structure

Why We Read

Generally speaking, a structuralist reads to identify and understand fundamental
structures and patterns in absolutely anything by seeing a text (object, event,
document, action, etc.) as part of an even larger system. Of course, a literary
structuralist focuses on "literary" structures (and a structuralist would help
define and categorize the "literary" by studying the deep structure in texts we
label "literary"). As with formalism, structuralism is pseudo-scientific because a
structuralist supposedly only maps what is there. She does not evaluate; she
only charts, compares, and identifies patterns among structures. A grammarian
is a perfect example of a structuralist because she doesn't care about the
content of the sentences she maps. She cares about how certain words
function within a sentence. A structuralist does the exact same thing; she wants
to map the "grammar" of the text she studies, thereby being able to learn about
the larger system, patterns, or principles that enable us to create sentences in
the first place. But why even do this? Structuralists still have enough humanist
residue on them to study for the sake of knowledge, and there is a pleasure
when we understand the "fundamental" structure of anything and make
connections between texts. Many structuralists also believe that the patterns
and structures we identify in texts are structures that govern human experience
and human consciousness. Thus, learning about literary texts helps us learn
about ourselves. Finally, understanding the fundamental principle or structure of
a group of texts helps us to generate texts of that kind or even generate texts
that parody or even disrupt the pattern. For example, once I understand the
fundamental structure of a "mystery novel" I can then spin out more mysteries,
parody the genre, or write an "anti-mystery."

What We Read

Structuralist theory not only reveals that "literature" is a human construct (not an
inherent or essential category), but that everything we perceive is a "text" in that
everything that has meaning is part of a sign system or "language." If something
is "meaningless," then that means that we have yet to integrate or incorporate
the text within a system. For example, the Columbine massacre in Denver is
"meaningless" until someone can persuade others that the deaths are really the
result of too many guns, bad parenting, media violence, inadequate security,
facsist ideology, American culture, God's plan, or apocalyptic fears, etc.
Notice that each potential answer is really an attempt to take a chaotic, random
event and give it meaning by assigning it value within a system or context.

Structuralists are willing to read any kind of text, object, image, or action, for
all of these items are "texts" and are part of sign systems. From a literary text,
velvet painting, car design, or mass murder, to a celebrity's face, an ancient
culture, or a Madonna video, all are part of larger sign systems. In fact, this
ability to move from one system to another is what makes structuralism so
useful. One can choose to focus on "literary" systems or link "literary" systems
to other systems (economic, philosophical, biological, scientific), but that move
takes us toward cultural studies.

How We Read

There is a wide range of structuralist projects and theorists, but they all share a
desire to understand the underlying system of what they are studying. My
suggestions will help you construct a basic structuralist analysis that will prepare
the way for other structuralist and structuralist-inspired projects.

The most basic question is, "What is the deep structure of the text and
how does this structure help us understand other items of its kind?" Or,
"What is the underlying principle or structure that governs texts of this
kind?" Notice that both of these questions ask you to map the fundamental
structure of a text and link it to other texts, not at the level of content, but at the
level of deep structure.

Prewriting Strategies...

Make two charts. The first chart is in the shape of a two columns and identifies
"binary oppositions"--the values, actions, and beliefs that the text valorizes and
devalorizes. Remember, by valorized, I mean what does the text, not you,
seems to champion, celebrate, or privilege and by devalorize I mean what the
text, not you, seems to critique, challenge, disparage, or undermine. Begin by
placing characters, settings, and actions, and then think of how these
characters, settings, and actions are coded, thus moving from the literal to the
metaphorical and abstract. For example, in Blake's poem "Garden of Love,"
Blake included terms like "green," "Garden," and "flowers," but these terms
also seem to suggest "fertility," "growth," "nature," "life," "Eden," etc. In other
words, include the connotations of the key words and concepts along with the
key terms. How does the text "code" behaviors and qualities? Which ones are
priviledged? What ones are disparaged?

The second chart identifies parallels, patterns, repetitions, echoes, contrasts,
and cause and effect relationships within the text. Remember that you are
reducing the text to a visual chart that indicates the fundamental structure of
relations in plot, character, setting, imagery, and anything else you deem
relevant. Be a map maker, a literary cartographer! The easiest way to begin is
to identify cause and effect relationships at a literal level in that you will list
characters names, specific actions, and specific results. For example, in Blake's
"Garden of Love," I might create a chart like this:

Once you identify this basic narrative structure, translate the events into more
abstract or general functions. I would translate the above chart this way:

This is pretty basic, and you will need to do a lot more, but the idea is to
identify a structure that would remain even if you changed time, place, gender,
race, social class, etc. While "chapel" functions as the oppressive force in
Blake's poem, I could easily replace "chapel" with "school" and change the
imagery from priests and tombstones to teachers and worksheets, but for a
structuralist, I would still have the "same" poem because the deep structure
remains constant. Consider another example...you've probably heard about a
"hero's quest." This deep structure or fundamental plot is the basis of thousands
of stories. To be more specific, in a hero's quest, there are five basic parts: (1)
call to action, (2) a period of tutoring, (3) a period of temptations and
obstacles, (4) the moment of victory, and (5) the return home. This is the basic
structure of about every action-adventure film, from James Bond films, to Star
Wars, to Braveheart, to Arnold Schwartznagger (sp) films, and so on. In fact,
the idea of "genre" (action-adventure, mystery, romance, gangster, etc.) is a
useful model because you can have the fundamental building blocks, and it
doesn't matter whether the hero is male or female, medieval monk or futuristic
cop, child or adult. What does matter is the structure and the relationship
between characters. The temptation may come from a seductive woman or
from a father who appeals to the hero's desire for power, but it doesn't matter
because both the woman and the father serve the same function or role in the
story. They are coded as "tempters."

A final thought...Structuralist interpretation depends heavily on your ability to
make connections, and this ability will improve as you read, study, and
observe. One could argue that education is the process of learning to make
connections. More connections become possible as you learn more. For
example, I can't connect a Nike ad with Greek mythology if I have never read
Greek myths--but I still need a way of seeing that helps me connect the two.
Enter structuralism.

Writing Suggestions:

Part One: "Identify Patterns and Deep Structure"

Once you complete your prewriting, you can begin writing by making a claim
about the fundamental deep structure in the text you are studying. For example,
I might argue something like..."Although Blake's "Garden of Love" seems to
critique religion, the poem is really about any form of institutional control." Or,
"Although Blake's "Garden of Love" seems to critique religion, the poem at its
most basic level is about the movement from innocence to maturity." Notice
that both claims assert something about the basic structure of the text and move
from specific details to more general concepts. Once you make your claim,
provide your charts and walk your reader through the charts. Point out how
certain characters, setting, actions, and imagery function. In other words,
characters, settings, actions, and imagery have no inherent meaning, but they
gain meaning once they are contrasted with other characters, setting, actions,
and imagery. Again, identity and value depend on binary oppositions.

Part Two: Make Connections

Once you have identified the deep structure in one text, link it to at least one
other text. (You could easily combine parts one and two by making a claim
early on about the relationship between texts. For example, "Despite Blake's
prolific writing career, when we look at the deep structures of his poems, we
see that he only wrote one poem: a moment of innocence is always destroyed
by socialization.")

There are several ways to link texts: You could be a ...

...literary critic and link your text with other "literary" texts (with texts within
the same collection, by the same author, by the author's contemporaries, within
the same genre, within the same time period). Even if you are focusing on a so-
called non-literary text like an advertisement, you can link it to the "literary"
tradition (i.e. both texts employ the same narrative strategy or pattern of
images), or you may want to link your text to whatever "genre" it belongs to
(i.e. ads with other ads; novels with other novels; confessional poetry with
other confessional poetry). Again, the point of analyzing a text is to shed light
on the larger system. So if your text is a short story, then say something about
the nature of all short stories. If your text is a poem by Blake, say something
about a group of Blake's poems.

Importantly, the most interesting essays make surprising connections, so extend
yourself. For example, Alan Gopnik linked The Starr Report (the one about
Clinton and Lewinsky) with the 18th-century novel Pamela by Richardson.
How so? Well, they both share the same deep structure.

... myth critic (albeit related to a literary critic because myths are arguably
"literary" texts) and link your text with some myth, ancient or contemporary.
That is, you can link a text to the myth of Apollo or to some specific American
myth (i.e. the Western cowboy as a symbol of freedom, etc.). Please note
there is more involved in myth criticism than I imply, but myth critics are, at the
core, structuralists. (And structuralism helped me make that conclusion
because I look at what literary critics do and what myth critics do and lo and
behold, they share the same fundamental structure!) Thanks to his books and
TV shows, Joseph Campbell is probably the most famous of myth scholars.
Thanks to his Anatomy of Criticism, Northrup Frye is the most famous
literary myth critic. Although a kind of psychologist, Carl Jung also provides a
useful framework to discuss myth in literary texts. All three of these guys
provide frameworks or maps of basic story structures that we can use to make
sense of other texts.

... cultural critic (more to come on this subject later) links texts with a more
abstract structure like an economic system, social system, ideology, etc.

In sum, what you are doing is connecting one deep structure or fundamental
pattern with another. Structuralists are similar to New Critics in that New
Critics also locate patterns, map structure, identify tensions, etc. but New
Critics don't go beyond the text they study. The system they study is the text
before them, nothing more. Their text is a discreet object, living an orphaned
life. For the structuralists, however, the text belongs always and inevitably to a
family. The text is always part of larger systems, and one can't begin to study it
without studying the larger systems. In fact, a poem can't even be a poem
unless we acknowledge that it's part of a larger system and shares fundamental
traits, attributes, and structures with other texts that we call poems whose
fundamental traits, attributes and structures differ from those texts we call
fiction or plays or advertisements.