“Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure by Jonathan Culler first appeared in New Literary History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Spring, 1973), published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. This seminal essay explores the intersection of structuralism and ideology, addressing the dual nature of ideology as both a tool for deconstructing societal norms and a self-critical framework that acknowledges its own ideological limitations. Culler critiques the structuralist impulse to expose hidden cultural conventions while simultaneously grappling with the infinite regress of examining its own assumptions. The essay underscores the paradox that structuralist methods, aimed at revealing “truth” beneath ideological constructs, inevitably construct their own ideologies. Culler’s work is pivotal in literary theory for its exploration of the constraints and freedoms inherent in structuralist critique, emphasizing the productive tension between the pursuit of analytical rigor and the infinite play of meaning. This argument has profoundly influenced discussions on the methodology and purpose of literary analysis, situating structuralism as both a critique of and participant in ideological systems.

Summary of “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

1. Dual Nature of Ideology in Structuralism
   Culler identifies a dual approach to ideology within structuralism: it functions as a tool for revealing hidden societal norms (demystification) and as a framework to critique itself (Culler 471). Structuralists adopt a Marxist view of ideology as false consciousness, exposing concealed historical roots of dominant ideas. However, self-criticism leads to an infinite regress, as structuralist methods themselves become ideological (Culler 472).
2. Self-Analysis as a Structuralist Goal
   Rather than seeking foundational truths, structuralists turn the act of self-analysis into an end in itself. Inspired by Hegelian dialectics, they prioritize the “play” of constructing and deconstructing theoretical frameworks, rejecting the notion of a definitive theory (Culler 473). This approach, as Julia Kristeva remarks, frames semiotics as inherently self-critical, focusing on the ideological gestures it critiques (Culler 473).
3. Structuralism’s Demystification Mission
   Prominent figures like Barthes, Lévi-Strauss, and Foucault use structuralist analyses to uncover how societal norms and scientific conventions appear “natural” while masking their historical and cultural contingencies (Culler 474). For example, Foucault analyzes the “naturalized” conventions underlying sciences, and Barthes critiques bourgeois norms as ideological constructs (Culler 475).
4. Limitations of a “Science of Literature”
   Structuralist poetics, though insightful, confronts its ideological constraints. Barthes’ vision of a “science of literature,” aiming to uncover how meanings are generated, encounters opposition for its prescriptive nature. Critics argue that literature’s diverse interpretations resist such formal categorization (Culler 476). Structuralism’s reliance on the notion of a stable “sign” as the basis for analysis is undermined by literature’s historical and contingent nature (Culler 476).
5. The Central Problem of Structure
   The concept of “structure” in literary analysis, as highlighted by Derrida, is teleological—it presupposes a purpose or “center” governing meaning (Culler 477). Structural analysis depends on this center, yet granting it privileged status imposes ideological constraints, excluding alternative perspectives and meanings (Culler 478).
6. Infinite Play of Meaning
   Structuralism shifts toward exploring the limitless potential of meaning in texts. Saussure’s theory of language as a system of differences, devoid of intrinsic terms, underscores how meaning arises through relational dynamics rather than fixed definitions (Culler 479). This infinite openness contrasts with traditional approaches that impose restrictive interpretative boundaries (Culler 480).
7. Challenges in Interpretation
   Although structuralism promotes the freedom to create meaning, it faces practical constraints. As Derrida and Foucault observe, the production of meaning is simultaneously governed by restrictive conventions, which limit interpretative possibilities (Culler 481). Attempts to eliminate ideological constraints inadvertently impose new ones, highlighting the impossibility of true liberation from ideology (Culler 482).
8. Embracing Ideological Constraints
   Culler concludes that instead of seeking to transcend ideology, scholars should engage with it critically. Both the conventions analyzed and the tools of analysis are embedded within cultural systems. Structuralism, despite its circularity, remains a vital framework for understanding the interplay between ideology and meaning in literature (Culler 482).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference in Text
Ideology as False Consciousness	A Marxist concept used by structuralists to describe how ideologies conceal historical origins and justify societal norms as natural or inevitable.	Culler, p. 471
Self-Critique in Structuralism	Structuralism’s practice of examining its own assumptions to avoid being labeled as ideological, leading to an infinite regress of self-analysis.	Culler, p. 472
Demystification	The process of exposing concealed conventions and ideologies within cultural practices and texts.	Culler, p. 474
Science of Literature	Barthes’ proposal of a systematic method to uncover how meanings in literature are generated according to symbolic and cultural logics.	Culler, p. 475
The Center in Structure	A fixed principle or endpoint that governs the structure of a text, shaping its interpretation and limiting the play of meanings.	Culler, p. 477
Infinite Play of Meaning	Structuralist acknowledgment of the endless relational possibilities in language and literature, rejecting fixed interpretations or absolute truths.	Culler, p. 479
Geno-Text vs. Pheno-Text	Kristeva’s distinction between the geno-text (potential and latent signifying possibilities) and pheno-text (actual realized meanings in a text).	Culler, p. 477
Logocentrism	Derrida’s term for a metaphysical bias that privileges a fixed center or ultimate truth in language, which structuralism challenges by emphasizing relational differences.	Culler, p. 477
Autotelic Development	The idea that structuralism values its own self-reflective processes and theoretical evolution over achieving definitive conclusions or solutions.	Culler, p. 473
Interpretation as Active Creation	Structuralism’s view of interpretation as an active engagement with texts, focusing on the generation of new meanings rather than recovering a pre-existing truth.	Culler, p. 480
Constraints in Meaning Production	The interplay of restrictive conventions and the generation of meaning, which highlights that even creative interpretation relies on specific cultural and linguistic constraints.	Culler, p. 481
Ideological Circularity	The acknowledgment that structuralism cannot escape ideological constraints because its own methods and critiques are embedded within ideological systems.	Culler, p. 482

Contribution of “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Concept from Culler	Example of Critique Using Culler’s Framework	Reference in Culler’s Essay
Shakespeare’s Hamlet	Demystification of Ideology	Analyzing how Hamlet naturalizes royal power and familial loyalty as inevitable, masking the historical and ideological roots of monarchy.	Culler, p. 474
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Infinite Play of Meaning	Exploring the text’s open-ended linguistic play, where language exceeds fixed meanings, engaging the reader in active interpretation.	Culler, p. 480
Roland Barthes’ Mythologies	Cultural Norms as Ideological Constructs	Examining how societal myths, such as those in advertising or fashion, are treated as “natural” but are ideological products of bourgeois culture.	Culler, p. 474
Mallarmé’s Un Coup de Dés	Geno-Text and Relational Differences	Investigating how Mallarmé’s poetry resists conventional interpretations, emphasizing latent structures and infinite linguistic possibilities.	Culler, p. 477

Criticism Against “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on Infinite Regress:
  Critics argue that Culler’s focus on the infinite regress of self-analysis in structuralism creates a paradox, where structuralism undermines its credibility by failing to establish any stable methodological ground.
• Ambiguity in Resolving Ideological Constraints:
  While Culler acknowledges structuralism’s inability to escape ideology, he does not provide a clear resolution to this limitation, leaving the critique theoretically unresolved.
• Insufficient Practical Application:
  The essay is critiqued for being overly theoretical, with limited guidance on how to practically apply its insights to specific literary works or broader cultural analyses.
• Neglect of Reader’s Experience:
  Some critics argue that Culler’s emphasis on structuralism’s ideological framework sidelines the lived experience and subjective engagement of readers with texts.
• Undermining Structuralist Foundations:
  By focusing on the ideological limitations and circularity of structuralism, the essay is seen as undermining the validity of the structuralist approach itself, leaving it vulnerable to criticism from more traditional methodologies.
• Overdependence on Derridean Concepts:
  Culler’s heavy reliance on Derrida’s notions, such as the critique of logocentrism and the play of meaning, is viewed as a move that aligns structuralism too closely with deconstruction, potentially overshadowing its distinct contributions.
• Resistance to Practical Criticism:
  The essay’s abstract nature and dense theoretical language make it inaccessible for scholars seeking practical tools for textual analysis, limiting its appeal outside academic theory.

Representative Quotations from “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“An ideology is a theory which justifies particular economic, political, and intellectual practices by concealing their historical origins…” (Culler, p. 471).	This defines ideology as a mechanism for naturalizing practices, making them appear inherent rather than constructed. It reflects structuralism’s concern with demystifying such naturalizations.
“The goal is not the construction of the greatest circle but the infinite play of circle-building” (Culler, p. 472).	Structuralism values the process of self-reflection and critique, emphasizing dynamic inquiry over definitive conclusions.
“Structuralists have tried to make the activity of self-analysis and self-transcendence a goal in itself” (Culler, p. 472).	This highlights structuralism’s commitment to critiquing its own methods, accepting that it cannot achieve absolute objectivity.
“The structure is commanded by a particular end; it is recognized as that which contributes to this end” (Culler, p. 474).	Culler critiques the teleological nature of structural analysis, which assumes a predefined purpose or center for structures.
“An intuitive understanding of the poem functions as the ‘center,’ governing the play of forms” (Culler, p. 475).	This illustrates how literary interpretations often rely on preexisting notions, which themselves reflect ideological assumptions.
“The fear that concepts which governed the analysis of meaning might be attacked as ideological premises…” (Culler, p. 477).	Structuralists’ self-criticism arises from their awareness that their own frameworks may also be ideological, leading to perpetual questioning of foundational assumptions.
“Interpretation is not a matter of recovering some meaning which lies… behind the work” (Culler, p. 478).	Culler argues that literary analysis should focus on the multiplicity of meanings and the interpretive process rather than seeking a single “true” meaning.
“The absence of any ultimate or transcendent meaning opens an unbounded space for the play of signification” (Culler, p. 479).	Drawing on Derrida, this points to the infinite potential for meaning within texts due to the absence of fixed centers or ultimate truths.
“Without restrictive rules there would be no meaning whatsoever” (Culler, p. 481).	Culler acknowledges that while structuralism critiques constraints, some level of structural coherence is essential for meaning to exist.
“Rather than try to get outside ideology we must remain resolutely within it” (Culler, p. 482).	Culler concludes that the study of ideology requires engagement with, rather than avoidance of, its influence, as ideology is an inescapable part of culture and interpretation.

Suggested Readings: “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Structure of Ideology and Ideology of Structure.” New Literary History, vol. 4, no. 3, 1973, pp. 471–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/468530. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
2. Gorman, David. “Jonathan Culler: A Checklist of Writings on Literary Criticism and Theory to 1994.” Style, vol. 29, no. 4, 1995, pp. 549–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42946311. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
3. Kavanagh, Thomas M. “Godard’s Revolution: The Politics of Meta-Cinema.” Diacritics, vol. 3, no. 2, 1973, pp. 49–56. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/464537. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.
4. Shumway, David R. “How New Literary History Became a Theory Journal.” Symplokē, vol. 27, no. 1–2, 2019, pp. 459–64. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5250/symploke.27.1-2.0459. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.