Why We Read

Generally speaking, a structuralist reads to identify and understand fundamental structures and patterns in absolutely anything by seeing a text (object, event, document, action, etc.) as part of an even larger system. Of course, a literary structuralist focuses on "literary" structures (and a structuralist would help define and categorize the "literary" by studying the deep structure in texts we label "literary"). As with formalism, structuralism is pseudo-scientific because a structuralist supposedly only maps what is there. She does not evaluate; she only charts, compares, and identifies patterns among structures. A grammarian is a perfect example of a structuralist because she doesn't care about the content of the sentences she maps. She cares about how certain words function within a sentence. A structuralist does the exact same thing; she wants to map the "grammar" of the text she studies, thereby being able to learn about the larger system, patterns, or principles that enable us to create sentences in the first place. But why even do this? Structuralists still have enough humanist residue on them to study for the sake of knowledge, and there is a pleasure when we understand the "fundamental" structure of anything and make connections between texts. Many structuralists also believe that the patterns and structures we identify in texts are structures that govern human experience and human consciousness. Thus, learning about literary texts helps us learn about ourselves. Finally, understanding the fundamental principle or structure of a group of texts helps us to generate texts of that kind or even generate texts that parody or even disrupt the pattern. For example, once I understand the fundamental structure of a "mystery novel" I can then spin out more mysteries, parody the genre, or write an "anti-mystery."

What We Read

Structuralist theory not only reveals that "literature" is a human construct (not an inherent or essential category), but that everything we perceive is a "text" in that everything that has meaning is part of a sign system or "language." If something is "meaningless," then that means that we have yet to integrate or incorporate the text within a system. For example, the Columbine massacre in Denver is "meaningless" until someone can persuade others that the deaths are really the result of too many guns, bad parenting, media violence, inadequate security, facsist ideology, American culture, God's plan, or apocalyptic fears, etc. Notice that each potential answer is really an attempt to take a chaotic, random event and give it meaning by assigning it value within a system or context.

Structuralists are willing to read any kind of text, object, image, or action, for all of these items are "texts" and are part of sign systems. From a literary text, velvet painting, car design, or mass murder, to a celebrity's face, an ancient culture, or a Madonna video, all are part of larger sign systems. In fact, this ability to move from one system to another is what makes structuralism so useful. One can choose to focus on "literary" systems or link "literary" systems to other systems (economic, philosophical, biological, scientific), but that move takes us toward cultural studies.

How We Read

There is a wide range of structuralist projects and theorists, but they all share a desire to understand the underlying system of what they are studying. My suggestions will help you construct a basic structuralist analysis that will prepare the way for other structuralist and structuralist-inspired projects.

The most basic question is, "What is the deep structure of the text and how does this structure help us understand other items of its kind?" Or, "What is the underlying principle or structure that governs texts of this kind?" Notice that both of these questions ask you to map the fundamental structure of a text and link it to other texts, not at the level of content, but at the level of deep structure.

Prewriting Strategies...

Make two charts. The first chart is in the shape of a two columns and identifies "binary oppositions"--the values, actions, and beliefs that the text valorizes and devalorizes. Remember, by valorized, I mean what does the text, not you, seems to champion, celebrate, or privilege and by devalorize I mean what the text, not you, seems to critique, challenge, disparage, or undermine. Begin by placing characters, settings, and actions, and then think of how these characters, settings, and actions are coded, thus moving from the literal to the metaphorical and abstract. For example, in Blake's poem "Garden of Love," Blake included terms like "green," "Garden," and "flowers," but these terms also seem to suggest "fertility," "growth," "nature," "life," "Eden," etc. In other words, include the connotations of the key words and concepts along with the key terms. How does the text "code" behaviors and qualities? Which ones are privileged? What ones are disparaged?

The second chart identifies parallels, patterns, repetitions, echoes, contrasts, and cause and effect relationships within the text. Remember that you are reducing the text to a visual chart that indicates the fundamental structure of relations in plot, character, setting, imagery, and anything else you deem relevant. Be a map maker, a literary cartographer! The easiest way to begin is to identify cause and effect relationships at a literal level in that you will list characters names, specific actions, and specific results. For example, in Blake's "Garden of Love," I might create a chart like this:

Once you identify this basic narrative structure, translate the events into more abstract or general functions. I would translate the above chart this way:

And now you can draw conclusions:

Blake suggests that ...

1. • The imposition of authority (especially religious authority) brings about death, sterility, and conformity.
   

1. • Youth is a time of of happiness and freedom while adulthood is characterized by restrictions, sterility, and confinement.
   

We could continue to generate interpretations, but the key interpretive move is to translate the literal (gardens, chapels, flowers, tombstones, etc.) into abstractions (freedom, authority, fertility, death, etc.).

This is pretty basic, and you will need to do a lot more, but the idea is to identify a structure that would remain even if you changed time, place, gender, race, social class, etc. While "chapel" functions as the oppressive force in Blake's poem, I could easily replace "chapel" with "school" and change the imagery from priests and tombstones to teachers and worksheets, but for a structuralist, I would still have the "same" poem because the deep structure remains constant. Consider another example...you've probably heard about a "hero's quest." This deep structure or fundamental plot is the basis of thousands of stories. To be more specific, in a hero's quest, there are five basic parts: (1) call to action, (2) a period of tutoring, (3) a period of temptations and obstacles, (4) the moment of victory, and (5) the return home. This is the basic structure of about every action-adventure film, from James Bond films, to Star Wars, to Braveheart, to Arnold Schwartznagger (sp) films, and so on. In fact, the idea of "genre" (action adventure, mystery, romance, gangster, etc.) is a useful model because you can have the fundamental building blocks, and it doesn't matter whether the hero is male or female, medieval monk or futuristic cop, child or adult. What does matter is the structure and the relationship between characters. The temptation may come from a seductive woman or from a father who appeals to the hero's desire for power, but it doesn't matter because both the woman and the father serve the same function or role in the story. They are coded as "tempters."

A final thought...

Structuralist interpretation depends heavily on your ability to make connections, and this ability will improve as you read, study, and observe. One could argue that education is the process of learning to make connections. More connections become possible as you learn more. For example, I can't connect a Nike ad with Greek mythology if I have never read Greek myths--but I still need a way of seeing that helps me connect the two. Enter structuralism.

Writing Suggestions:

Part One: "Identify Patterns and Deep Structure"

Once you complete your prewriting, you can begin writing by making a claim about the fundamental deep structure in the text you are studying. For example, I might argue something like..."Although Blake's "Garden of Love" seems to critique religion, the poem is really about any form of institutional control." Or, "Although Blake's "Garden of Love" seems to critique religion, the poem at its most basic level is about the movement from innocence to maturity." Notice that both claims assert something about the basic structure of the text and move from specific details to more general concepts. Once you make your claim, provide your charts and walk your reader through the charts. Point out how certain characters, setting, actions, and imagery function. In other words, characters, settings, actions, and imagery have no inherent meaning, but they gain meaning once they are contrasted with other characters, setting, actions, and imagery. Again, identity and value depend on binary oppositions.

Part Two: Make Connections

Once you have identified the deep structure in one text, link it to at least one other text. (You could easily combine parts one and two by making a claim early on about the relationship between texts. For example, "Despite Blake's prolific writing career, when we look at the deep structures of his poems, we see that he only wrote one poem: a moment of innocence is always destroyed by socialization.")

There are several ways to link texts: You could be a ...

...literary critic and link your text with other "literary" texts (with texts within the same collection, by the same author, by the author's contemporaries, within the same genre, within the same time period). Even if you are focusing on a so- called non-literary text like an advertisement, you can link it to the "literary" tradition (i.e. both texts employ the same narrative strategy or pattern of images), or you may want to link your text to whatever "genre" it belongs to (i.e. ads with other ads; novels with other novels; confessional poetry with other confessional poetry). Again, the point of analyzing a text is to shed light on the larger system. So if your text is a short story, then say something about the nature of all short stories. If your text is a poem by Blake, say something about a group of Blake's poems.

Importantly, the most interesting essays make surprising connections, so extend yourself. For example, Alan Gopnik linked The Starr Report (the one about Clinton and Lewinsky) with the 18th-century novel Pamela by Richardson. How so? Well, they both share the same deep structure.

... myth critic (albeit related to a literary critic because myths are arguably "literary" texts) and link your text with some myth, ancient or contemporary. That is, you can link a text to the myth of Apollo or to some specific American myth (i.e. the Western cowboy as a symbol of freedom, etc.). Please note there is more involved in myth criticism than I imply, but myth critics are, at the core, structuralists. (And structuralism helped me make that conclusion because I look at what literary critics do and what myth critics do and lo and behold, they share the same fundamental structure!) Thanks to his books and TV shows, Joseph Campbell is probably the most famous of myth scholars. Thanks to his Anatomy of Criticism, Northrup Frye is the most famous literary myth critic. Although a kind of psychologist, Carl Jung also provides a useful framework to discuss myth in literary texts. All three of these guys provide frameworks or maps of basic story structures that we can use to make sense of other texts.

... cultural critic (more to come on this subject later) links texts with a more abstract structure like an economic system, social system, ideology, etc.

In sum, what you are doing is connecting one deep structure or fundamental pattern with another. Structuralists are similar to New Critics in that New Critics also locate patterns, map structure, identify tensions, etc. but New Critics don't go beyond the text they study. The system they study is the text before them, nothing more. Their text is a discreet object, living an orphaned life. For the structuralists, however, the text belongs always and inevitably to a family. The text is always part of larger systems, and one can't begin to study it without studying the larger systems. In fact, a poem can't even be a poem unless we acknowledge that it's part of a larger system and shares fundamental traits, attributes, and structures with other texts that we call poems whose fundamental traits, attributes and structures differ from those texts we call fiction or plays or advertisements.