Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of structuralism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Strengths and weaknesses of structuralism
In what ways has structuralism impacted on literary criticism?
Since the mid twentieth century, the rise of structuralist methodology in literary theory has created seismic shifts opening up the study of text to cultural study and assisting in the development of other theories such as poststructuralism, feminism and postcolonialism. Structuralism challenged the idea of a politically detached study of text, epitomised in the then dominant new/practical criticism approaches. It reinforced the challenge to the tradition of the Leavisite canon already under attack with feminist writers, and encouraged the development of other critical theories which have radically influenced the study of literature today. Traditional literary criticism would be seen as inadequate for many later thinkers such as Eagleton (cited in Pope, 2002, p. 87) who would call it a "recipe for political inertia."
This essay will give a brief history of the development of literary theory in order to show how the study of literature came to be thought of as something which could be removed from political or cultural context, detached in a sense from its relationship with power. It will argue that the rise of structuralism and other critical theories in recent decades has convincingly challenged this idea that there can be any sort of politically disinterested approach to the study of literature. Text, in its many forms, is inextricably involved with power, as captured in that old saying: The pen is mightier than the sword. It is the way in which the knowledge and mores of the culture are transmitted, transformed and even subverted.
The Good Book(s)
For much of its early history in the West, literary expression was controlled by the Church, and principa...
... middle of paper ...
.... (1967). Matthew Arnold. London: Collier-Macmillan Limited.
Lye, J.Some Elements of Structuralism and its Application to Literary Theory. Retrieved 25/3/2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.se.unisa.edu.au/vc/59-structuralism.html
Lyotard, J. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Mineapolis: Minnesota University Press.
McCormick, K., Waller, G., & Flower, L. (1987). Reading Texts: Reading, Responding, Writing. Massachussetts: D.C. Heath and Company.
Pope, R. (2002). The English Studies Book (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Selden, R., & Widdowson, P. (1993). A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (3rd ed.). London and New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Simms, M. (2003). Introduction to Written Texts Eng00400: Study Guide. Lismore: Southern Cross University.
" The Southern Literary Journal 17.2 (Spring 1985): 54-66. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed.
Writing with Readings and Handbook. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2013. 52-57. Print.
Murphy, B. & Shirley J. The Literary Encyclopedia. [nl], August 31, 2004. Available at: http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=2326. Access on: 22 Aug 2010.
in Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Jeffrey W. Hunter, Ph.D. Vol. 235. The.
Among its detractors, literary theory has a reputation for sinful ignorance of both literature and the outside world; literary critics either overemphasize the word at the expense of context (as in formalistic criticisms) or overemphasize context at the expense of the word (as in political and historical criticisms). However, deconstruction holds a particularly tenuous position among literary theories as a school that apparently commits both sins; while formalistically focusing on the words on the page, deconstruction subjects those words to unnatural abuse. Thus, deconstruction seems locked in the ivory tower, in the company of resentful New-Critical neighbors.
Heberle, Mark. "Contemporary Literary Criticism." O'Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. Vol. 74. New York, 2001. 312.
Guerin, Wilford L. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1979.
Parker, Robert Dale. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford, 2011. Print.
Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism. (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. 2003
"Neoclassicism." A Guide to the Study of Literature: A Companion Text for Core Studies. Comp. English Department Brooklyn College. 6th ed. Landmarks of Literature. Brooklyn College. Web. 9 Dec. 2013. .
The notion of the author has often been disputed when it comes to critical literary studies. The argument centers around one basic question: Should the author be considered when looking at a text? There are numerous reasons given as to why the author is important or why the ...
Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: an Anthology. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. 365-77. Print.
In his essay dated 1968, Roland Barthes sought to convince the individual reader that the author is obsolete; writers only have the capacity to draw upon existing themes (or structures) and reassemble them in a different order. This typically structuralist view completely defies a writer's ability to express himself through unique, individual stories leading many to term the approach as 'anti-humanistic'. Barthes clearly drew influence from Northrop Frye, author of 'Anatomy of Criticism', who outlined these repeated narratives as the comic, romantic, tragic and ironic. In turn these corresponded respectively to the four seasons, compiling what Terry Eagleton refers to as 'a cyclical theory of literary history'. It would seem through this that Frye achieved his ultimate aim, by creating a critical theory that was objective and systematic. To summarise, Frye and most structuralists soug...
Structuralism was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure in the mid-twentieth century (Cuddon and Preston 923). This creation was brought on, in part, by the French existentialism period and is often combined with the semiotic theory of literary criticism; both are the source of development for other literary criticisms from the formalist schools of thought. As the name suggests, structuralism examines the structure of the work, investigating the ramifications of the organizations of literatures (McManus, 1998). As an image to portray this idea is examining the structure of a building and comparing it to the structures of other buildings in its surroundings, and then subsequently comparing the common features of those buildings to buildings from other cultures and what those architectural discrepancies represent (Brizee and Tompkins, 2011).
Literary criticism is used as a guideline to help analyze, deconstruct, interpret, or even evaluate literary works. Each type of criticism offers its own methods that help the reader to delve deeper into the text, revealing all of its innermost features. New Criticism portrays how a work is unified, Reader-Response Criticism establishes how the reader reacts to a work, Deconstructive Criticism demonstrates how a work falls apart, Historical Criticism illustrates how the history of the author and the author’s time period influence a text, and last of all, Psychological Criticism expresses how unconscious motivations drive the author in the creation of their work as well as how the reader’s motivations influence their own interpretation of the text (Lynn 139, 191). This creates a deep level of understanding of literature that simply cannot be gained through surface level reading. If not one criticism is beneficial to the reader, then taking all criticisms or a mixture of specific criticisms into consideration might be the best way to approach literary