‘Structuralism and Literary Criticism’ – Gerard Genette
Critical Summary
Introduction
Gerard Genette is
the most important French literary theorist after Roland Barthes. Genette is
primarily associated with Structuralism, especially for reintroducing a new
rhetorical vocabulary into literary criticism - terms as narratology, trope and
metonymy, etc. In this essay, Gerard Genette puts forward Structuralist
Criticism as a profound and valuable contribution to Literary Criticism.
Structuralist Thinking: The world is Made Up of
Relationships and Not Things
Now, how does this sign get its meaning? |
According to the
renowned structuralist Terence Hawkes, ‘The true nature of things may be said
to lie not in things themselves, but in the relationships which we construct,
and then perceive, between them. This new concept, that the world is made up of
relationships rather than things, constitutes the first principle of that way
of thinking which can properly be called ‘structuralist’.
Hence, the essence of
Structuralism is the belief that ‘things cannot be understood in isolation,
they have to be seen in the context of larger
structures they are part of’. In this context it is interesting to know
that Gerard Genette proposed the term ‘transtextuality’ as a more inclusive
term, along with paratextuality, hypertextuality, architextuality,
metatextuality, etc.
The Focus of Structuralism: Not on Individual Works but on Larger Structures behind it
Meaning is not found in Individual Works but in Larger Structures behind it |
Since, larger structures are formed by our way
of perceiving the world, in structuralist criticism, consequently, there is a constant
movement away from the interpretation of the individual literary work towards
understanding the larger structures which contain them. For example, a
structuralist analysis of Browning’s poem “My Last Dutchess” necessitates more
focus on the relevant genre – the dramatic monologue, and the concept of
courtly love, Aristocracy in Renaissance Italy, etc., rather than on the close
reading of the formal elements of the text.
Structuralists
firmly believe that all human activity is constructed, not natural or “essential.”
Hence, they focus their attention on systems/codes that give meaning to any
human activity. Language is one such code. By doing so, structuralists embark
on the massive project of giving literary criticism the rigour of a science of language. Its historical
origins are in Russian Formalist criticism and the Linguistics of Saussure.
The
Objective of ‘Poetics’ is not the Text but the Architext
The single
objective that guided Gerard Genette in his quest was the study of poetics.
Poetics may be defined as the study of shared or shareable properties of
literary works, in contrast to the study of individual works. Hence, Gérard
Genette asserts that the object of poetics is not the text, but the architext - the transcendent categories
(literary genres, modes of enunciation, and types of discourse, among others)
to which each individual text belongs, and thus seeking to link these
categories in a system embracing the entire field of literature.
Structuralist
criticism aims at forming a poetics or
the science of literature from a study of literary works.
Literary
Criticism as Intellectual Bricolage: Literary Critic as Bricoleur
Gerard Genette
writes at the outset in his essay ‘Structuralism and Literary Criticism’ that
methods developed for the study of one discipline could be satisfactorily
applied to the study of other discipline as well. This is what he calls “intellectual
bricolage’, borrowing a term from Claude Levi-Strauss. This is precisely so, so
far as structuralism is concerned.
Distinction between the Critic and the Artist
Genette first
introduces the good structuralist conception of the bricoleur as opposed to the
engineer; it will turn out that a critic is a bricoleur, working with what is at
hand. Genette turns the artist into the engineer. Genette then makes the point
that as literary criticism uses language to speak of language use, it is in
fact a metaliterature, a literature on a literature. The distinction between
the critic and the writer lies not only in the secondary and limited character
of the critical material (literature) as opposed to the unlimited and primary
character of the poetic or fictional material (the universe).
The Critic as a Structuralist
The writer works
by means of concepts and the critic by means of signs. the dual function of the
critic’s work, which is to produce meaning with the work of others, but also to
produce his own work out of this meaning. If such a thing as ‘critical poetry’
exists, therefore, it is in the sense in which Lévi-Strauss speaks of a ‘poetry
of bricolage’: just as the bricoleur ‘speaks through things,’ the critic
speaks-in the full sense, that is to say, speaks up-through books, and we will
paraphrase Lévi-Strauss once more by saying that ‘without ever completing his
project he always puts something of himself into it.’
In this sense,
therefore, one can regard literary criticism as a ‘structuralist activity’
The
critic reads Literature as Signs and hence as Cultural Production
The critic is secondary to the writer, a
bricoleur to the writer’s engineer, but in a position therefore to be primary
in the analysis of culture. The critic treats as signs what the writer is
creating as concept: the attitude, the disposition is different. The critic in
reading literature as signs is reading it as a cultural production, constructed
according to various preconceptions, routines, traditions and so forth of that
culture. The critic does not ignore the meaning, but treats it as mediated by signs, as there is no
attachment to anything beyond the sign.
Rediscovering
the Message in the Code
Structuralist
method as such is constituted at the very moment when one rediscovers the
message in the code, uncovered by an
analysis of the immanent structures and not imposed from the outside by ideological
prejudices, whereas Poststructuralists will deny that anything can be innocent
of ideology.
Structuralism
Is About Meaning, Not Just About Form
Genette tries to
emphasise the fact that structuralism is not just about form alone, but also about
meaning, since linguistics is about meaning. It is a study of the cultural
construction of meaning according to the relations of signs that constitute the
meaning-system of the culture. Finally in this section, Genette looks forward
to structural analysis at the more macro level of the text, of the analysis of
narratives.
Language Acquisition for a Child and
Literature Acquisition for a Man
We know that the
acquisition of language by a child proceeds not by a simple extension of
vocabulary, but by a series of internal segmentations that the child makes for
itself. At each stage, the few words at its disposal are for the child the
whole of language and it uses them to designate everything, with increasing
precision. Similarly, for a man who has read only one book, this book is for
him the whole of ‘literature,’ in the primary sense of the term; when he has
read two, these two books will share his entire literary field, with no gap
between them, and so on.
The Literature of
mankind as a whole can be regarded as constituted by a similar process –
literary ‘production’ being parole,
and the ‘consumption’ of this literature by society as a langue.
The nineteenth
century, forgot to take into account this totality – this coherence of the
whole, but rather concentrated on the individual history of works and of their
authors.
As literature is
a system, no individual work of literature is an autonomous whole; similarly,
literature itself is not autonomous but is part of the larger structures of
signification of the culture.
Conclusion
To Genette, when
literature is taken as a whole, it would be easy to add to it, everything that
is not literature also, for example, the relation between literature and social
life as a whole. Hence literariness is also a function of non-literariness, and
hence no stable definition can be given of the term ‘literariness’. Everyone
knows that the birth of the cinema altered the status of literature, by
depriving it of some of its functions, but also by giving literature some of
its means. Similarly, the meaning of an individual work is ultimately and
inevitably only the meaning within a larger frame of cultural meanings, and
these meanings change in relation to one another across time and cultures. A
structural analysis of the construction of cultural meaning can thence replace
the meaning of the individual instance, the particular work, while the meaning
of the individual work is illumined and rendered more fully significant by
being read in the context of its full systemic, cultural meaning.
If literature has
to survive the development of other media of communication, literature should
stop approaching it as being ‘self-evident’, ‘autonomous’, ‘self-contained,’
and ‘self-dependent’, but rather reach across frontiers, and access the non-literary
into the literary, wherein lies the success of the Structuralist Approach to
Literary criticism.
*****
Image courtesy -
Olga Unal &
FoxSports.com
Sincere thanks to
Brock University's academic site at brocku.ca for their valuable inputs.
Sincere thanks to
Brock University's academic site at brocku.ca for their valuable inputs.
Could you send the link for the original essay "Structuralism and Literary Criticism"?
ReplyDelete