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.

The Phoenix of Egypt: The Legend of Rebirth

The Phoenix of Egypt: The Legend of Rebirth

During history, myths and legends have served as bridges between the tangible and the mystical, offering insight into the beliefs and values of ancient civilizations. Among these tales, the story of the phoenix, which is a mythical bird symbolizing rebirth and renewal, stands out as one of the most enduring and captivating. In ancient Egyptian culture, we come across plenty of animals such as cats, parrots, snakes and lions. However, there is a bird, which is divine. It is Phoenix. I shared the Mummification Process before, but I want to focus on Egypt's history more. While the phoenix is often associated with Greek mythology, its origins and variations can be traced to several ancient cultures, including Egypt. In this blog post, we explore the Egyptian version of this legendary creature and its profound symbolism.

The Egyptian Bennu Bird

In ancient Egyptian mythology, the Bennu bird is often considered the precursor to the Greek phoenix. Depicted as a heron with long legs and a striking plumage, the Bennu was deeply intertwined with the concepts of creation, life, and renewal. According to Egyptian beliefs, the Bennu emerged from the waters of chaos at the beginning of time, representing the spark of life and the cyclical nature of existence. The Bennu was closely linked to Ra, the sun god, and Osiris, the god of the afterlife. It was believed to embody the soul of Ra and served as a symbol of resurrection, much like Osiris himself. The bird’s association with the sun reinforced its connection to cycles- sunrise and sunset, death and rebirth.

The story of the Bennu bird shares similarities with later phoenix myths. According to legend, the Bennu bird would live for hundreds of years before building a nest of aromatic branches and spices. Once its time had come, it would set itself ablaze, only to rise anew from its ashes. This act of self-immolation and rebirth symbolized immortality and the eternal cycle of life, death, and regeneration.

Some versions of the tale suggest that the Bennu bird would fly to Heliopolis, known as the City of the Sun, to renew itself. Heliopolis was a significant religious centre in ancient Egypt, dedicated to worshipping Ra. The Bennu’s journey to this sacred city further emphasized its role as a divine messenger and a symbol of spiritual transformation.

The Bennu bird held deep symbolic meaning for ancient Egyptians. It represented not only physical rebirth but also spiritual renewal and hope. Its connection to Osiris made it a comforting figure in funerary traditions, offering assurance that life continued after death. The Bennu also symbolized resilience, the ability to rise again even after destruction or hardship. In Egyptian art and literature, the Bennu was often portrayed perched on a benben stone, a sacred pyramid-shaped stone associated with creation. This imagery reinforced its role as a harbinger of new beginnings.

The Bennu bird held deep symbolic meaning for ancient Egyptians. It represented not only physical rebirth but also spiritual renewal and hope. Its connection to Osiris made it a comforting figure in funerary traditions, offering assurance that life continued after death. The Bennu also symbolized resilience, the ability to rise again even after destruction or hardship. In Egyptian art and literature, the Bennu was often portrayed perched on a benben stone, a sacred pyramid-shaped stone associated with creation. This imagery reinforced its role as a harbinger of new beginnings.

Archetypal/Mythological Criticism: Recurrence in Literature

Archetypal/Mythological Criticism: Recurrence in Literature

The word archetype refers to any recurring image, character type, plot formula, or pattern of action. An archetype, then, is a kind of supertype, or model, different versions of which recur throughout the history of human production… (Tyson, L. (2015). Critical Theory Today (3rd ed., p. 211).

We are at the third blog, we have studied two blogs: Formalism (Russian) and New Criticism. When you read this blog, mo

st of you will consider that “I have already known that!” I have this topic in the Theory and Criticism of Literature. I have enjoyed it, so writing this topic will make me excited. Let’s start.

Before starting, I want to ask you that

All literary works should be unique?

Your answer now will show how you approach Archetypal Criticism.

Archetypal/Mythological Criticism suggests that when we look at literature, we find certain stories and characters that show up repeatedly, even across different cultures. It is as if we all know the same fundamental stories, and these stories connect us to each other. For instance, a hero setting out on a journey, facing evil, and returning with new wisdom is a pattern we see in many tales and myths. These common themes and characters are what we call “archetypes.” The hero, the guide, the villain, or even elements like nature are universal figures that hold meaning for all of us.

Frye's archetypal criticism focuses on identifying and analysing recurring narrative patterns, symbols, and character types in literature. By examining these archetypes, Frye believed we could uncover the universal themes and structures that support Western literature. This method highlights how certain stories and patterns resonate across different cultures and periods, revealing the shared human experiences and emotions that these archetypes represent.

Archetypes function as structural models that generate various versions of themselves, maintaining the same underlying structure despite different surface phenomena. This means that while the specific content of romances, tragedies, ironic/satiric narratives, and comedies may differ, their fundamental structures remain consistent. Archetypes provide a framework that shapes the narrative elements, allowing for diverse expressions while preserving a core pattern. This structural consistency is what makes archetypes so powerful and universal in literature.

Carl Jung's studies of mythology, religion, ancient symbols, and the customs of primitive people led him to several key conclusions.

• Causality and Teleology: Human behaviour is influenced not only by individual and racial history (causality) but also by future goals and aspirations (teleology). Both past experiences and future potentials shape present behaviour.

• Creative Development: Jung believed in the constant and often creative development of individuals, driven by the search for wholeness, completion, and rebirth.

• Ancestral Influence: He saw individual personality as a product of ancestral history. Modern humans are shaped by the cumulative experiences of past generations, extending back to the origins of humanity. These foundations are archaic, primitive, innate, unconscious, and likely universal.

• Inherited Predispositions: Humans are born with many predispositions inherited from their ancestors.

• Inner and Outer Forces: An individual's personality results from the interaction of inner forces (such as instincts and unconscious drives) and outer forces (such as social and environmental influences).

• The Persona: This is the mask we wear to meet the expectations of society and our own inner needs. It is the public face we show to the world, often concealing our true nature.

• The Anima and Animus: These represent the feminine and masculine aspects of each person. The anima is the feminine side in men, and the animus is the masculine side in women. These archetypes reflect the influence of the opposite sex on our psyche, shaped by our interactions with the opposite gender throughout history.

• The Shadow: This consists of our primal, animal instincts inherited from our evolutionary past. It embodies the darker aspects of our personality, such as unpleasant thoughts and actions. When projected outward, the shadow can appear as an enemy or a devil.

• The Self: This represents the total personality, the central point around which all other systems are organized. It provides unity, equilibrium, and stability to the personality, motivating our behaviour and driving the search for wholeness, often through spiritual or religious means.

Jung's theories on self-realization and individuation are central to his understanding of human development. He believed that individuals are constantly striving to progress from a less complete stage to a more complete one, with the ultimate goal being self-realization. This means achieving the fullest and most harmonious integration of all aspects of one's personality, where the self takes precedence over the ego.

• Individuation is the process by which this development occurs. It involves the differentiation and full development of various systems of personality. Neglected or underdeveloped systems can create resistance, so for a healthy, integrated personality, every system must be allowed to reach its fullest potential.

• Symbolization plays a crucial role in this process. Symbols are embodiments of archetypal material and represent the psyche. They carry the accumulated wisdom of humanity, both racial and individual. To understand the knowledge contained in a symbol, one must decipher it, as it often holds important messages that are not directly known to the conscious mind. The creation of symbols is driven by both a motivating force and an attracting force, reflecting the dynamic nature of the psyche.

The monomyth, or the hero's journey, is a universal narrative pattern found in literature. It often follows a circular structure and can take various forms, such as:

• The Quest: A hero embarks on a journey to achieve a goal, facing obstacles and temporary defeats before ultimately succeeding. An example is Abraham's quest for a son.

• The Death-Rebirth Motif: A hero experiences death or danger and then returns to life or safety. The story of Jesus is a classic example.

• The Initiation: A character is thrust out of an ideal situation and undergoes a series of ordeals, encountering various forms of evil or hardship for the first time. The story of Joseph illustrates this pattern.

• The Journey: Characters face danger and grow as they move from one place to another.

• Tragedy: Often involves a fall from innocence, as seen in the stories of Adam and Eve.

• Comedy: A U-shaped story that starts in prosperity, descends into tragedy, but ends happily as obstacles are overcome.

• Crime & Punishment: Focuses on the consequences of wrongdoing.

• The Temptation: Someone falls victim to an evil tempter or temptress.

• The Rescue: A character is saved from danger or distress.

• The Suffering Servant or Scapegoat Pattern: A character undergoes unmerited suffering to secure the welfare of others, like in the stories of Joseph and Jesus.

1)    The Young Hero

• Unusual or Prophesied Birth: Often born under extraordinary circumstances.

• Remarkable Courage: Displays bravery beyond the ordinary.

• Princely Status: Often of noble birth or destined for greatness.

• Struggles with Pride or Impatience: Faces internal conflicts.

• Boredom with Current Situation: Feels a sense of restlessness.

2)    During their journey, the Young Hero

• Performs Impossible Tasks

• Battles Monsters

• Solves Unanswerable Riddles

• Overcomes Insurmountable Obstacles

• Saves a Kingdom

• Marries a Princess

3)    The Sacrificial Scapegoat

• Hero Figure: Represents the welfare of the tribe or nation.

• Must Die to Atone: Sacrifices themselves to restore balance or fertility.

• Savior or Deliverer: Becomes a figure of salvation.

4)    The Wise Old Man (Helper or Guide Figure)

• Savior or Redeemer: Embodies wisdom and spirituality.

• Possesses Knowledge and Insight: Offers guidance and tests the hero's moral qualities.

• Surrogate Father: Acts as a mentor and assists the hero on their journey.

5)    The Devil Figure

• Opposes the Hero and Wise Old Man: Represents chaos and evil.

• Fights the Hero: Engages in spiritual, psychological, or physical battles.

• Personifies Negative Traits: Embodies corruption, deceit, and selfishness.

 

Female Figures

1)    The Good Mother

• Represents Life and Nourishment: Symbolizes fertility, growth, and protection.

• Maternal Support: Provides care and support to the hero.

2)    The Terrible Mother

• Represents Danger and Darkness: Embodies fear, death, and the terrifying aspects of the unconscious.

• The counterpart to the Devil Figure: Often depicted as a witch or sorceress.

3)    The Soul Mate

• Inspiration and Fulfilment: Represents spiritual fulfilment and often appears as a princess or beautiful lady.

These archetypes help us understand the universal patterns and themes that resonate across different cultures and periods. They provide a framework for analysing the deeper meanings and connections within literary works.

Archetypal Images

• Water: Symbolizes the mystery of creation, birth/death/resurrection, purification/redemption, fertility/growth, and the unconscious.

• Sun: Represents creative energy, law in nature, consciousness, enlightenment, and wisdom.

• Tree: Stands for life, consistency, growth, proliferation, generative and regenerative processes, inexhaustible life, and immortality.

• Circle/Sphere: Signifies wholeness and unity.

• Serpent/Snake/Worm: Embodies evil, corruption, sensuality, destruction, mystery, wisdom, and the unconscious.

Strengths of Archetypal Criticism

• Focus on Symbols: It emphasizes the meanings of symbols in literature, which are often used to convey significant events and themes.

• Universal Feelings and Ideas: It helps in teaching and expressing universal feelings, beliefs, and ideas, closely linked with psychological theories and criticism. This explains why literature resonates deeply with readers.

Weaknesses of Archetypal Criticism

• Reductionistic and Formulaic: Some critics argue that it is too reductionistic and formulaic, often excluding other sources or criticisms.

• Neglect of Literary Individuality: It may ignore the individuality of literary works by focusing too much on cycles and patterns. Not all literature contains symbolism; some are written purely for enjoyment.

• Overlap with Other Fields: Critics argue that archetypal approaches can also be covered in psychology, anthropology, comparative religion, and other fields. Symbols can have multiple meanings, leading to interpretations that may differ from the author's intentions.