Structuralism, Language, And Literature
-
Upload
sandipkluis -
Category
Documents
-
view
43 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Structuralism, Language, And Literature
-
5/20/2018 Structuralism, Language, And Literature
1/7
Wiley and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.
http://www.jstor.org
Structuralism, Language, and LiteratureAuthor(s): Sanford Scribner AmesSource: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Autumn, 1973), pp. 89-94Published by: on behalf ofWiley The American Society for AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/428706Accessed: 11-08-2014 13:29 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:29:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/428706http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/428706http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/ -
5/20/2018 Structuralism, Language, And Literature
2/7
SANFORD SCRIBNER
AMES
Structuralism anguage
n d
iterature
STRUCTURALISM
attempts
to set
up
a
grid
or control on
any
situation or field
of
study
in
the effort
to
make
it
intelligible,
on the
assumption
that its
elements are
naturally
arranged
in a
system,
however elusive. Rob-
ert
Champigny
has noted that the
structur-
alist method can
be
applied
to
anything:
kinship
systems,
social
customs,
trivial
pop
phenomena,
or
to
any study
of
man
in
general.l Jean Piaget
sees structure as a
sys-
tem
of transformations
maintaining
or en-
riching itself by different combinations of
its own
elements,
without
reference
to
any-
thing
outside
its
borders. Structure then ex-
ists in its own
right, independent
of
human
formalizing
or
theorizing.
While a structure
is
formed of
elements,
these
are
subordinate
to
the
laws of
the
system
which
confer
prop-
erties
of
the
whole distinct from
those of
the elements. In
sum,
a
structure has
the
three
characteristics of
totality,
transfor-
mation,
and
self-regulation.
2
The tantalizing thing about structural-
ism
is
the
idea that
men's
thinking
tries
to
get
at what
is
independent
of
them,
unex-
pressed
and
unknown,
which has
been
there
all
along,
yet
must be latent
deep
down in
everyone,
since men
belong
to the one
world
there
is;
unless
they
are to be
located
on one
side of
a
dualism.
Piaget
recognizes
that
structuralism has
recourse to
some-
thing
like the forms of
Plato
and like-
minded
philosophers,
though
also
includ-
SANFORD CRIBNER MES
is assistant
professor
of
French
at
the
Ohio
State
University.
ing
empiricists
who
appeal
to
syntactic
or
semantic forms.
This takes for
granted
that
the
signifying systems,
in which men
live,
seek
to
rest
upon patterns underlying
their
thought.
The hidden
patterns
supposedly
enable
men to
participate
in a
language
whose
origins
escape
them.
Alternative to
the
notion of a
concealed
reality,
never
certainty
approached
or
reached
like Kafka's
castle,
is the
concep-
tion of
reality
as
pragmatically
constructed
on the basis of admittedly limited and fal-
lible
experience.
Such
reality,
empirically
arrived
at,
will
differ in
the
traditions of
different
cultures,
the
methods
of
different
scientists, artists,
and
philosophers.
But the
world-wide
spread
of
the same
technologi-
cal
processes
and
scientific
discoveries tends
to overcome
differences
in
culture and even
in
language,
as
modern
art,
music, movies,
literature,
simultaneously
come to
universal
attention. A kind
of contractual
agreement
forms as to what is real. This is clearly not
final but in
constant
flux.
Science,
relying
upon hypothesis
and
test,
is
open
to new
breakthroughs
and
theories,
requiring
more
or
less revision of what
had been taken
for
granted.
As
there has
been
general
rejection
of
eighteenth-century
rationalism
and
the con-
ception
of man
as
primarily
a
reasoning
being,
so there is
considerable
resistance to
science in
favor
of all kinds of
irrational-
ism,
mysticism,
occultism,
astrology,
and
psychedelic
experience.
Structuralism com-
bines
rationalism with
a
pseudo-scientific
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:29:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/20/2018 Structuralism, Language, And Literature
3/7
90
romanticism.
Thus it is
the
faith of
Claude
Levi-Strauss that elaborate
grids
or
systems
may
begin
to reveal
an
underlying
struc-
ture,
though
it
continues to be elusive.
In
his
autobiography
Tristes
Tropiques,
he
says
he
has a neolithic
mind,
because
he
admires so-called
primitive
cultures
and
languages.
He is in
awe
of their
sophistica-
tion,
and feels that civilization has
impover-
ished life
by discrediting
experience
which
does not fit a
rigid
standard of what is
sanely
thinkable.
Here Levi-Strauss
is akin
to
Benjamin
Lee
Whorf with his
passionate
interest
in
languages differing
drastically
from standard
average European
lan-
guages, involving
an
understanding
of the
environment quite remote from that of
Western
culture.
Whorf was
fascinated
by
the
capacity
of
the
Hopi
language
of Ari-
zona to make distinctions
ignored
in
Eng-
lish. He
said,
And
every language
is a vast
pattern-system..
in which are
culturally
ordained
forms and
categories by
which the
personality
not
only
communicates,
but
also
analyzes
nature,
notices or
neglects
types
of
relationship
and
phenomena,
channels his
reasoning,
and builds
the
house of his
consciousness. 3 He was struck by what he
called
the
premonition
in
language
of a
vast,
unknown world.
It
seemed
to
Whorf
as
if
the
personal
mind ... were in the
grip
of a
higher,
far
more intellectual
mind
... . 4 He came
to
assume
an
intellectual
structure beneath
or above
linguistic
rela-
tivity,
making possible
a
brotherhood of
thought
which
in the future could over-
come
the
gulfs
between
widely
variant
ways
of
speaking
and
thinking.
Peter Caws declares that structuralism's
great
contribution
has been ... to claim
once
again
for intellect
a
territory
we
had
all
but abandoned to
the absurd.
6
This
sug-
gests
that our real brother is not
the alien-
ated
worker of Marx or
the
fragmented psy-
che of Freud but
the
noble
savage
of Rous-
seau's vision who
has been buried
within us
under
layers
of
excessively
civilized
reason-
ableness,
mistakenly
taken to be Man.
Levi-
Strauss is
impressed
by
the
intransigent
re-
fusal of
the
savage
mind to allow
anything
human (or even living) to remain alien to
it.
6
Too much resistance to the absurd in
SANFORD SCRIBNER AMES
the
concept
of Man as the embodiment of
reason has left
unexplored
whole territories
which remain alien. The structuralist effort
is to work out
systems
making
sense of
much that had been
rejected
as
fanciful.
Michel Foucault
quotes
in
the introduc-
tion
to Les Mots
et
les
choses a
passage
from
Borgds (not
identified but from the
novel
L'Alepha):
This text cites
a certain Chinese
encyclopedia
where
it
is written
that animals are
divided into:
a) belonging
to
the
Emperor,
b)
embalmed,
c)
tame,
d) suckling
pigs, e)
mermaids,
f)
fabulous,
g) dogs running
free,
h)
included
in the
present
classification,
i)
which
behave like
madmen,
j)
innumerable,
k)
drawn on camelskin with
a
very
fine
brush,
1)
et
cetera,
m)
which have
just
broken
their leg, n) which from a distance look like
flies.
Foucault
comments:
In our
astonishment
at this
taxonomy
what
strikes us with sud-
den
force,
what,
because of its
setting,
is
presented
to
us
as the exotic charm of an-
other
system
of
thought,
is the limitation of
our own: the stark
impossibility
of
thinking
such
things.
7
Foucault
predicts
that the rational con-
ception
of
Man will
disappear
like
a
face
drawn in the sand at the edge of the sea.
8
This is
not
to
be taken as
a
depressing pos-
sibility
but
rather
as
marking
the liberation
of
men,
permitting
them to
exist more
fully
in
the
world,
free from
bondage
to narrow
reason. Men
are still
here,
facing
the same
problems,
with freedom to invest
the sense
of
their
being
in
the
world,
rivaling
the
enterprise
of their
unfettered distant
ancestors,
joining
in
the
infinite
possibili-
ties of
la
pensee sauvage.
The title of L6vi-Strauss'swork on struc-
tural
anthropology,
La
Pensee
sauvage,
should not
be translated
as
savage
or
primitive
thought
but
rather as
untamed
thought
or natural mind.
For
him,
men
have been involved in
the
activity
of
mak-
ing
the world
intelligible
all
along;
but
it
is
only
in
relatively
recent times that
they
have become
separated enough
from their
linguistic projections
to ask Who is talk-
ing?
and
To whom is
talking
or
writing
addressed?
We are so bent on
making
sense and making ourselves understood that
we
define
madness
as
the
non-signifying,
the
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:29:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/20/2018 Structuralism, Language, And Literature
4/7
Structuralism,
Language,
and
Literature
unthinkable.
But
overemphasis
on rational
Man
may
obscure
a
somnolent,
persistent
chance
that we
may
not be forever
exiled
from non-rational
insights
into our
strange
being in the world. What we have called
insane
may
not be
unhealthy.
It
may
be the
divine
madness of
Plato,
the
inspiration
of
art. Foucault would
rediscover
and
reap-
praise
madness.
Roy
McMullen calls
it:
Not the
ignoble
sickness seen
by
clinical
eyes,
but madness as
an ancient kind
of
in-
tuitive
breakthrough-knowledge,
with the
animal
shamelessness,
violent
truthfulness,
poetic
license,
and
holy
aura it had for our
ancestors retained
in scores
of Western liter-
ary
and
pictorial masterpieces.
9
Interrogation
of
the
mentally
ill,
those
who
can no
longer cope,
reveals
the
star-
tling
limitation of
common
language
as
communication.
Jacques
Lacan,
the
leading
French structuralist
psychologist,
says:
...
psychoanalysis
has but
one
medium: the
word of the
patient....
10
Man
appears
to
the structuralist
as an uncertain
refer-
ence,
or,
to
put
it
more
drastically,
an
ab-
sence.
The
attempt
to
apprehend
him out-
side his
speaking, writing,
and
representing
seems doomed to failure. What is unex-
pressed
is
assumed
to exist as
latent lan-
guage
until
it comes to
light
in
expression.
Then
what comes
through
must have been
imminent
in
everyone's
pensee
sauvage.
Through
the
juxtaposition
and
superim-
position
of
texts,
languages,
and cultures we
have
the best chance of
understanding
what
it means to be men.
We are like archaeolo-
gists studying
the
remains of
bygone
human
life. We
put
a
grid
over
languages,
cultures,
and individual testimony, spoken or writ-
ten,
and invent new
semiological
relations
to
interpret
what we find. We cannot
bring
former
life back
any
more than we can seize
the absent
author or
speaker
talking
to us.
It is
always
too
late,
even
eyeball
to
eyeball
in direct
confrontation,
to
bring
forth
what
is
never there
except
as created in
the
signi-
fying
activity
of
language.
It is
possible
to learn more about
a lan-
guage
than those
speaking
it
are aware of.
We are all a little like Monsieur Jourdain
discovering
that
he had been
speaking
prose.
We
know much more about some
91
past
cultures,
myths,
customs,
and
arts
than
their
possessors
had the means to
grasp.
For
the
structuralists
what we
usually
mean
by
knowing
ourselves
or
others,
in the
present
or the past, misses the point that knowing is
doing.
Although
we start out as archaeolo-
gists,
we end
up
as fellow artists or creative
analysts,
joining
our
predecessors
in
ques-
tioning
and
creating
the world
according
to
our
representations
of it.
If
the traces
of
past
activities are to make
any
sense,
they
must make it to
the
living.
While
the
past
is
steadily
constructed
and
reconstructed on
the basis of the
present,
the
past
can be
experienced only
here and now. When the
notion of
complete
and irrevocable
history
is
given
up,
then each of us
in
turn is the
other to whom
the world with its train of
past cultures must
appear.
When we detect
or create structures of
relationships
that our
ancestors could not have been aware of in
their
languages, myths,
or
literatures,
it is
we
who
must
struggle
with
the
questions
which
they
raise.
Questions
about the
application
of struc-
turalism
to
the
world, life,
or
reality
in
gen-
eral come to a most
interesting
focus
in
lit-
erature. It is frequently charged that struc-
turalists
get
more out of a text or a
myth
than
could be there
according
to
empirical
evidence,
the
history
of a
period,
the life
and
times of an author or
artist.
The
challenge
of
structuralism to tradi-
tional
academic
literary
criticism has been
eloquently
put
by
Roland
Barthes,
who
is
generally
regarded
as head of the
school
known
as
La
Nouvelle
critique.
He is cur-
rently
director
of
a
seminar on the sociol-
ogy of signs, symbols, and representations
in the Ecole
Pratique
des Hautes Etudes
in
Paris. Like other
structuralists,
he is en-
gaged
in
creating
and
bringing
into
the
open
what
they
suppose
to be the anterior
language
which
makes communication and
literature
possible.
His concern
is not with
a
message
but with
what
system
or
structure
makes
messages
available.
In
his
view,
the
critic chooses a
critical
language appropri-
ate to the
work
in
hand and
to his
ap-
proach, to impose as a grid over the text,
enabling
him to
develop
one
of
the
possible
senses
out
of an
unknown
number. The
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:29:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/20/2018 Structuralism, Language, And Literature
5/7
92
critic
builds a model
over the text and
then,
in
exhaustive
ransacking
of unities and rela-
tionships,
accounts for
all the
signifying
ele-
ments in
the work in
terms of his construct.
The critic, in front of a work, is analogous
to men
trying
to
understand the world.
Work and world
ask to be
projected
and
given
depth
by
human
structuring
activity.
The
job
is to
make a valid
model.
What
matters is not
what
critical
language
is im-
posed,
but the
rigor
with
which it is
ap-
plied.
For
Barthes,
traditional
literary
criti-
cism is a
mixture of science and
magic.
The
assumption
has been
that,
if we know
the
life and
times of an author
we
can,
accord-
ing
to
conventional
psychological,
bio-
graphical,
and historical
data,
discover
what
contributing
factors
were transformed
into
literature. Inventions or
transforma-
tions of
reality
which
cannot be
accounted
for are
assigned
to the
creative
powers
of
Racine,
Proust,
whoever
it
might
be-in
short,
to
magic.
Barthes
maintains that this
magical
ap-
proach
cannot
begin
to
exhaust the
possi-
bilities of a
work.
This
ignores
the
prob-
lems raised
by
the
transformation
of
lan-
guage into literature. For Barthes, litera-
tures exists as a
meta-language,
a
parasitical
language,
which
cannot
denote
the real but
only
suggest
it.
Literature
doubles
reality.
Barthes
says
that
literature is ...
deprived
of all
transitivity,
condemned
ceaselessly
to
signify
itself at
the moment when it
wants
only
to
signify
the
world. Literature
then is
an
immobile
object, separated
from the
world which is
in
process
of
realizing
itself.
... In
sum,
literature does not
permit
the
world to walk, but allows it to breathe. 11
The
opposite
of
literary
is
transitive lan-
guage,
used to
change
the
world. For a
me-
chanic
a car is
not the
advertiser's
image
of
prestige,
success,
or
sex,
but an
object
to be
worked on for a
livelihood. The
language
of
the
mechanic,
the
scientist,
or
the revolu-
tionary,
used
in
his
occupation,
is
not
myth-
ical
but
practical
designations
for action
upon
the world. In
the classical
period
of
French
literature,
language
was
felt to
be
transparent,
as
Boileau
put
it.
What was
clearly conceived would be clearly ex-
pressed,
with
varing
degrees
of
ornamenta-
SANFORD SCRIBNER AMES
tion.
For
the
classical
writer,
to continue
Barthes's
metaphor, language
walked with
the
world and with
universal consciousness.
David Funt
amplifies
the classical
idea:
The traditional view of literature sees the
subject (mind)
as a
plenum
which
expresses
itself
in
the medium of words.
...
If
the
language
is
sufficiently
transparent
and
if
the reader's
literary
vision is
adequate,
he
ought
to
perceive
the secret of the
work
which
lies
in the
subject
hidden behind
the
language.
Another
way
(the
critic's)
of deci-
phering
the
author's
secret
is to
circumvent
the work
itself
and to
study
the author's life
and
environment.
12
For Barthes
also the
subject
exists as an
absence, but his blank silence makes
possi-
ble a
plurality
of
senses,
a
multiplicity
of
creative-critical
interpretations.
Language,
as we know
it in modern
times,
is no
longer
transparent
but dense and
opaque,
each
word a realm of
signs
with life of its
own.
Barthes seems to be
saying
that
literay
lan-
guage
cannot walk with
the world
except
in
bad
faith,
by assuming
that words
are
empty
and
neutral vehicles filled
by
a
spe-
cific or universal
reality
or idea
which
they
designate. When the signification of lan-
guage
is
seen to be
limited,
having
a
kind
of
necessity
or
essential
quality
that
de-
forms its
factual
content,
the result is
myth.
For
example,
white stands
for
purity,
red
for
danger.
If the
meta-language
of
literature is to
avoid
becoming myth,
and
escape
the doom
of
pretending
to mirror a
reality
it
cannot
change,
then a
subject
which
in fact is ab-
sent must
appear
as a
question,
a
proposal.
Literature must provoke the maximum res-
onance
in
what Maurice
Blanchot
calls
l'espace
litteraire
around it.
Barthes ob-
serves: One could
say,
I
believe,
that
litera-
ture is
Orpheus climbing
up
from the un-
derworld.
As
long
as it
goes
forward,
while
knowing
that it is
leading
someone
(the
reality
which is
behind),
it
pulls
little
by
little
away
from
the
unnamed,
breathing,
walking,
and
directing
itself
toward
clarity
and
sense.
But
as soon
as
language
turns
around toward what it
loves,
there is
no
longer anything in its hands but a named
meaning,
that is to
say,
a
dead
meaning.
13
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:29:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/20/2018 Structuralism, Language, And Literature
6/7
Structuralism,
Language,
and Literature
Barthes declares
that,
for
literature to
sig-
nify only
itself when
it wants
to
signify
the
world
(which
is
always
in the
making),
de-
scription
must be left
open,
written in
am-
biguous terms,
which
will let
the
meaning
leak
through (fuir).
A
writer's
language
can be
creatively
completed
in
various
worthwhile
con-
structs. In structuralism a
positive
situation
is
one
in which an
ongoing,
unceasing
con-
quest
of the
intelligible
is
possible
in the
practice
of the
signifying
activity. Language
is
not innocent or neutral. When
it
pre-
tends
to be universal and
transparent,
when
it
aspires
to be
exclusive,
it
becomes
mythi-
cal.
David Funt, in discussing this problem
with
reference to
Barthes,
shows
that
the
supposed
neutral
universality
of classical
literary
language
was in fact the
property
of
a social
class,
namely,
the
rising
bourgeoi-
sie. After
1880,
perhaps
beginning
with
Flaubert,
writers
became aware
of different
ecritures or
ways
of
writing
available to
them.
They began
to choose their
languages
consciously.
Flaubert is mentioned
by
Funt
as
deliberately
choosing
the
language
of the
bourgeoisie, while Sartre took that of the
Left,
and
Camus came as close as
possible
to
the absolute
neutrality
of l'ecriture
blanche.
Taking
the
conscious
responsibility
of mak-
ing
a
choice,
which cannot
be
avoided in
any
case,
is to
recognize
the
multiplicity
of
ecritures which are not
mutually
exclusive.
A
writer,
deliberately
choosing
one or an-
other
for
his
purposes,
will
be aware that
it
is
one
of
many
possible approaches
to
the
world. This
gives
him
the
advantage
of
turning into foils the possibilities not
chosen.'4
Literature for Barthes
would seem to be
an
open-ended sign language.
Neither the
author,
the
content,
nor the literal charac-
ter of
the
language
is of
primary
interest,
but rather
the
Eurydice
that
literature can-
not turn
back to or
even name. The
signifi-
cation of
literary
structure can be ana-
lyzed
in
the creation
of
logical
models
which
try
to
grasp
how
writing
transforms
language
and
points
toward an
unexpressed
proto-language. Literature is not the text
itself but its
fissures of
ambiguous
song
93
which
keep
coaxing
Eurydice
from the
un-
derworld.
Though
we
may
never see
her
face,
we know
she
is alive in the sketches
and
models we make of
her,
prompted
by
what the internal structure of
a
work
pro-
poses
as absence. This absence
justifies
in-
ventive
criticism,
since there is
no fixed
ori-
gin
or
point
of reference for
a creative
work.
Such
an
approach puts
life and
dyna-
mism into both literature and
criticism.
Racine's
Andromaque
and
Phedre are
not
stuck in their creator's mind back in
the
seventeenth
century. They
are created
anew
for each
age
and each critic. When we
rigorously
apply
contemporary
critical lan-
guages
to
Racine,
we see new
dynamics,
new interrelations in his works, new signs.
Our
Phedre and
Andromaque might
be un-
recognizable
to
Racine, but,
without
life
of
their
own,
could
they emerge,
could
they
be
conjured up again
and
again
in
different
forms
by
different
spells?
This seems to be
the
idea behind
Barthes's controversial
book,
Sur
Racine.
Applying
his
approach,
let
us see if there
is life now in Racine's
signifying
activity,
so that we can
fit
his
creations
into
the
present
where alone
they
can come to life.
Thinking
of
literature as
proposal
or
sign
to be
completed,
soliciting
further creative
activity,
almost
putting
criticism on
equal
footing
with the
work,
is
exciting.
We are
no
longer
groping
in
the
dust
for
clues to
reconstruct
the truth. We
recognize
that
linguistic
constructions have a
timeless life
of
their own. The
silence around them can
resonate with new
significance.
Then
the
study
of
literature calls
back
again
those
ageless ladies, Eurydice, Phedre, and Andro-
maque,
to come down
the
runway
in
hith-
erto
unimagined
costumes.
McLuhan has
suggested
that
the French
have
overemphasized
the structuralist
sys-
tem which
made French
style.
He thinks
more stress
should be
put
upon
content,
making
for
richness and
variety, though
ob-
scuring
underlying
structures. He
says:
...
it would
be
interesting
to
study
literature as
a
struggle
between
self-immobilizing
themes
and
structures and
the
pull away
from such
themes toward a greater variety of response
to the world and
to
language.
15
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:29:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/20/2018 Structuralism, Language, And Literature
7/7
94
Mikel Dufrenne
challenges
the
claim
of
structuralism
that
meaning
is
only
contex-
tual,
with no
reference
to
objects.
He
says
that,
after
dispensing
with
objects,
the
argu-
ment consists only in the relationships of
their
empty places
...
the
meaning
is
in the
relations,
not
in the terms
which
are related
... the
system
is
presented
and
deployed
according
to a
timeless
history
...
outside
human
initiative,
language
does
the
think-
ing
in
our
stead ...
in
short,
man
dies
that
the
system
may
live....
In structuralist
crit-
icism,
a work
is
considered
exactly
as
a
formal
system
is considered
by
the
logician:
the work is
taken
as
language
and
criticism
as
meta-language.
16
Dufrenne
says
that if the work is consid-
ered
an
autonomous,
closed
system,
a dis-
course
not
spoken
by
anyone,
the
conse-
quence
is
that a work is
not to
be
explained
by
reference
to its
author,
his
life and
in-
tentions,
or
by
the historical
context.
The
genesis
of
a work is
ignored.
The umbili-
cal cord is cut
which ties
a work to
the
writer
and
through
him to the
world.
17
It
is instructive
to examine
the
mechanism
of
objectified
thought,
but Dufrenne
holds
that structuralism cannot stand alone with-
out
leaving
problems
which it
does
not and
cannot
raise,
which
more
empirical
think-
ing
must take
up.
Works
cannot
be
signifi-
cant
in and for
themselves.
Their
meaning
must
be
for
someone,
by
referring
to the
world.
Champigny
adds
that structuralism
would be
more
interesting
if it could estab-
lish
a
hierarchy
of
aesthetic
accomplish-
ment,
showing
that some
patterns,
rhymes,
motives,
or sounds
are more
appealing
than
others. He thinks the hope of literary study
is to
assign
values.18
The
rejoinder
of structuralists
to
Duf-
renne
would
presumably
be
that,
while
lit-
erature
may
be
considered
a
closed
sys-
tem,
it
is a
system
of
signs
which
perpetu-
ally
solicit
the invention of
completions.
It
SANFORD
SeRIBNER
AMES
is
very
well to collect
facts
concerning
a
work's
author
and its
genesis,
if we
admit
that this
cannot
begin
to exhaust
the
possi-
ble
meanings
of a
work.
Empirical
data
may
be
reassuring
but cannot
be the
umbil-
ical cord
that
ties a
work to
the world.
There
is no
fixed
point
of reference
to
which literature
can
be
pinned,
no truth
that
can
plumb
it.
An author
sets
in motion
a
signifying
dynamism,
which is
a
question
launched
by
his
writing.
Barthes
says
that literature
merely
asks,
What
do
things signify?
He
thinks
that
literature
never
gives
the answer.
He
main-
tains that no
literature has
ever
answered
the
question
it
asked,
and that
this
makes
literature what it is: the frail language
which
men
place
between
the
violence
of
the
question
and
the silence
of the
missing
answer.
1
Robert
Champigny,
Lecture
at
Ohio
State Uni-
versity,
May
1970.
2
Cf.
Jean
Piaget,
Le Structuralisme
(Paris:
Presses
Universitaires
de
France,
1968), pp.
6-8.
Benjamin
Lee
Whorf,
Language,
Thought,
and
Reality (The
M.I.T.
Press,
1969), p.
252.
4
Ibid.,
p.
257.
6
Peter
Caws,
Structuralism,
Partisan
Review
35
(1968):
91.
B
Ibid.,
p.
90.
7Michel
Foucault,
Les Mots et
les
choses
(Paris,
1966), p.
7.
8
Ibid.,
p.
398.
9Roy
McMullen,
Michel
Foucault,
Horizon
(Autumn
1969),
11: 37.
10Jacques
Lacan,
Ecrits
(Paris,
1966),
p.
866.
U
Roland
Barthes,
Essais
Critiques (Paris,
1961),
p.
264.
David
Funt,
Roland
Barthes
and the
Nouvelle
critique, JAAC
26
(1968):
337-38.
18
Barthes,
p.
265.
14
Cf.
Funt,
p.
337.
15
Marshall
McLuhan,
Conversations
with Mc-
Luhan,
Encounter
(June 1967),
p.
232.
16
Mikel
Dufrenne,
Esthetique
et
philosophie
(Paris,
1967),
pp.
132-33.
7
Ibid.,
p.
133.
8
Champigny,
Lecture,
May
1970.
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.21 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:29:18 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp