Structuralism
Structuralism is the idea which helps to understand the life
of humans basically it rejects the existence of human life. Structuralism developed in early 1900 Europe,
in the structural linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure. It implies on the fields
of anthropology, sociology, economics and literary criticism.
Structuralism in Literary Theory and Criticism
The impact of language-based theories was felt in Western
criticism, of which English criticism became a part, in a big way in the
nineteen sixties. Use "Western criticism" deliberately here because
as far as I see it, English criticism from the nineteen sixties onwards did not
remain confined to considerations of English or American writing. Instead, it
took influences from trends in European thought and also started relating
English writing to literatures of other countries. In this sense, English
criticism liberated itself from narrow British cultural interests and reflected
trends of a relatively globalized world.
The literature came to be analyzed mainly in terms of
language - words, phrases, interconnection between words, and so on. Old
grammar (devoted to the study of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, etc. that had a
specific place in the English sentence) were discarded in preference to what
was called structures. This denoted that words did not stand for anything
static and fixed as was supposed to be the case but operated through structures
that helped in constructing meaning in a new life-situation.
Kinds of Structuralism
In a sense, structuralism of this kind had its origins in
the modernist concern for the work which pushed the writer to the background and
expected the reader to take an alert interest in the work as a composition. But
in a more significant sense, structuralism emphasized the existence of a
full-fledged system under which meaning could be visualized as constructed.
This also necessitated on the part of the reader an effort to grasp the rules
of the system which governed the composition of a work, and its recomposition
or reconstruction by the same reader. Another way of saying the same thing was
that both writer and reader operated under a language system which had
independent rules of its own and whose existence had a materiality and
solidity. This changed the entire hitherto existing perception of literature
and drew it out of the domain of the writer's life, a narrow subjectivist field
of limited interests. Here, mark the modernist existentialist definition of
this narrow subjectivist field which was impervious to any outside influence
and whose individuality was not open to any outside rational interpretation or theorization.
Structuralism dealt a lasting blow to this existentialist view of literature
and placed literary writing face to face with a language system that provided
codes for the decipherment of its meaning.
A new and exciting system of linguistic governance,
structuralism also let the reader into the nature of change where old
structures struggled among themselves and with the writer to compose and
formulate a new meaning. In this struggle, the writer ceased to be the sole
arbiter of meaning and lost his/her subjectivity to the existing determining
codes. Because of further developments in theory, today we End structuralism of
this kind and variety rather primitive and almost exclusively language-centered.
This was soon realized as critics and analysts debated the useless of this new
approach to questions of culture, art and ideology.
Post-structuralism
Post-structuralism found literature to be deeper and richer
than the structuralist theory suggested. Structures functioned more clearly in
the realm of culture and ideology where certain thoughts and feelings appeared
taboo since they challenged the very rationale of prevailing notions.
In this given scenario, linguistic structures formed only
one of the many circles which interacted with one another and, therefore, made
the game of decipherment of meaning still more complex. This necessitated the
study of literary works in more precise terms for reasons of identifying
structures of feelings and emotions embedded in them.
Post-structuralism also sought to contend with the issue of
determinism according to which the writer or reader operated in a rigid
framework, watching passively the interplay of structures as texts unfolded the
drama of conflicts and antagonisms.
Post-Structuralism in Literary Theory and Criticism
In this sense, post-structuralism became self- reflexive and
uncertain. Aware of its pitfalls and inadequacies, post-structuralism became
open-ended so as to make way for other approaches to enter the field. One can
see the working of a hidden politics behind structuralism and post-structuralism
which actively blocked the writer’s pursuit of change in the social arena. It separating
the writer from the work, this kind of task already begun by modernism and
these theories focused on the individual writing in separation from a larger
trend, in culture or politics.
There is no doubt that they succeeded quite substantially in
taking literary writing out of the socio-ideological domain that revolved
around a profit-oriented market. Clearly see most discussions on literature
taking place not in the open, not in magazines, journals or newspapers or
conferences joined by general readers
but in specialized academic circles. Books by virtue of the esoteric nature of
their content, can only be understood by a minority of 'critically equipped'
people. A background for what happened in the subsequent period in the realm of
criticism.
The writers Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva and Michel
Foucault were occupied the post-structuralism. Basically it simply connect with
the idea of “Truth” and “reality”.
If You Want More Notes
For UGC NET Prepration So Mail Us : Myexamsolution@gmail.com
WhatsApp Us :
8130208920
0 comments:
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.