4
2007 4 30 卷 第 2 中国英语教学( 双月刊) C ELEA J ourna l Bim onthl y Apr 2007 Vol 30 No 2 THE COMPAR AT I VE S T U DY O F STRUCTURA LISM DECONS T R UCTION Li Wei Di ng Yan Inner Mong oli a U niversity o fScience and Technology Ab stra ct D ec on struct i on and St ructuralis m are two o f the twen t ieth century wester n criticism schools and their r elationshi p stil l is an issu e that ne eds to b e syste mati ca l l y c l a rifi ed The paper prese ntsa review study on th e pa rti cula r r el at ionshi p of D ec on struct i on and Structuralism by com pa ring th ese two criti c is m schools from th e r espects o f their origins featur es and lim i tat ion s i n t h e chrono lo gica l vi e w It tend s t o prove that Deconstruct i on ste m s from th e S tructu ra l ism ho weve r Deconstruction differs itsel f from Structuralism in certa in key featur e s and bases itselfupon a cer tain charact eristic criti qu e o f Structuralism Key w o rd s st ructuralis m D eco n struct i on relationship I Introduction C rit ic ism is for nothing butw ork s of a rt w hich is one of the pro minent fe aturesin t w e ntieth cen t ury wester n criticism sc hools To s ome e xten t R ussi an form a lis m Anglo A m e rican New Criticism Structuralisma n d D eco n structi on run thr o u gh the w hole t w en tieth century weste rn c riticis m historyand ex ert great influence on literary criticism The r e isa c lose r el at ionship among them especial l y Dec onstru c tion and Structur a lis m D eco nstruction ste ms f rom the Structur al is m but bre akswit h Structuralism in ce rtaink ey f eatur esandbases it se lf upon a certa in characte ristic c riti qu e of Structuralism If Stru ctur a lism we r e father Dec onstruc tion mightbe regarded as son So the bes t way t o understand Dec onstruc tion is t ounderstand Structural is m II Struct ural ism 1 Definiti on and Origin W hat is Structur al is m De finitel y spea king Structur a lis m is a mode of thinking a n dam et hod of analysis prac ticed in20th cen t ury socia lsci encesan dhumaniti e s Meth odologica ll y itana l yz es l arge scale syste ms by ex a m ining t he relationsand func tions of the sm al lest co n stituent el ements o f su ch syste m s w hich rang e from human languagesan d c ultural practices to folktalesan d lite rary texts Structur a lism had i ts o r iginsin t he linguist ics of Fe rdina n d de Sauss ure a S wis sling u is t w h ose C ours e in Gen era l L ingu is tic s pu blished in 1916 andbecame the m ostimportant s ource of Struct uralism Saussure s insig h t w as centered not on speech i tsel fbut on the under l y ing rulesand c onv en tions enabling languag e to f unc tion By analyzing the so cial or c ollect ive dimension of l anguage rather than indi vidu al speech he pi onee r ed and prom oted t he study o f gramm ar r athe r than usag e rul es ra the r than e xpressi o n s models rather than data l angue lang uag e r athe r than parole speech ). S a uss ure was interested in the inf rastructure of language that is c ommon to all speake rsand that func tion on an unco ns cious leve l His in qu iry was c once rned wit hde ep structur es ra the r than surf ace p henomena and made n o r eference t o hist o r ical evolution .( In structur a lis t terminology it was synchro nic ex is ting now rather than diachro nic ex is ting an d changing ov er time .) 1 1 1

THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURALISM · PDF file2.Structuralism and Literature AlthoughSaussurianlinguisticsisStructuralismsillustration,whatisofinterestishow Structuralism

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURALISM · PDF file2.Structuralism and Literature AlthoughSaussurianlinguisticsisStructuralismsillustration,whatisofinterestishow Structuralism

2007 年4 月第30 卷 第2 期

中国英语教学(双月刊)CELEA Journal(Bimonthly)

Apr.2007Vol.30 No.2

THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURALISM& DECONSTRUCTION

Li Wei &Ding YanInner-Mongolia University of Science and Technology

Abstract  Deconstruction and Structuralism are two of the twentieth century western criticism schools,and theirrelationship stillis an issue that needs to be systematically clarified.The paper presents a review study on theparticular relationship of Deconstruction and Structuralism by comparing these two criticism schools from therespects of their origins,features,and limitations in the chronological view.It tends to prove thatDeconstruction stems from the Structuralism ,however Deconstruction differs itself fro m Structuralism incertain key features and bases itself upon a certain characteristic critique of Structuralism.

Key wordsstructuralism ;Deconstruction;relationship

I.Introduction

Criticism is for nothing but works of art,w hich is one ofthe prominent featuresin twentieth centurywestern criticism schools. To so me extent,Russian form alism ,Anglo-American New Criticism ,Structuralism and Deconstruction run through the whole twentieth century western criticism history andexert great influence on literary criticism. There is a close relationship among them ,especiallyDeconstruction and Structuralism. Deconstruction stems fro m the Structuralism ,but breaks withStructuralism in certain key features and bases itself upon a certain characteristic critique ofStructuralism.If Structuralism were father,Deconstruction might be regarded asson.So,the best waytounderstand Deconstruction is to understand Structuralism.

II.Structuralism

1.Definition and OriginWhat is Structuralism ?Definitely speaking,Structuralism is a mode of thinking and a method of

analysis practiced in 20th century socialsciences and humanities.Methodologically,it analyzeslarge-scalesystems by examining the relations and functions of the sm allest constituent elements of such systems,w hich range from human languages and cultural practices to folktales and literary texts.Structuralism hadits originsin the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure,a Swisslinguist,whose Coursein General Linguisticspublished in 1916 and became the m ostim portantsource of Structuralism.Saussure�sinsight was centerednot on speech itself but on the underlying rules and conventions enabling language to function.Byanalyzing the social or collective dimension of language rather than individual speech,he pioneered andpro m oted the study of gram mar rather than usage,rules rather than expressions,m odels rather thandata,langue(language)rather than parole(speech).Saussure was interested in the infrastructure oflanguage that is com mon to all speakers and that function on an unconscious level. His inquiry wasconcerned with deep structures rather than surface phenomena and made no reference to historicalevolution.(In structuralistterminology,it was synchronic,existing now ,ratherthan diachronic,existingand changing over time.)

111

Page 2: THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURALISM · PDF file2.Structuralism and Literature AlthoughSaussurianlinguisticsisStructuralismsillustration,whatisofinterestishow Structuralism

2.Structuralism and LiteratureAlthough Saussurian linguistics is Structuralism�s illustration,what is of interest is how Structuralism

analogically extends Saussure�s terms into the analysis of literature.Structuralist critics believe that allelements of literature may be understood as parts of a system of signs.Roland Barthes,a Frenchsemiotician and literary critic,was one ofthe first to apply the structuralistideas to the study ofliteraturewho once said“Literature is sim ply a language,a system of signs.Its being[être]is not in its m essage,but in this“system”.Similarly,it is not for criticism to reconstitute the m essage of a work,but only itssystem ,exactly as the linguist does not decipher the meaning of a sentence,but establishes the form alstructure w hich allows the meaning to be conveyed(Brown 2006).Barthes,using Saussure�s linguistictheory as a m odeland em ploying semiotic theory,makesit possible to analyze literary textsystem atically,even scientifically.

Some structuralist critics followed Barthes propose that all narratives can be considered variations oncertain basic universal narrative patterns.The text,therefore,is a function of a system ,and everysentence the author writes is made up of the already written.In other words,any literary works has noorigin,and authors m erely base on pre-existing structures that enable them to make specific sentence orstory,w hich parallels closely the relations between langue and parole.

3.Main Activities

3.1 Dissection and ArticulationWhat should a critic do if the text is a function of a system ?In the Structuralist Activity,Barthes

suggests,that the structuralist activity consists of two essential parts:dissection and articulation(Barthes2001).Dissection is to cut the initial text into several parts and find certain mobile fragments whosedifferential situation causes a certain meaning(the fragment has no meaning in itself,but the slightestvariation would change the final meaning of the whole text). Next,the dissected units have to berearranged according to certain rules of association,w hich is called articulation.Such reco m bination ofsome of the elements in the pre-existing system can be regarded as an im portant operation of greatoriginality in literary evaluation.Structuralist activity therefore,is to aim at revealing the structure of acom plex thing and the abstract fro m its phenomenal form. This allows attention to be focused onstructural similarities between different phenomena in spite of superficial differences.For exam ple,Inthe 1950s Claude Lévi-Strauss,the Belgian French anthropologist,first adapts the technique of languageanalysis to analytic m yth criticism.Lévi-Strauss,in the study of m ythology,discovers some unchangingelements or ordered patterns w hich are called m ythem es.He finds eleven m ythem es fro m three Greektales and arranges them into two groups of binary oppositions to deal with the illustration of the GreekMythology(Lévi-Strauss 2001).

3.2 Binary OppositionsStructuralists,including Lévi-Strauss,generally rely on the search for underlying binary oppositions

as an explanatory device. They stress that much of our imaginative world is structured by binaryoppositions,such as being and nothingness,jungle and village,and culture and nature,and etc.Consequently,the structuralist critics like to engage in the structures of opposition ,particular binaryoppositions and convince that the detailed study of binary oppositions do greatly help to facilitate theunderstanding of the text.To illustrate,Hemingway�s short story“Cat in the Rain”understood fro m awoman�s point of view ,presents a corner ofthe fem ale world in w hich the m ale is only slightly involved.The American girl is the referee between the actual and the possible.The actual is made of rain ,boredom ,a preoccupied husband,and irrational yearnings;the possible,silver,spring,fun,a newcoiffure,and new dresses.Between the actual and possible,stands the cat.The whole story can be seenas turning on the opposition between two groups of m etonymies —the actual and the possible(Lodge2002).Binary opposition is not only an analysis device of structuralism but also where Deconstructionstarts to come in.

4.LimitationOn the whole,Structuralism is drawing so me critics�attention because it adds certain objectivity,a

scientific m ethodology to the realm of literary studies w hich have often been criticized as absolutely

211

The Com parative Study of Structuralis m &Deconstruction  Li Wei &Ding Yan

Page 3: THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURALISM · PDF file2.Structuralism and Literature AlthoughSaussurianlinguisticsisStructuralismsillustration,whatisofinterestishow Structuralism

subjective.Nonetheless,it is undeniable thatthere are many aspects of Structuralism are expecting to beim proved.Firstly,ittends to be static rather than dynamic,and itis also ahistorical because it som etim esignores the way history effects the present.Secondly,it does not make much difference for structuralistcritics on defining whetherliterary work is the m asterpiece or rubbish because Structuralism in many waysonly prefers the structuralanalysis of textto the literary evaluation.Furtherm ore,the individuality ofthetext disappears in favor of examining patterns,systems,and structures.Inevitably,Structuralism wouldbe replaced by another critical school.Levi-Strauss predicted that Structuralism w hich was based onlinguistic revolution would take existentialism�s place;however,it was replaced by Deconstruction.

III.Deconstruction

1.Definition and OriginDeconstruction,initiated by French philosopher and critic Jacques Derrida,is the particular m ethod

of textual analysis and philosophical argument involving the close reading of works in literature,philosophy,psychoanalysis,linguistics,and anthropology to reveal logical or rhetorical incom patibilitiesbetween the explicit and im plicit planes of discourse in a text and to demonstrate by means of a range ofcritical techniques how these incom patibilities are disguised and assimilated by the text.

2.Main Activities

2.1 DefféranceJacques Derrida�s Structure,Sign ,and Play is delivered as a conference paper at the height of the

Structuralism w hich contains his Deconstruction of Saussure�s theory of the sign and announcesStructuralism�s death.Poststructuralist theory denies the distinction between signifier and signified.Derrida follows Saussure in describing language as a series of supplements and substitutions,but arguesthat the theory of the sign(a self-sufficient union of signifier and signified)is itself an instance oflogocentrism.To indicate this shift in theory,Derrida introduces the im portant term “différance”(Derrida 2001)to dem onstrate that language and meaning have no point of origin and no end:themeaning is always the product of the“difference”between signs,and it is always“deferred”by atem poral structural that never co m es to an end.To make the step further,all texts for Derrida exhibit“différance”.He thinks that the literary works keeps its meaning changeable and indefinite under thespatial difference and temporaldeferment;alltexts have am biguity and because ofthis the possibility of afinal and com plete interpretation is impossible.Deconstruction is therefore regarded as a new NewCriticism in textual am biguities.In addition,Derrida puts forward the theory of“iterability alters”(Culler 2004)based on différance.Iterability is the ability of a sign to be repeated again in a newcontext.“Iterability alters”,just as its name implies,refers to repeated sign in a new context w hichstands for new set of literary meanings which are both similar to and different from the previous.Repetition in text consequently creates the possibility of a divergence or opposition within a unity ofmeaning.

2.2 The Dissolution of the Binary OppositionDerrida says that the history of western thought is always built on the basic units:the binary

opposition or pair in w hich one part of that pair is always m ore im portant than the other such as light/dark,m asculine/feminine,right/left.The superior is“marked”as positive and the inferior as negative.Derrida called such kind of system of philosophy that has rank structure and centers on structureLogocentrism.Deconstruction challengesthe explanatory value ofthese oppositions.As one of its typicalanalytical procedures,a deconstructive reading focuses on binary oppositions within a text.This m ethodhas three steps;the first step is to reveal an asym m etry in the binary opposition,suggesting an im pliedhierarchy;the second step isto overturn the hierarchy temporarily,asifto make the textsay the oppositeof what it appeared to say initially;the third step is to displace one of the terms of the opposition ,oftenin the form of a new and expanded definition.In this way,Deconstructive arguments try to recover thesubordinated or forgotten elements in literary works.In other words,each of the critic techniques ofDeconstruction is variation on the basic idea of reversing conceptual hierarchies.Deconstruction criticsalways endeavor to make the dissolution ofthe binary opposition in logocentrism.For exam ple,signifierand signified were disunited in“Absalom ,Absalom !”.and authority center and tradition were denied anddissolved.Toamas Sutpen is the m ain character and narrative focus in“Absalo m ,Absalom”.However,

311

CELEA Journal�72

Page 4: THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURALISM · PDF file2.Structuralism and Literature AlthoughSaussurianlinguisticsisStructuralismsillustration,whatisofinterestishow Structuralism

Faulkner avoids describing him directly in the novel.Sutpen,as the signified of“linguistic sign”isrealized by the different narrators:Miss Rosa,Mr.Compson,Quentin,and Shreve.Should the readerbelieve Miss Rosa or another narrator?The understanding to the character of Sutpen is unlimited in theliterary text.Deconstructionist criticism makes the meaning of a text entirely up to the reader.

2.3 Rhetoric of Literary WorksAnother technique focusing on the rhetoric,studies the stylistics and word choices in literary works.

More often the rhetorical features of a text undermine or contradict the theme made by the text:Whatthe text means is often in tension with what it says.Deconstructionists can also look for unexpectedrelationships between seemingly unconnected parts of a text,or use the marginal elements of a text as anuncertain co m mentary on elements w hich appear to be central.Deconstructionists also can play with them ultiple meanings orthe etym ology of key wordsin the textto figure out possible conflicts or am biguities.Puns and plays on words are often used to show interesting connections and unexpected tensions betweendifferent parts ofthe text.Roman Jackobson,a Russian-American linguist and literary critic who takesinand develops Saussure�s linguistic theory,puts forward m etaphor and metonymy based on paradigm aticand syntagm atic relation and argues that m etaphor,m etonymy,and other figures of speech have anim portant,though neglected,function of supporting what is reasonable and what is possible in the text.

3.LimitationIn so me 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 also been liableto relativism and subjectivism.It is criticized as being entirely subjective,allowing no way for others toinvestigate the objective standard of the literary critique.Despite the various critiques of Deconstruction ,it has a strong im pact on other critical schools,such as New Historicism and Feminist Criticism ,w hichchange our m ode of thinking and form a new angle of view of appreciating literary works.

IV.Conclusion

In conclusion,Deconstruction rejects Structuralism for various reasons yet still defines itself inrelation to Structuralism.Although Derrida argues against the structuralist position taken by followers ofSaussure and Claude Lévi-Strauss,yet they share many ideas.Both structuralist and Deconstructionistviews try to find som ething outside literature by looking for patternsin the literary texts.They two haveno particular interestin the declared intention of a work ,and believe that abstract ordering principles arethe only essential subject m atter.Their essential ideas about a text�s reading and com prehension are ofmutual com plement and their co m mon purpose isto seek the deep meaning of works of art.However,thedissimilarities of Structuralism and Deconstruction outweigh the similarities:m ost im portantly,theStructuralism regards works of art as closed system.On the contrary,the Deconstruction takesit as opensystem.Secondly,Structuralism pays m ore attention to deep structure,but Deconstruction exposes theinstability of meaning and am biguity of language.Thirdly,for Structuralism ,the text is static to someextent.By contrast,for Deconstruction,it�s more like an extending net,and element in text keepschanging and recycling.We may safely draw the conclusion that Structuralism and Deconstruction haveclose relationship and exert great influence on literary criticism ,especially,works of art.

ReferencesBarthes,R.2001.The Structuralist Activity.In Zhu Gang.Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories(pp.

163-167).Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Brown,C.2006. Glossary of Literary Theory:Structuralism.Website accessed on September 15 ,2006 at:

http://w w w.library.utoronto.ca/utel/glossary/Structuralism.htmlCuller,J.2004.On Deconstruction(pp.110-133).Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Derrida,J.2001.Structure,Sign,and Play.In Zhu Gang.Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories(pp.

205-207).Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Lévi-Strauss,C.2001.The Structural Study of Myth.In Zhu Gang. Twentieth Century Western Critical

Theories(pp.158-162).Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Lodge,D.2002.Analysis and Interpretation of the Realist Text:Ernest Hemingway�s“Catin the Rain”.In

Zhang Zhongzai,Selective Readings in 20th Century Western Critical Theory(pp.180-205).Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

411

The Com parative Study of Structuralis m &Deconstruction  Li Wei &Ding Yan