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.

  

New Criticism and the Art of Textual Interpretation

New Criticism and the Art of Textual Interpretation

In the previous blog, we discussed Formalism. In this blog, we are going to examine a new theory: New Criticism. New Criticism left a lasting mark on the literary world from the 1940s to the 1960s and New Criticism was a movement in literary theory that dominated American literary criticism.; however, it is rarely used by writers today, so we can no longer consider it a contemporary theory. It changed how literature was taught, helped define English Studies, and was a starting point for critical theory in the 20th century. However, it was unusual because it wasn't led by a single critic, had no manifesto, and no clear aims or membership. The term “New Criticism” was first used in 1941 by John Crowe Ransom in his book. Ransom's book was more about the need for a certain type of critic than defining New Criticism. The critics he examined rejected the label, and those now called New Critics were hardly mentioned by Ransom. Matterson, S. (2006). The New Criticism. In P. Waugh (Ed.), Literary theory and criticism: An Oxford guide. Oxford University Press. I am going to show you shortly, and then we will set out on a journey in this literature adventure.

I am going to show you shortly, then we will set out a journey in this literature adventure:

When you read a story, you are just trying to understand what is happening in the story itself without thinking about the outside world or the author’s life. In this kind of criticism, the beauty and meaning of the story are hidden in the words, sentences, and the way it’s told. So, you try to understand it by focusing only on the story. It is like a puzzle. You are paying attention to each piece to discover how it all fits together.

New Criticism is a type of critique that focuses solely on the work itself to understand it. In this approach, the work is examined based on its language, structure, and form, without connecting it to external factors such as the author’s life or its social and historical context. In other words, to find the meaning and value of a work, we pay attention to the elements within the text itself. Every word, sentence, and structural detail contributes to the overall meaning of the work, so we analyse it in its own completeness. In this context, when we evaluate a text, we should take into account some points. Extrinsic analysis, which involves examining elements outside the text to uncover its meaning, should be avoided. Instead, the critic's job is to understand how a poem functions as a self-contained, self-referential object. This means focusing solely on the text itself and its internal elements to interpret its meaning.

It used to be common to interpret a literary text by studying the author's life and times to understand the meaning the author planned. People would look through the author's letters, diaries, essays, autobiographies, biographies, and history books for clues. In its most extreme form, biographical-historical criticism focuses more on the author's context than on the text itself. Most of us expect to hear about the author's personal and intellectual life: his family, friends, enemies, lovers, habits, education, beliefs, and experiences. We may be curious about things that affected the author before reading. Moreover, we may wonder about the period when the work was written. However, For New Critics, the focus was entirely on the text itself. They believed that the poem, or any literary work, should be analysed as a self-contained object. This means that the meaning and value of the work are found within the text itself, without needing to consider the author's intentions, historical context, or external factors.

New Criticism emphasizes that a literary work is a self-contained, timeless entity. Its meaning is as fixed and objective as the words on the page. This meaning can't be fully captured by paraphrasing or translating it into another language. Literary language is distinct from scientific or everyday language, with its form and content being inseparable. The text's meaning and how it conveys that meaning are one and the same. The work is seen as an ideal, organic unity where all elements contribute to its overall complexity, often resulting from multiple and conflicting meanings.

The Great Gatsby as a reflection of the Jazz Age and its social commentary can indeed overshadow its formal elements. New Criticism would argue that we should examine the text, structure, language, and literary devices to uncover its deeper meanings. By doing so, we might find that the novel's complexity and richness go beyond its historical context, revealing layers of meaning embedded in Fitzgerald's precise use of words and narrative techniques. This approach can offer a new and different perspective on a well-known classic.

To analyze *The Great Gatsby* through New Criticism, we’ll focus solely on the text itself, looking at language, structure, imagery, and the interactions of characters, without considering the historical context or F. Scott Fitzgerald's life.

Imagery and Symbols

In The Great Gatsby, some of the key symbols include:

1.  The Green Light: Positioned at Daisy’s dock, the green light symbolizes Gatsby's dreams and hopes for the future. However, it’s always out of reach, which reflects the nature of his ambitions. The green light also serves as a symbol of Gatsby’s longing and the impossible nature of his dreams.

2. The Eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg: The billboard with the large, staring eyes represents an unseeing, god-like presence watching over the moral decay of society.

3.    Colors: Fitzgerald’s use of colour imagery, such as the bright yellows of Gatsby’s car and the gold in Daisy’s dress, represents wealth, luxury, and the facade of happiness, which contrast with darker images of grey in the Valley of Ashes, suggesting despair and poverty.

Language and Style

New Criticism emphasizes the close reading of language. Fitzgerald's prose in The Great Gatsby is poetic and symbolic, often using lyrical language to emphasize the characters' emotions. For instance:

1.     Gatsby’s Speech Patterns: Gatsby’s formal, almost rehearsed way of speaking—especially his repeated phrase, “Old sport”—highlights his constructed identity and his attempt to fit into the wealthy, upper-class society.

Structure and Form

New Criticism also looks at the structure of the narrative and how it affects meaning:

1. Unreliable Narration: Nick Carraway’s perspective shapes the novel’s events. Nick’s narration invites the reader to question his own biases, revealing layers of ambiguity in the way Gatsby and other characters are perceived.

2. Non-linear Timeline: Fitzgerald’s non-linear timeline, where the story begins in the present and then recounts Gatsby’s past, underlines the theme of memory and desire. This structure reflects Gatsby’s inability to move forward, reinforcing the novel’s tragic tone.

Themes Explored Through Textual Analysis

New Criticism focuses on themes found in the text:

 1. The American Dream: Through the perspective of New Criticism, the text reveals the illusion of the American Dream. Gatsby's wealth and lifestyle appear glamorous, but his inability to truly achieve his dreams exposes the corruption of this pursuit. The text's language underlines this theme.

 2.  Illusion vs. Reality: Gatsby’s life is a carefully crafted illusion, from his backstory to his parties. The contrast between appearance and reality is portrayed through language, like Gatsby's description as an “Oxford man” and the rich details of his mansion, which ultimately reveal little about his true self.

Russian Formalism: The Art of Literary Structure

Russian Formalism: The Art of Literary Structure

We are going to start a new series after a long time…

I have been focusing on history for a long time, from Rome to the Ottoman Empire, and from Ancient Egypt... Now, we come back to literature. In my Theory and Criticism of Literature class, we will study a variety of theories, including Russian Formalism, New Criticism, Archetypal Criticism, Reader-Response Criticism, Structuralism, Post-structuralism and Deconstruction, Postmodernism, Psychoanalytic Criticism, Feminist Criticism, Marxist Criticism, New Historicism, and Cultural Materialism. These theories are not only related to literature, they are also related to psychology, philosophy, history, and more. In this series, we will explore each of these theories in detail.

Literary theory is a set of concepts and ideas used to explain or interpret literary texts. It is sometimes called "critical theory" or "theory" and is now evolving into "cultural theory." Literary theory includes principles from analyzing texts internally or using external knowledge. It is the body of ideas and methods we use to read and understand literature practically.

Literary criticism involves studying, evaluating, and interpreting literary works. While literary theory provides a broader framework for analyzing literature, literary criticism offers readers new ways to understand an author's work. It helps to examine the text, uncovering layers of meaning and providing insights into the author's intentions and the work's impact.

Why do we criticise literary works? What Is the Purpose of Literary Criticism?

Literary criticism aims to improve a reader's understanding of an author's work by summarizing, interpreting, and evaluating its significance. After closely reading the text, a critic creates a detailed analysis that can inform or challenge another reader's perspective. This practice allows readers to appreciate the beauty and complexity of the world through literature.

Russian Formalism emerged in the early 20th century in Russia as a literary theory movement. This theory was developed by a group of literary scholars and linguists seeking new ways to analyse literature. At that time, traditional approaches to literary analysis focused on content and meaning, primarily emphasizing what literary works conveyed. However, the Russian Formalists aimed to change this perspective.

W

hen you write a story, how you tell that story is very important. Russian Formalists were interested not only in what a story says but also in how it is told. Just like when you draw a picture, it’s not just the colours that matter, but also how the lines and shapes are made. These people tried to understand the structure of stories. To them, the words, sounds, and rhythm of a story are just as important as the story itself.  That is: Russian Formalism is a literary theory that focuses not just on the content of literary works but on how language and structure are used. Formalists argue that the meaning of a work is determined not by what the author says, but by how they say it. According to this theory, the purpose of literature is to disrupt our usual ways of seeing and make us think in new ways. So, to understand the aesthetic value of a work, we should focus more on its narrative techniques, linguistic play, and formal structure rather than just the plot. In the rest of the article, I will analyse this theory with a literary work. 

• The name of the author is not important.
• The time in which the author lived is not important.
• Any cultural impact on the author’s life is not important.
• The political beliefs of the author are not important.
• The actual reader is not important.

Then, if we comprehend this theory, we may go into detail a bit.

There were two schools of Russian Formalism. The Moscow Linguistic Circle, led by Roman Jakobson, was formed in 1915; this group also included Osip Brik and Boris Tomashevsky. The second group, the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (Opoyaz), was founded in 1916, and its leading figures included Victor Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum, and Yuri Tynyanov. Other important critics associated with these movements included Leo Jakubinsky and the folklorist Vladimir Propp. Habib, M. A. R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to the present (p. 603). Blackwell Publishing.

In the 1910s, figures like Viktor Shklovsky and Roman Jakobson proposed a new way of examining literature. According to them, literature could not be evaluated solely based on the subject matter, characters, or messages of a work. What was crucial was how the author used language and how the structure of the narrative was shaped. Shklovsky's concept of "defamiliarization" (ostranenie) was central to this movement. He defends that the power of literature lies in presenting ordinary things in unusual and new ways, providing people to see the world differently.

The emergence of this theory was influenced by the belief that literary art could be analysed on a scientific basis. The Russian Formalists believed that literature should be examined through objective methods like science. Therefore, they focused on formal elements such as narrative structures, rhythm, sound, and the structure of language, drawing attention to the formal characteristics of literary works. This perspective marked a significant departure from traditional literary criticism, emphasizing not only the "what" but also the "how" of storytelling.

Shklovsky was a founding member of one of the two schools of Russian Formalism, the Society for the Study of Poetic Language, formed in 1916. His essay “Art as Technique” (1917) was one of the central statements of formalist theory. Like others in his group, he was denounced by Leon Trotsky for his formalist views. Habib, M. A. R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to the Present (p. 603). Blackwell Publishing.

Defamiliarization…

Shklovsky introduces a new concept of Russian Formalism.

Shklovsky indicates that over time, we get so used to the things around us that we stop really noticing them. For instance, you might see a tree every day and get so used to it that you do not pay attention to it anymore. Shklovsky explains this as remembering only a small part of something. That’s why, to truly understand something, we need to look at it in a new way as if we were seeing it for the first time. Then everything seems interesting again. To sum up, defamiliarization is one of the most important things in literature and art. Art and literature help us see the world in a new way. Literature shows us those familiar things again, in a different and interesting way. This way, we look at them carefully again and discover things we did not notice before.

Roman Jakobson played an important role in helping us understand literature and language. Along with Victor Shklovsky, he founded a group in 1916 that studied the language of poetry. This group aimed to teach how to analyse poems and writings. In 1926, Jakobson established another group in Czechoslovakia that focused on studying how language works. Later, he fled from Nazi danger and moved to America in 1941. There, he met another important scholar named Claude Lévi-Strauss, and in 1943, they co-founded a linguistic study group in New York. His ideas became significant first in France and then in America.

The term ‘literariness’ was first introduced by the Russian Formalist Roman Jacobson in 1921. He declared in his work Modern Russian Poetry that ‘the object of literary science is not literature but literariness, i.e. what makes a given work a literary work’ (Das 2005, p. 78).

Literariness is a feature that shows that a book or story is special. This feature separates that book from ordinary texts. For instance, in a song, artists use some special things like rhythm, rhyme, and repetition. That's why these features make a story or book more interesting.

Jakobson states: “Poetry and stories are about the beautiful use of words. Linguistics, on the other hand, is a science that studies how words are structured. Therefore, the art of writing poetry and stories is a part of language.” He also mentions that literary criticism (which involves personal opinions about books) is based on subjective views, whereas literary studies (which focus on carefully examining books) use more accurate information. In other words, to understand books, it’s important to analyse them carefully and focus on the words.

Mikhail Bakhtin is recognized as one of the most important literary thinkers of the 20th century. One of his best-known ideas is about the different and interesting ways language is used. He has some important concepts that explain how novels are written. These concepts include “dialogue,” which is how people talk to each other; “polyphony,” which means hearing different voices from different people in a story; and “carnival,” which refers to times when everyone is having fun and there are different rules. All of these ideas help us understand how people communicate with different languages and voices.

Bakhtin borrows the term "polyphony" from music to describe the different narrative voices in novels. In his book Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, he illustrates how multiple voices can work together, including the author's voice and the voices of the characters.

Another important term is "heteroglossia," which also refers to "polyphony." Bakhtin discusses this concept in his essay "Discourse in the Novel." This term expresses the idea that there are many different ways of speaking in society.

Additionally, "dialogism" is significant. It explains how meaning is created through the interactions between the writer, the characters in a novel, and the readers. According to Bakhtin, nothing exists meaningfully on its own; everything is understood through its relationships and interactions with other things. In other words, what everyone says to each other is very important.

A Checklist of Formalist Critical Questions

Structure and Organization

• How is the work structured or organized?
• How does it begin, progress, and end?
• What is the work’s plot, and how does the plot relate to its structure?

Characters

• Who are the major and minor characters, and what do they represent?
• What is the relationship of each part of the work to the whole?
• How are the parts related to one another?

Narration:

• Who is narrating or telling the story?
• How is the narrator, speaker, or character revealed to the readers?
• How do we come to know and understand this figure?

Setting

• What are the time and place of the work—its setting?
• How does the setting relate to the characters and their actions?
• To what extent is the setting symbolic?

Language and Imagery

• What kind of language does the author use to describe, narrate, explain, or create the literary world?
• Specifically, what images, similes, metaphors, and symbols appear in the work?
•  What is their function, and what meanings do they convey?

These questions can help readers analyse a literary work through a formalist lens, focusing on its structure, characters, narration, setting, and use of language.

Language and Structure

• The language of the sonnet is rich with imagery. It uses elements of summer and nature to discuss the nature of love. The comparison to a summer's day serves as a tool to emphasize the beauty.
• The poem is structured as a Shakespearean sonnet, consisting of 14 lines divided into three quatrains and a final couplet. The rhyme scheme is ABABCDCDEFEFGG, which is typical for Shakespearean sonnets.

Sound and Rhythm

• The sonnet is written in iambic pentameter. This rhythm creates a sense of fluidity for the reader and enhances its emotional impact.
• Alliteration and assonance within the poem strengthen the emotional tone. For instance, the sound similarity between "more" and "fair" enhances the musicality of the expression.

Defamiliarization

• The comparisons and images in the poem offer the reader a chance to think about the beloved's beauty in an unconventional way. For example, the phrase "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" reminds us that the warmth of summer is temporary, prompting a reflection on the permanence of love.

 

Meaning and Themes

Immortality and Beauty

• Shakespeare highlights the beloved's beauty while also stressing that this beauty can fade over time. However, through his works, this beauty becomes eternal.
• The expression "eternal summer" symbolizes the power of art and literature to make the ephemeral permanent.

Transience of Time

• The poem questions the transience of time and the permanence of love, offering the reader a profound opportunity for reflection. In this context, it reminds us of the value of time.