“Structuralism and Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette was first published in 1966 as part of the collection Figures III. This seminal work ushered in a new era of literary analysis, emphasizing the importance of structural elements in understanding texts. Genette’s exploration of narrative, discourse, and genre laid the groundwork for contemporary literary theory, offering a rigorous and systematic approach to interpreting literary works.
Summary of “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette
Mythical Thought, Bricolage, and Literary Criticism: Gérard Genette begins by drawing a parallel between Claude Lévi-Strauss’s notion of mythical thought as “a kind of intellectual bricolage” and the practice of literary criticism. Just as the bricoleur creatively uses available materials, literary critics work with the same materials—language—as the texts they analyze. Genette emphasizes that literary criticism is unique in that it “speaks the same language as its object,” functioning as a “metalanguage, ‘discourse upon a discourse,'” or what can be seen as “a literature of which literature itself is the imposed object.”
The Structuralist Foundation of Literary Criticism: Genette positions literary criticism as inherently a “structuralist activity,” arguing that it involves uncovering the internal structures of literary works rather than focusing on external contexts such as psychology or history. He suggests that structuralism is not just a method but also “a general tendency of thought,” where the critic’s task is to explore how literature as a system of signs generates meaning. By doing so, structuralism emphasizes the connection between form and meaning, moving beyond traditional realist approaches.
Beyond Formalism: Reconnecting Form and Meaning: Structuralism, according to Genette, moves beyond the reductionist approach of Formalism by reconnecting form with meaning. While Formalism might focus solely on linguistic elements, structuralism seeks to “uncover the connection that exists between a system of forms and a system of meanings.” This approach enables a deeper understanding of literature by analyzing larger structural units such as narrative and description, rather than merely focusing on individual linguistic features.
The Ambitious Scope of Structuralism: The structuralist approach is ambitious in its scope, aiming to tackle not only linguistic elements but also the “semantic phenomena” that constitute the essence of poetic language and literary semiology. Genette argues that structuralism should extend its analysis beyond the sentence to encompass the “large unities” of discourse, such as narrative and description, which he suggests could lead to the development of a “new rhetoric” necessary for literary analysis.
Structuralism in the Context of Literary History: Genette highlights that structuralism offers a novel way to understand literary evolution through synchronic analysis, focusing on the functions of elements within the literary system rather than their diachronic presence. He asserts that “literary history becomes the history of a system,” where the evolution of functions is more significant than the mere presence or absence of elements. This approach allows for a richer understanding of how literary systems evolve over time.
Structuralism and Hermeneutics: A Complementary Relationship: Contrary to viewing structuralism and hermeneutics as mutually exclusive, Genette suggests that they can be complementary. He posits that while structuralism offers a distant, analytical perspective, hermeneutics can provide a more interpretive and creative approach to literary criticism. The “relation that binds structuralism and hermeneutics together might not be one of mechanical separation and exclusion, but of complementarity,” allowing each approach to enrich the other.
The Structuralist Approach to Literary Coherence: Genette argues that when literary criticism focuses on the internal structure of a work, it naturally aligns with structuralist principles. This method provides a way to understand the coherence of a literary work by analyzing the network of themes within it. Structuralism thus serves as “a refuge for all immanent criticism against the danger of fragmentation,” enabling a deeper exploration of the unity and coherence of literary texts.
The Risks and Rewards of Structuralist Analysis: While Genette acknowledges the power of structuralism as a tool for literary analysis, he also warns of its potential risks. He notes that “structures are not directly encountered objects…they are systems of latent relations, conceived rather than perceived,” highlighting the interpretative nature of this approach. Critics must be cautious not to “invent” structures where none exist, maintaining a balance between discovery and interpretation.
Understanding Literary Evolution through Functional Analysis: Finally, Genette emphasizes the importance of understanding literary evolution through the analysis of functions rather than elements. He argues that the “evolution of the functions…is significant, not that of the elements,” and that a thorough understanding of synchronic relations is essential before exploring diachronic changes. This approach to literary history allows for a more nuanced understanding of how literary forms and themes change over time, contributing to the richness of literary analysis.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette
The process of making use of available materials and tools, rather than specialized ones, for a specific task. Genette applies this concept to literary criticism, suggesting that critics use the same materials (language) as the works they analyze.
Metalanguage
A language used to describe or analyze another language. In literary criticism, it is the language used to discuss and analyze literary works.
Metaliterature
A literature that has literature itself as its primary object of study.
A method of analysis that focuses on the underlying structures of a system, rather than its individual elements. In literature, it involves studying the relationships between elements within a text.
Formalism
A literary movement that focuses on the form and structure of a literary work, rather than its content or meaning.
Semiotics
The study of signs and symbols and their meaning. In literary criticism, it involves analyzing the meaning of literary texts as systems of signs.
A unit of language larger than a sentence, often encompassing a complete thought or idea. In literary criticism, it refers to the overall structure and organization of a text.
The theory and practice of interpretation, especially of texts.
Structural Dynamics
The study of how literary structures change over time.
Contribution of “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette to Literary Theory/Theories
Introduction of Structuralism as a Method in Literary Criticism: Gérard Genette significantly contributes to literary theory by positioning literary criticism as a structuralist activity. He argues that structuralism provides a method for uncovering the underlying structures within literary texts, rather than focusing on external factors like authorial intent or historical context. This approach shifts the focus of criticism to the internal mechanics of the text itself, emphasizing that “literary criticism speaks the same language as its object: it is a metalanguage, ‘discourse upon a discourse.'”
Reconceptualization of Literature as a System of Signs: Genette’s application of structuralist theory to literature redefines literary works as systems of signs that generate meaning through their structure. This reconceptualization moves away from viewing literature as a reflection of reality or a vehicle for expressing an author’s thoughts. Instead, it emphasizes the formal and structural aspects of texts, where “what was a sign for the writer (the work) becomes meaning for the critic.”
Bridging the Gap between Formalism and Structuralism: Genette bridges the gap between Formalism and Structuralism by emphasizing the need to reconnect form with meaning. While Formalism focused primarily on the linguistic elements of texts, Genette argues that structuralism goes further by uncovering the connections between these forms and their meanings within the broader literary system. He asserts that “structural analysis must make it possible to uncover the connection that exists between a system of forms and a system of meanings.”
Expansion of Structural Analysis Beyond Linguistics: Genette expands the scope of structuralist analysis beyond the linguistic level to encompass larger units of discourse, such as narrative and description. This broadens the potential for literary analysis, addressing the limitations of earlier structuralist approaches that focused solely on linguistic elements. As Genette suggests, “one would thus study systems from a much higher level of generality, such as narrative, description, and the other major forms of literary expression.”
Contribution to the Development of Literary Semiotics: Genette’s work significantly contributes to the development of literary semiotics by advocating for the analysis of the “large unities” of discourse. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between code and message, which is central to the study of literary semiotics. He notes that “the ambition of structuralism is not confined to counting feet and to observing the repetitions of phonemes: it must also attack semantic phenomena which…constitute the essence of poetic language.”
Challenge to Traditional Realism and Positivism: Genette challenges traditional realism and positivism in literary criticism by advocating for a focus on the internal structure of literary works. By moving away from the search for external causes and conditions, he encourages an understanding of literature as an autonomous system. In doing so, he connects structuralism with “the general movement away from positivism, ‘historicizing history’ and the ‘biographical illusion.'”
Introduction of the Concept of Synchronic Literary Analysis: Genette introduces the concept of synchronic literary analysis, which involves studying the structures of a literary work at a specific moment in time. This approach contrasts with diachronic analysis, which focuses on the historical development of literary forms and themes. Genette emphasizes the importance of synchronic analysis by noting that “an element can remain while changing function, or on the contrary disappear while leaving its function to another.”
Integration of Structuralism and Hermeneutics: Rather than viewing structuralism and hermeneutics as opposing approaches, Genette suggests that they can be complementary. This integration allows for a more holistic understanding of literary texts, where structural analysis provides a distant, objective perspective, and hermeneutic analysis offers a more interpretive, subjective understanding. He posits that “the relation that binds structuralism and hermeneutics together might not be one of mechanical separation and exclusion, but of complementarity.”
Reinforcement of the Coherence and Unity of Literary Works: Genette’s structuralist approach reinforces the idea that literary works possess an inherent coherence and unity. By analyzing the internal structure of a text, critics can uncover the underlying principles that give the work its consistency and meaning, countering the fragmentation that might result from thematic analysis alone. Genette asserts that “structuralism…would appear to be a refuge for all immanent criticism against the danger of fragmentation.”
Examples of Critiques Through “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette
Literary Work
Structural Analysis
Hamlet by William Shakespeare
Shakespeare’s Hamlet exhibits a complex structure centered around binary oppositions. These antithetical elements, such as life and death, revenge and inaction, and sanity and madness, create a dynamic tension that underpins the narrative. The play’s structure can be analyzed through a lens of dramatic irony, where the audience possesses knowledge concealed from characters, further emphasizing the play’s structural integrity.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Austen employs a structured narrative framework based on societal norms and expectations of the Regency era. The novel’s plot revolves around the marriage market and the characters’ navigation of these social structures. The interplay between individual desires and societal constraints forms the core of the work’s structural integrity.
Moby Dick by Herman Melville
Melville’s Moby Dick presents a complex narrative structure that interweaves multiple genres, including adventure, philosophy, and allegory. The novel’s episodic structure and the symbolic significance of the white whale contribute to its overall structural complexity. The work can be analyzed through the lens of binary oppositions, such as man versus nature, good versus evil, and reality versus illusion.
Ulysses by James Joyce
Joyce’s Ulysses is renowned for its innovative and experimental structure, mirroring the structure of Homer’s Odyssey. The novel employs a stream-of-consciousness narrative, paralleling the complex and multifaceted nature of the human mind. The work’s structure can be analyzed through its use of motifs, symbols, and archetypes, which contribute to the overall thematic coherence.
Key Structuralist Concepts: This analysis primarily focuses on the works’ underlying structures, binary oppositions, narrative frameworks, and symbolic elements. A more in-depth study would explore other structuralist concepts such as character roles, plot development, and thematic patterns.
Criticism Against “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette
Overemphasis on Structure at the Expense of Substance: Critics argue that Genette’s structuralist approach places too much emphasis on the structural elements of literary works, potentially neglecting the substantive content, themes, and broader socio-political contexts that are also crucial for understanding literature.
Risk of Reductive Analysis: The structuralist method, as described by Genette, can lead to reductive interpretations of literary texts by focusing primarily on formal structures. This approach might overlook the complexities and nuances of literary meaning that go beyond mere structural elements.
Potential for Inventing Structures: Genette himself acknowledges that “structures are not directly encountered objects…they are systems of latent relations, conceived rather than perceived,” which raises the concern that structuralist analysis might invent structures rather than discover them, leading to subjective or arbitrary interpretations.
Marginalization of Historical and Biographical Contexts: By advocating for a focus on the internal mechanics of texts, Genette’s structuralism risks marginalizing important historical, biographical, and cultural contexts that can provide valuable insights into a literary work’s meaning and significance.
Limited Engagement with Reader Response: Structuralism, as presented by Genette, tends to focus on the text as an autonomous entity, potentially ignoring the role of the reader in constructing meaning. This limits engagement with reader-response theories, which emphasize the interaction between the text and its audience.
Ambiguity in Methodology: Some critics find Genette’s structuralist methodology to be somewhat ambiguous, particularly in how it should be applied consistently across different literary texts. The lack of a clear, systematic approach can lead to varied and potentially inconsistent interpretations.
Dismissal of Authorial Intent: Genette’s structuralism downplays or dismisses the relevance of authorial intent in literary analysis, which some critics believe is essential for understanding the deeper meanings and motivations behind a text.
Potential for Dehumanization of Literature: The emphasis on structure and form over content and meaning may lead to what some critics see as the dehumanization of literature, where the emotional and human aspects of literary works are overshadowed by an over-analytical focus on technical structures.
Challenges in Addressing Dynamic Literary Evolutions: While Genette discusses the importance of synchronic analysis, some critics argue that structuralism struggles to adequately address the dynamic and evolving nature of literature, particularly in terms of how literary forms and meanings change over time.
Suggested Readings: “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, translated by Wade Baskin, Philosophical Library, 1959.
Todorov, Tzvetan. The Poetics of Prose. Translated by Richard Howard, Cornell University Press, 1977.
“Literary criticism speaks the same language as its object: it is a metalanguage, ‘discourse upon a discourse.'”
This quotation highlights the unique nature of literary criticism within structuralist theory, where criticism operates as a “metalanguage” that reflects or reinterprets literature at a higher level of abstraction.
“What was a sign for the writer (the work) becomes meaning for the critic.”
Genette emphasizes the shift from the writer’s perspective to the critic’s. For the writer, the work is a sign conveying meaning; for the critic, this sign becomes an object of study, with the critic’s role being to interpret this meaning.
“Structural analysis must make it possible to uncover the connection that exists between a system of forms and a system of meanings.”
This quotation captures the goal of structuralist criticism: to reveal how the forms within a literary work are connected to its meanings, thereby offering a deeper understanding of how literature functions as a system of signs.
“One would thus study systems from a much higher level of generality, such as narrative, description, and the other major forms of literary expression.”
Genette advocates for expanding structuralist analysis to larger units of discourse, like narrative and description, which allows for insights into the broader organizational principles and overall meaning of a text.
“Structuralism is bound up with the general movement away from positivism, ‘historicizing history’ and the ‘biographical illusion’.”
This quotation positions structuralism as part of a broader intellectual shift away from positivist approaches, focusing on the autonomy of the literary text and its internal structures rather than external historical or biographical contexts.
“An element can remain while changing function, or on the contrary disappear while leaving its function to another.”
Genette discusses the dynamic nature of literary systems, where elements within a structure can change their function over time or be replaced by others, reflecting the fluid and evolving nature of literary forms.
