Structuralism as a Method of Literary Criticism

Abstract

CONSIDERATIONS OF STRUCTURALISM as a mode of literary criticism consistently encounter two problems. First, though is generally taken to refer to a single methodology, the diversity of approaches actually included under this term is immense. (And this is not just because structuralism is theoretically applicable to all subject matters, and has, therefore, necessarily a variety of formulations; this diversity exists even within a single discipline.) Because of this, it is difficult to discern the basic assumptions that underlie and define the structuralist approach. Second, since structuralism has its origins primarily in the physical and social sciences, it is necessarily the case that, even if its essential principles can be deduced, they will be expressed in a terminology and context that makes their applicability to literary criticism obscure and even doubtful. Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to determine a few fundamental assumptions that are shared by almost all varieties of structuralism, and to illustrate, or at least suggest, their relevance to literary criticism. Accordingly, using the theories of Jean Piaget, Claude L6vi-Strauss, Michael Lane, and Roland Barthes, I shall begin by defining follow this with a discussion of what appear to be four defining principles of structuralism, then briefly consider a few supposed and real disadvantages of the method as a means of literary criticism, and conclude with an actual structuralist analysis that illustrates the concepts involved in, and the advantages of, the approach. Piaget once defines structure as a of transformations,' and though there are various elaborate definitions of structure available, this succinct phrase includes the two concepts most important for literary criticism. By using the term system, Piaget is emphasizing that structures are not aggregates, i.e., composites formed of elements that are independent of the complexes into which they enter (p. 7). Instead, a system is such that, in the words of L6viStrauss, It is made up of several elements, none of which can undergo a change without effecting changes in all the other elements.'2 And by using the term transformations, Piaget is pointing out that one or more units of a structure,