This website is dedicated to English Literature, Literary Criticism, Literary Theory, English Language and its teaching and learning.
“Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes: From The Rustle of Language
“Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes: From The Rustle of Language first appeared in 1967 as part of his essay collection Critique et vérité (Criticism and Truth).
Introduction: “Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes
“Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes: From The Rustle of Language first appeared in 1967 as part of his essay collection Critique et vérité (Criticism and Truth). It was later translated into English and included in the 1977 collection Image Music Text. This essay is significant in literature and literary theory for its exploration of the relationship between scientific and literary language. Barthes argues that while science aims for transparency and neutrality in language, literature embraces the richness and ambiguity of language to create meaning. This contrast highlights the unique role of literature in challenging and expanding our understanding of the world. The essay also anticipates Barthes’ later work on semiotics and the social construction of meaning, making it a key text in structuralist and post-structuralist thought.
Summary of “Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes
Science is socially determined: Science is not defined by its content, method, or morality, but by its social status as the knowledge deemed worthy of transmission and teaching. “What defines science…is…its social determination: the object of science is any material society deems worthy of being transmitted.”
Literature encompasses all knowledge: Unlike the compartmentalized nature of scientific disciplines, literature offers a unified vision of the world, incorporating social, psychological, and historical knowledge into its narratives. “The world of the work is a total world, in which all (social, psychological, historical) knowledge takes place.”
Both science and literature are methodical: While often perceived as unstructured or intuitive, literature possesses its own methodologies, research programs, and investigative rules, similar to scientific disciplines, though varying across schools and periods. “Like science, literature is methodical: it has its programs of research…its rules of investigation.”
Science treats language as a neutral instrument: Science prioritizes clarity and objectivity in language, viewing it as a mere tool for conveying factual information and minimizing its expressive or aesthetic qualities. “For science, language is merely an instrument, which it chooses to make as transparent, as neutral as possible.”
Literature sees language as its essence: In contrast to science, literature recognizes language as its fundamental building block, the very material from which its artistic creations are formed. Language in literature is not simply a means of communication but the very substance of its being. “For literature…language is the being of literature, its very world.”
The fundamental difference lies in their approach to language: The essential distinction between science and literature is their differing attitudes towards language. Science aims to minimize linguistic ambiguity and subjectivity, while literature embraces the full expressive potential of language, including its ambiguities and nuances. “Being essentially on a certain way of taking language—in the former case dodged and in the latter assumed—the opposition between science and literature is of primal and eternal importance.”
Structuralism can bridge the gap by becoming writing: Barthes suggests that structuralism, a method of analysis derived from linguistics, can transcend its scientific limitations by engaging in the act of writing itself. This would allow structuralism to fully embrace the complexity and creativity of language, similar to literature. “It remains therefore for the structuralist to transform himself into a ‘writer’…in order to rejoin where the crucial problems of any speech-act…”
Writing acknowledges subjectivity: Unlike scientific discourse, which often strives for impersonal objectivity, writing recognizes the inherent subjectivity of language and the author’s presence within the text. Every act of writing is shaped by the individual’s perspective and experiences. “Every speech-act supposes its own subject.”
Writing encompasses the totality of language: Writing, in Barthes’ view, has the capacity to explore the full spectrum of language, including its diverse codes, contradictions, and creative potential. Unlike scientific language, which often limits itself to a specific subset of linguistic possibilities, writing embraces the entirety of language’s expressive power. “Only writing effectuates language in its totality.”
Writing embraces pleasure: While science may prioritize truth and objectivity, writing acknowledges the importance of pleasure in the linguistic experience. It recognizes that language can be a source of enjoyment, playfulness, and aesthetic appreciation, not just a tool for conveying information. “Last, between science and writing, there is a third margin, which science must reconquer—that of pleasure.”
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes
Term/Concept
Definition
Explanation
Social Determination
The idea that society determines what is considered science and what knowledge is valuable.
Science is defined by what society deems worthy of being taught and transmitted, not by its content or method.
An analytical approach derived from linguistics, focusing on the structures underlying cultural phenomena.
Structuralism seeks to understand the “language” of literary forms, analyzing their organization and classification.
Writing vs. Science
The distinction between literature (writing) and science in their approach to language.
Literature embraces language and its complexities, while science tries to minimize the influence of language on its content.
Rhetoric
The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.
Structuralism sees rhetoric as an early attempt to classify and analyze forms of speech and discourse.
Pleasure of Text
The concept that literature provides pleasure beyond mere truth or information.
Literature aims to create an enjoyable experience through the use of language, contrasting with the factual focus of science.
Contribution of “Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes in Literary Theory
Challenged the Binary Opposition: Barthes questioned the traditional hierarchical distinction between science and literature, arguing that both are forms of discourse with unique approaches to language.
Highlighted the Role of Language: Emphasized the significance of language in both scientific and literary endeavors, revealing how language shapes our understanding of the world in different ways.
Expanded the Scope of Structuralism: Applied structuralist principles to literary analysis, demonstrating how literature, like language, operates through underlying structures and systems of meaning.
Advocated for “Writing” as a Critical Practice: Proposed that literary critics should engage in the act of writing (“writing”) to fully understand and critique literary works, not just analyze them as external objects.
Explored the Subjectivity of Language: Challenged the notion of scientific objectivity in language, arguing that all language, including scientific discourse, is inherently subjective and shaped by cultural and ideological factors.
Championed the Pleasure of Language: Celebrated the aesthetic and playful aspects of language in literature, contrasting it with the utilitarian approach to language often found in scientific discourse.
Anticipated Post-Structuralism: Laid the groundwork for post-structuralist theories by questioning fixed meanings and emphasizing the fluidity and multiplicity of interpretations in literary texts.
Inspired Interdisciplinary Approaches: Encouraged scholars to bridge the gap between science and literature, fostering interdisciplinary research that examines the intersections and overlaps between these two domains.
Examples of Critiques Through “Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes
Literary Work
Critique Example
Explanation
Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
Scientific Language Critique: Analyzes how Flaubert uses precise and neutral language to dissect bourgeois life, reflecting scientific objectivity.
Barthes would critique how Flaubert’s detailed and objective narrative style mirrors scientific methodologies and neutrality.
Ulysses by James Joyce
Structuralism and Form: Examines the structuralist elements in Joyce’s narrative, focusing on the complex organization and classification of discourse.
Joyce’s work could be critiqued for its layered structures and intricate narrative techniques, which align with structuralist principles.
In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
Language as Being: Critiques how Proust’s elaborate prose embodies the essence of literature, where language itself is the primary focus.
Barthes might highlight Proust’s emphasis on the act of writing and the form of language, rather than just recounting events.
1984 by George Orwell
Rhetoric and Power: Analyzes Orwell’s use of language as a tool for power and control, reflecting structuralist ideas about the function of rhetoric.
Orwell’s depiction of Newspeak could be critiqued as a rhetorical strategy that aligns with structuralist views on language and power.
Criticism Against “Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes
Oversimplification of Science: Barthes’ characterization of scientific language as purely instrumental and devoid of creativity has been criticized for being overly simplistic and neglecting the nuances of scientific communication.
Idealization of Literature: Some critics argue that Barthes romanticizes literature and writing, overlooking the potential for literary language to be manipulative or deceptive.
Neglecting Overlap: The essay has been criticized for creating a rigid dichotomy between science and literature, ignoring areas where they intersect or share commonalities.
Eurocentric Perspective: Barthes’ focus on Western literary traditions has been criticized for excluding diverse cultural perspectives and forms of knowledge production.
Limited Scope: The essay primarily focuses on linguistic aspects of science and literature, neglecting other important factors like historical context, social institutions, and cultural practices.
Lack of Empirical Evidence: Some scholars argue that Barthes’ claims lack empirical support and rely heavily on theoretical assertions and anecdotal evidence.
Exaggerated Distinctions: Critics argue that Barthes exaggerates the differences between scientific and literary language, overlooking instances where scientific writing can be expressive and literary language can be factual.
Suggested Readings: “Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes
Quotations with Explanation from “Science and Literature” by Roland Barthes
“Man cannot speak his thought without thinking his speech.” (Bonald)
This opening quote by Bonald sets the stage for Barthes’ exploration of the inseparable link between language and thought. It emphasizes that language is not merely a tool for expressing pre-existing thoughts, but rather a fundamental part of the thinking process itself. This quote highlights the importance of examining how language shapes and influences our understanding of the world.
“For science, language is merely an instrument, which it chooses to make as transparent, as neutral as possible.”
Barthes contrasts the approach to language in science and literature. In science, language is seen as a tool for conveying objective facts and findings. It is valued for its clarity and neutrality, with the goal of minimizing ambiguity and subjectivity.
“For literature…language is the being of literature, its very world.”
This quote emphasizes the central role of language in literature. Unlike science, literature does not simply use language as a tool; language is the very essence of literature itself. Literary works are crafted from language, and their meaning and impact are inseparable from their linguistic form.
“The scientific and the literary orders…actually overlap over very diverse, sometimes divergent, sometimes even hostile enterprises.”
Barthes acknowledges that while science and literature have distinct approaches to language, they are not entirely separate realms. There are areas of overlap and interaction between the two, even though their fundamental goals and methods may differ.
“Only writing can break the theological image imposed by science…can open to research the complete space of language.”
This quote reflects Barthes’ call for a more expansive and creative use of language in intellectual inquiry. He suggests that writing, as opposed to the strictly objective language of science, can challenge established norms and explore the full potential of language to express complex ideas and emotions.
