Post-Structuralism and Deconstructive: Rewrites the Rules of Interpretation

 Post-Structuralism and Deconstructive: Rewrites the Rules of Interpretation

In our previous blog, we discussed Structuralism. In this blog, we will discuss post-structuralism. I had originally planned to share both as a comparative analysis; however, at this time, I would refrain from going into too much detail. I try to make it engaging without abandoning the context. Initially, we will see the definition of Post-structuralism, key figures in the development of post-structuralism, and lastly some differences and distinctions between structuralism and post-structuralism.

Post-structuralism argues that meaning is not fixed or singular. When trying to understand a text or an event, everyone may have a different perspective, because meaning changes depending on context and the individual’s viewpoint.

For example, if you see the word “tree” in a book, it might not just mean “tree” to you. For you, that word might evoke memories of your childhood. For someone else, the tree might represent the continuity of life.

Post-structuralists suggest that meaning is never completely fixed, and texts (or conversations, images) can be analysed in layers to reveal hidden meanings. Jacques Derrida's concept of "deconstruction" involves taking a text or an idea and examining it deeply to uncover the different meanings beneath the surface.

In short, post-structuralism says:

• Meaning depends on the reader’s perspective.
• There can be many hidden meanings beyond what’s openly stated in texts or speech.
• Everyone interprets what they read or see differently because people create meaning based on their own backgrounds and contexts.

Post-structuralism is a movement of thought that emerged in the 1960s and was influenced by French structuralism. Post-structuralists argued that the meaning should 'play freely.' In other words, the meanings of texts are not fixed and definite. Each reader can interpret the text differently based on their own experiences and context. Therefore, the 'ambiguity' and 'multiple interpretations' of meanings should be accepted. Post-structuralists asserted that language and meaning are not fixed but are constantly changing and layered. For them, everything can acquire different meanings depending on the context and personal interpretation.

Roland Barthes and "The Death of the Author" (1968)

The Death of the Author: In his essay, Barthes announces the "death of the author," arguing that the meaning of a text is no longer tied to the author's intentions. The text becomes independent of the author's personal context or purpose. In this view, a text is not determined by the author’s intentions but instead is open to interpretation by the reader.

Radical Textual Independence: Barthes asserts that the text is free from constraints such as authorial intention or historical context. The meaning of a text does not have a fixed, authoritative interpretation. Instead, meanings "freely play" and vary depending on the reader’s experience and context.

The Birth of the Reader: With the death of the author, the power of meaning shifts to the reader. The reader becomes the one who creates the meaning of the text, as they interpret it based on their own experiences and understanding. This shift marks the transition from authorial control to reader-driven interpretation.

Jacques Derrida and "Structure, Sign, and Play" (1966)

Decentering: Derrida's key idea is the concept of "decentering," which challenges the idea that there is a central or fixed point of reference for understanding the world. In traditional thought, everything was centered around norms (for example, the idea that "man" is the measure of all things). Derrida argues that these central norms have been eroded, leading to a more fragmented and relative view of reality.

Destruction of Historical and Scientific Absolutes: Derrida points to events like World War I and the Holocaust, which destroyed the illusion of a stable, progressive history. Similarly, scientific discoveries like relativity have overturned absolute concepts of time and space. In the arts, modernism rejected fixed notions of harmony in music, chronological sequence in narrative, and realistic representation in art.

Free Play of Meanings: In this "decentred" universe, there are no absolutes or fixed points. Instead, meaning is in a constant state of flux and "free play." There is no single, correct interpretation, only a multiplicity of interpretations that are relative and contingent.

Deconstruction: Derrida's method of "deconstruction" involves closely analysing texts to expose contradictions and instability within them. This process reveals that texts are not unified, but fragmented, and they do not contain a single, stable meaning. Instead, they embody the fragmented and decentred universe Derrida describes.

Text and Reality: Derrida's famous statement, "There is nothing outside the text," emphasizes that reality is inseparable from language. There is no "real" world that exists outside of language, and thus, all our understanding of the world is mediated through language and text.

Post-structuralism’s key features include:

Textual Freedom: The text is independent of the author's intention; its meaning is shaped by the reader's interpretation.

Free Play of Meanings: Meanings are not fixed; they constantly shift and change based on context and reader experience.

Decentring: Traditional norms and centres of thought have been eroded, and everything is relative and contingent.

Deconstruction: Texts are fragmented and self-divided; they do not hold a singular, unified meaning.

Text and Reality: Reality is understood through language and text; there is no "real" world separate from language.

Structuralism:

Structuralism suggests that meaning is created through a regular, logical, and fixed structure. To understand a text, we need to analyse the "system" or "rules" underneath it. Structuralists believe that language operates as a system of signs, as explained by Ferdinand de Saussure.

Example: If you see the word "rose" in a story, structuralists would argue that it has a consistent meaning, usually related to "love" or "beauty." Meaning is fixed and follows certain rules within the system of language.

Post-Structuralism:

Post-structuralists disagree with the idea of fixed meaning. They argue that meaning is never stable and changes depending on the context and the individual. There can be no single, definitive interpretation of a word or text.

Example: If we think of the word "rose" again, post-structuralists would argue that it could represent not just love or beauty, but also pain, loss, or even something entirely different. Meaning changes based on the reader’s perspective, experiences, and context.

Structuralism	Post-Structuralism
Meaning is fixed and orderly.	Meaning is fluid and context-dependent.
A text has a single, unified meaning.	A text can have multiple meanings.
Meaning is found within the structure of the text.	Meaning is created by the reader and context.
Seeks a "system" or "structure" in texts.	There is no fixed system; meaning is layered and complex.
Key figures: Ferdinand de Saussure, Claude Lévi-Strauss.	Key figures: Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault.

  

Structuralism: How Patterns Shape Meaning in Literature

 Structuralism: How Patterns Shape Meaning in Literature

Structuralism suggests that nothing exists or gains meaning in isolation. Everything—whether a story, a word, or even a cultural practice—should be analysed in the context of the larger system or structure it belongs to. The first thing you have to get used to when you begin to study structuralism is that common uses of the word structure do not necessarily imply structuralist activity. For example, you are not engaged in structuralist activity if you examine the physical structure of a building to discover if it is physically stable or aesthetically pleasing (Tyson, 2014).

For example:

• A word's meaning comes from itself and its relationship to other words in a language system.
• A character in a story can only be understood about other characters and the overall narrative structure.

Structuralism encourages us to look at the bigger picture. It focuses on understanding the connections and patterns between elements rather than isolating a single part. The meaning of an object or event does not exist within the object itself. The meaning comes from how we, as individuals, see and interpret it. For example, when we look at a work of art, its meaning is not just in the painting—it is created by how we understand and experience it.

After briefly explaining, we will explore major figures and key concepts in Structuralism. Then, we will show you this theory in a work.

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) was a Swiss linguist whose ideas laid the foundation for structuralism, which became an important approach in the study of language and literary theory in the 1950s and 1960s. Before Saussure, linguistic scholars focused mainly on the history of languages, such as how languages developed and their historical relationships with each other. However, Saussure shifted the focus to how language works in the present, emphasizing the patterns and functions of language as it is used today. He was particularly interested in how meaning is created and maintained, and how grammatical structures play a role in this process. His work transformed the way language and literature are analysed, moving away from historical concerns to exploring the underlying structures that shape meaning in communication. Saussure's work focused on understanding language as a system of signs that function in the present, rather than just studying its history.

Roland Barthes (1915-1980) applied structuralist methods to modern culture, examining everyday cultural phenomena through the lens of symbols, values, and beliefs. In his 1957 book Mythologies, Barthes analysed common cultural elements in modern France, many of which had never been studied in this intellectual way before.

For example, he compared boxing and wrestling, two sports that appear similar but have different cultural meanings. Boxing, Barthes argued, represents stoic endurance and repression. Boxers don’t show pain when they’re hit, they follow strict rules, and they fight as themselves—there’s no performance or fantasy involved. In contrast, wrestling is more theatrical, with fighters displaying exaggerated emotions and dramatic struggles. Wrestlers fight as larger-than-life heroes or villains, performing for the audience.

Barthes used this comparison to show how each sport fits into a broader cultural structure. Boxing reflects the endurance required in everyday life, while wrestling symbolizes the ultimate battles between good and evil. His structuralist approach takes individual items or events and places them in a larger framework, revealing deeper meanings and layers of significance. This is a key characteristic of structuralism: understanding something by examining its place within a bigger structure.

Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the concepts of langue and parole to explain how language works:

1.     Langue: This refers to the entire system or structure of language – the rules, conventions, and shared understanding that all speakers of a language have. For example, the rules of grammar, vocabulary, and syntax in a language like French.

2.     Parole: This refers to individual utterances or spoken/written expressions made by people. For example, a specific sentence spoken in French, like "Je mange une pomme" (I’m eating an apple), is parole.

To understand a single sentence (parole), you need to know the whole system (langue). For example, if you hear someone speaking French, you can understand their sentence only because you're familiar with the rules and vocabulary of French.

In literature, parole would be an individual work, like the novel Middlemarch, while langue would be the general structure or genre of the novel, which is a shared practice among writers and readers.

In simpler terms: Langue is the whole system of language, and parole is a single instance or example of that system in use. Both rely on each other to make sense.

1.     Analyzing Stories: Structuralists look at stories and connect them to bigger ideas like:

o    The rules of a specific genre (e.g., mystery or romance).

o    How the story connects to other stories.

o    Basic storytelling patterns are found in all stories, no matter the culture.

o    Common ideas or themes that appear throughout the story.

2.     Looking at Language Structures: Structuralists compare stories to how language works. For example:

o    Levi-Strauss used the idea of "mythemes," which are small units of meaning in a story, like how words in a language are built from smaller parts.

3.     Focusing on the Text, Not the Author: Structuralists care only about the text itself. They don’t look at who wrote it or the author's life story. They just study the structure of the story.

4.     Using Language Theories: They use ideas from linguists like Saussure to study how words and signs (symbols) work in literature.

5.     Finding Common Patterns: Structuralists look for repeating themes or ideas in a story. They believe these patterns help us understand the meaning of the text.

1.     Parallels

2.     Echoes

3.     Reflections/Repetitions

4.     Contrasts

5.     Patterns

6.     Plot/Structure

7.     Character/Motive

8.     Situation/Circumstance

9.     Language/Imagery

Structuralism seeks to uncover the "big picture" or hidden meaning within a text. It suggests that everything is "textual," composed of signs and language that acquire meaning through patterns, often connected to other texts. This theory laid the foundation for Deconstructive Criticism, particularly with the use of binary oppositions—where one term is privileged over the other, like good/bad, sweet/bitter, etc. Structuralism focuses on identifying these binary patterns or repetitions in literary genres and individual stories, exploring how they mirror societal structures and norms.

• Characters: Little Red Riding Hood, the grandmother, the wolf.
• Roles:
• The girl represents innocence.
• The wolf represents danger or evil.
• The grandmother represents safety and comfort.
• Settings: The forest (uncertainty and danger), the house (security).

The story gets its meaning from how these parts interact. Structuralists also say that this isn’t just one story; many stories have similar structures, and by studying them, we can find common patterns.

Understanding Language

Let’s look at words in a language. For example, the word "home."

• On its own, "home" is just a word. But when we hear it, we think of warmth, family, and safety.
• Structuralists say the meaning of a word comes not from the word itself but from how it relates to other words in the system of language.

A Real-Life Example

Think about a soccer game.

• You can’t understand football just by looking at the ball. You need to know the rules, the players, the teams, and how they interact. Structuralists would say, "To understand anything, you need to understand the whole system it belongs to."

Reader-Response Criticism: Author, Work, Reader

Reader-Response Criticism: Author, Work, Reader

      In contrast to other theories discussed in previous blogs, Reader-Response Criticism is related to readers and their experience of a literary work. Reader-Response critics emphasize that the meaning of a text is not inherent within the text itself but is created through the interaction between the reader and the text. Reader-Response Criticism indicates that when you read a story, novel or poem; you might understand it differently than someone else. Let’s assume, you are reading a book. While reading, you might have different thoughts and feelings in your head. If other people read the same book, they might think about it completely differently. This theory indicates that the person reading the story is just as important as the person who wrote it. It means that when we read, our own experiences, feelings, and thoughts help us understand the story in our own special way. So, every reader can have a different way of seeing the same book. Reader Response Criticism challenged that a text's meaning is inherent and self-contained. Instead, it proposed that the meaning of a text is created through the interaction between the reader and the text. This approach emphasizes that readers actively construct meaning based on their personal experiences, cultural background, and the context in which they read the text.

    The good news, however, is that reader-response criticism is a broad, exciting, evolving domain of literary studies that can help us learn about our own reading processes and how they relate to, among other things, specific elements in the texts we read, our life experiences, and the intellectual community of which we are members. In addition, for those of you who plan on teaching or are already doing so, Reader-Response Theory offers ideas that can help you in the classroom, whether that classroom is in an elementary school or on a college campus (Tyson, 2014). 

Reader-response theorists argue that even the same reader can derive different meanings from the same text in different cases. This is because numerous variables influence our reading experience, such as new knowledge acquired between readings, personal experiences, changes in mood, or shifts in the purpose of reading. These factors can all contribute to the creation of different interpretations of the same text. Reader-response critics focus on examining the various reactions of readers and analysing how different interpretive communities—groups of readers who share similar cultural or historical contexts—make meaning from texts. These communities can influence how readers interpret texts based on their shared experiences and cultural conditioning.

• Individualists: Focus on the individual reader's mood and personal response to the text.
• Experimenters: Consider the reader's state of mind and how it influences their interpretation of the text.
• Uniformists: Believe that each text has a specific effect on readers, leading to a fairly uniform response among all readers.

These categories help us understand the various ways in which readers can engage with and interpret literary works.

Hans Robert Jauss (1921–1997)

Jauss emphasized how society and period influence readers' interpretations of texts. He introduced the concept of the "horizon of expectations," which changes over time and affects how readers interpret texts.

Wolfgang Iser (1926–2007)

Iser introduced the concept of the "implied reader," the ideal reader envisioned by the author. He distinguished between the implied reader and the actual reader, whose interpretations may differ based on their social and historical context. Iser argued that texts have "response-inviting structures" that guide reader interpretation.

Louise Rosenblatt (1904–2005)

Rosenblatt viewed reading as a transaction between the reader and the text, where both are equally important. She believed there are acceptable and less-acceptable interpretations of texts. According to Rosenblatt, the text acts as both a stimulus for personal interpretations and a blueprint that disciplines the reader's interpretation.

Stanley E. Fish (1938–)

Fish introduced the idea of "interpretive communities," groups of readers who share historical and cultural contexts that shape their interpretations. He argued that all meaning is dependent on the interpretive strategies used by different communities, and there is no objectively correct interpretation of a text.

Norman Holland (1927–2017)

Holland focused on how readers' "identity themes" (life experiences and psychologies) impact their readings of texts. He took a psychoanalytic approach to Reader-Response Criticism, arguing against the idea of objective meanings.

David Bleich (1940–)

Bleich proposed a radical theory known as Subjective Reader Response Criticism. He argued that reader responses are the text, and there is no text beyond the meanings that readers create.

How to apply Reader-Response Criticism

• Questions about types of readers:
• Who is the implied reader? Who is the target audience of this text, and how does the text anticipate certain types of people (educated, privileged, disenfranchised, etc.) reading it?
• How might different groups of readers—interpretive communities—respond to a text? Think of students in different countries or in different decades, for example.
• How might readers' personal experiences influence how they read a certain text? For example, childhood experiences or experiences of racism or sexism.
• How might critics' own 'identity themes' and personal experiences influence or bias their interpretations? For example, white male scholars may have a different, perhaps more limited, view of gender and race issues in a text.