

synchronic existing now rather than diachronic existing and changing over time.

[11]

Structuralist critics believe that all elements of literature may be understood as parts of a system of

signs. Roland Barthes was one of the first to apply the structuralist ideas to the study of literature who

once said Literature is simply a language a system of signs. Its being is not in its message but in this

system. Similarly, it is not for criticism to reconstitute the message of a work but only its system exactly

as the linguist does not decipher the meaning of a sentence but establishes the formal structure that allows

the meaning to be conveyed. Barthes, using Saussure’s linguistic theory as a model and employing

semiotic theory, makes it possible to analyze literary text systematically even scientifically.

Some structuralist critics followed Barthes propose that all narratives can be considered variations

on certain basic universal narrative patterns. The text, therefore, is a function of a system and every

sentence the author writes is made up of the already written. In other words, any literary works has no

origin and authors merely base on pre-existing structures that enable them to make specific sentence or

story that parallels closely the relations between langue and parole.

Structuralism aims at revealing the structure of a complex thing and the abstract from its

phenomenal form. This allows attention to be focused on structural similarities between different

phenomena in spite of superficial differences. For example, Claude Levi Strauss, the Belgian French

anthropologist, first adapts the technique of language analysis to analytic myth criticism. Levi Strauss, in

the study of mythology, discovers some unchanging elements or ordered patterns that are called

mythemes. He finds eleven mythemes from three Greek tales and arranges them into two groups of binary

oppositions to deal with the illustration of the Greek Mythology.

Structuralists generally rely on the search for underlying binary oppositions as an explanatory

device. They stress that much of our imaginative world is structured by binary oppositions such as being/

nothingness, jungle/ village, and culture/ nature, etc. Consequently, the structuralist critics like to engage

in the structures of opposition particular binary oppositions and convince that the detailed study of binary

oppositions do greatly help to facilitate the understanding of the text. Binary opposition is not only an

analysis device of structuralism but also where deconstruction starts to come in.

Overall, structuralism is drawing some critics’ attention because it adds certain objectivity a

scientific methodology to the realm of literary studies that have often been criticized as subjective.

Nonetheless, it is undeniable that there are many aspects of structuralism are expecting to be improved.

Firstly, it tends to be static rather than dynamic and it is ahistorical because it sometimes ignores the way

history effects the present. Secondly, it does not make much difference for structuralist critics on defining

whether literary work is the masterpiece or rubbish because structuralism in many ways only prefers the

structural analysis of text to the literary evaluation. Furthermore, the individuality of the text disappears in

favour of examining patterns systems and structures.

[12]

Deconstruction is initiated by French philosopher and critic Jacques Derrida. It is the particular

method of textual analysis and philosophical argument involving the close reading of works in literature,

philosophy, psychoanalysis, linguistics, and anthropology. It seeks to reveal the inconsistencies in a text

and to demonstrate by means of a range of critical techniques how these inconsistencies are disguised and

assimilated by the text.

Jacques Derrida deconstructs Saussure’s theory of the sign and announces the death of

structuralism. Poststructuralism denies the distinction between the signifier and the signified. Derrida

follows Saussure in describing language as a series of supplements and substitutions but argues that the

theory of the sign as a self-sufficient union of signifier and signified is itself an instance of Logocentrism.

To indicate this shift in theory, Derrida introduces the important term différance to demonstrate that

language and meaning have no point of origin and no end the meaning is always the product of the

difference between signs and it is always deferred by a temporal structural that never ends. To make the

step further, all texts for Derrida exhibit différance. He thinks that the literary works keeps its meaning

changeable and indefinite.

Derrida says that the history of western thought is always built on the basic units, the binary

opposition or pair in which one part of that pair is always more important than the other such as light/

dark, masculine/ feminine, right/ left; etc. The superior is marked as positive and the inferior as negative.

Derrida called such kind of system Logocentrism. Deconstruction challenges the explanatory value of

these oppositions. Deconstructive reading focuses on binary oppositions within a text. This method has

three steps. The first step is to reveal an asymmetry in the binary opposition suggesting an implied

hierarchy. The second step is to overturn the hierarchy temporarily as if to make the text say the opposite

of what it appeared to say initially. The third step is to displace one of the terms of the opposition often in

the form of a new and expanded definition. In this way, Deconstructive arguments try to recover the

subordinated or forgotten elements in literary works. In other words, Deconstructive critics always

endeavour to make the dissolution of the binary opposition in Logocentrism.

Deconstructive critics can also look for unexpected relationships between seemingly unconnected

parts of a text or use the marginal elements of a text as an uncertain commentary on elements that appear

to be central. They can play with the multiple meanings or the etymology of key words in the text to

figure out possible conflicts or ambiguities.

In some respects, Derrida’s alternative to the stability of structure is inappropriate since the

concept of free play is controversial with the carefulness of his reading of texts and has been liable to

relativism and subjectivism. Deconstruction is criticized as being entirely subjective allowing no way for

others to investigate the objective standard of the literary critique.

[13]

In conclusion, deconstruction rejects Structuralism for various reasons yet still defines itself in

relation to structuralism. Although Derrida argues against the structuralist position taken by followers of

Saussure and Claude Levi Strauss, yet they share many ideas. Both structuralist and deconstructive views

try to find something outside literature by looking for patterns in the literary texts. They have no

particular interest in the declared intention of a work. Their essential ideas about a text’s reading and

comprehension are of mutual complement and their common purpose is to seek the deep meaning of

works of art. However, the differences of structuralism and deconstruction outweigh the similarities. Most

importantly, structuralism regards works of art as closed system. On the contrary, Deconstruction takes it

as open system. Secondly, structuralism pays more attention to deep structure. However, deconstruction

exposes the instability of meaning and ambiguity of language. Thirdly, for structuralism, the text is static

to some extent. By contrast, for deconstruction, it is more like an extending net and element in text keeps

changing and recycling. We may safely draw the conclusion that structuralism and deconstruction have

close relationship and exert great influence on literary criticism especially works of art.

[14]

Feminism

I. Concepts:

Androgyny: the term suggests a world in which sex-roles are not rigidly defined, a state in which

the man in every woman' and the ‘woman in every man' could be integrated and freely expressed.

This term was used to describe a blurring, or combination of gender roles so that neither masculinity

or femininity is dominant.

Écriture feminine: Écriture féminine, literally women's writing, is a philosophy that promotes

women's experiences and feelings to the point that it strengthens the work. Hélène Cixous first uses

this term in her essay. According to Cixous, woman must write her self: must write about women

and bring women to writing, from which they have been driven away as violently as from their

bodies. Écriture féminine places experience before language, and privileges the anti-linear, cyclical

writing.

Gynocriticism: a term coined by the feminist scholar-critic Elaine Showalter to define the process

of constructing a female framework for analysis of women's literature in order to develop new

models of interpretation based on the study of female experience, rather than to adapt to male

models and theories.

Phallologocentrism: this concept indicates that language ordered around an absolute Word (logos)

which is “masculine” [phallic], systematically excludes, disqualifies, denigrates, diminishes, silences

the “feminine”.

The Basic Tenets of Feminist Theory:

[15]

Women have historically been excluded, suppressed, and exploited

Traditional “Western Civilization” is patriarchal (controlled by men)

Women have represented values of nurturing, holism, and unity

Women should be given the same opportunities as men

Feminist critics identify ways women have been:

o excluded from the positions of power,

o suppressed in traditional literature: male characters are dominant while female

characters are secondary

o exploited in literature by sexist stereotypes

Feminist critics identify ways women have been subjected to:

o Voyeurism (produced by looking at another as an object)

o Narcissism (derived from self-identification with the image)

o The Male Gaze (male fantasies projected onto female characters, then

internalized by readers)

Feminist critics examine relationships between men and women in literature

They examine patriarchal society as it is represented in literature

They look for positive female role models

Moreover, they look to establish a more inclusive literature

They oppose images of misogyny.

They analyse female characters

They analyse “the place” women hold in the book and the social structure of

the book, focusing on gender

They compare how men and women writers present characters and use

language

[16]