Structuralism Introduction Theoretical Applications Ferdinand de Saussure 1857

Structuralism Introduction & Theoretical Applications

Ferdinand de Saussure � 1857 -1913 �Linguist �Granddaddy of semiotics �French dude �moustache pioneer

1. Meaning occurs through difference �“Concepts are purely differential and defined…by their relations with other terms of a system… In language there are only differences. ” – Saussure �The meaning we give to signs is always relative: �Woman = NOT man �Lady = NOT just woman or = NOT a gentleman

cave hovel tenement hut Tommy lives in a house. penthouse mansion palace coffin

3. Binary oppositions �Binary oppositions (pairs of opposites) are particularly common ways we structure the world: nature/nurture up/down civilized/primitive good/evil life/death just/unjust win/lose friend/enemy �Some theorists (like Claude Levi-Strauss) even suggested that all human thought is structured by binary oppositions…

Binary Oppositions are everywhere… black / white body / soul pure / corrupted father / son male / female speech / writing sex / gender master / slave Mac / PC truth / fiction philosophy / myth sciences / humanities classical / romantic modern / postmodern poet / critic center / margins normal / deviant natural / unnatural straight / gay self / other high culture / pop culture base / superstructure waking / dreaming the library / the web

2. Some signs are based on contiguity �Some signs are related somehow to what they signify: Onomatopoeia: 쨍그랑, crash, boom, tick-tock �Or depend on their relation to other signs: “The White House announced yesterday…” “run the gamut” (not walk the gamut) �But even signs with some connection to reality are arbitrary as soon as we express them: Why write 쨍 and not jjaeng or Ж◊Ω?

2. Most signs gain meaning by substitution �“The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, ” not “motivated” (by natural resemblance). – Saussure �The meaning of signs is arbitrary �Why do ㄷ and D represent similar sounds? �Does that sound actually have any ㄷness? D-ness? �Does a have any treeness?

Signifier & Signified All signs consist of two parts: Signified (signifié): a concept Signifier (signifiant): a sound-image or a written mark (often iconic or expressed in an alphabet) arbor 木 tree

Signs are arbitrary; many signifiers are possible for one signified equus “Mimi” horse มา perd at ngựa � koń

Signifiers are ambiguous & polysemic; one signifier can be associated with many things woman

Signs don’t depend on physical reality “We feel the 8: 25 p. m. Geneva-to-Paris Express to be the same train each day, though the locomotive, coaches, and personnel may be different. This is because the 8: 25 train is not a substance but a form, defined by its relations to other trains. It remains the 8: 25 even though it leaves twenty minutes late, so long as its difference from the 7: 25 and the 9: 25 is preserved. Although we may be unable to conceive of the train except in its physical manifestations, its identity as a social and psychological fact is independent of those manifestations. ” – Saussure

Signs Obama power �All language is signs—all words & letters are signs �Pictures can be signs (“iconic signs”) �ANYTHING can be a sign! �Signs have no inherent meaning; it can shift: democracy greed skinny jeans = cool patriotism hope skinny jeans = stupid �(Remember: cool and stupid only make sense to us because of the usage context & their relation to Bourgeouis imperial capitalism other signs we know) �Many signs can be mythic: communicating large, often vague cultural meanings

Signs & Culture �Signs are a product of culture �Meaning is assigned based on context & cultural codes �So the study of texts is actually a study of: relations between signs the cultural construction of meaning � Structuralism is the “study of cultural construction or identification of meaning according to the relations of signs that constitute the meaning-spectrum of the culture. ” – Gérard Genette

Gesture as Sign: Neo’s Finger

Why is it different from this finger?

Anything can be a sign! Do we make signs by mass agreement? By our intuition? By conventions established by those with greater power and influence?

Signs get meaning from culture and difference (relations with other signs) =

∴ signs construct our reality! �The I in “I am” is meaningless except as it relates to other signs. �All of those signs are defined by culture �Our sense of who we are is determined by culture �Even our specific desires are determined by culture

I’m hungry… pizza noodles I want to eat kimchi. tacos graham crackers boiled beets

Reality �Your unconscious isn’t your unconscious—it is just culture (and sub-culture) you’ve internalized �Thus, you are defined and constructed by culture �Reality is constructed by language & by culture: That cross shape – God? Sign of the Infidels? That raw fish – Something desirable? Something to be avoided? That skinny girl – Beautiful? Sick-looking?

So Far… �We experience reality based on signs �Signs have no meaning by themselves—no neutral, absolute, or objective meaning �Signs gain meaning in: the context of a culture relation to other signs (often binary oppositions) �Our sense of ourselves is also based on signs �If everything is made up of signs (books, words, ourselves, reality)… �…everything can be viewed as a text!!

So what…? �We are surrounded by signs and don’t realize it �We don’t realize how arbitrary our sign systems are �We don’t realize that our sign systems define our reality �We don’t realize that our signs may encode and imprint on us power relations that may be problematic

If everything is a text… �“Literature” is no longer just a bunch of special, privileged works… �But literary methods can now be used to understand everything! �Examples: Human lives as narratives with shifting, absurd, undetermined meanings Religious beliefs and rituals as symbol systems that construct concepts of self

Structuralism Applied to Lit �Reality/normality and fantasy/absurdity/ abnormality are all defined by cultural codes: Donald told Jenna he loved her. She glared, slapped him, then kissed him on the mouth, a long kiss that caught the attention of everyone in the church. �Structuralist reading: “There is a juxtaposition of cultural codes: a slap and glare, which in our culture tend signify hostility, and a kiss, which tends to signify affection. ”

How does the text relate to culture? �In our culture, what are the dominant conventions/codes of behavior that define activity in a church? �Does the text subvert/deviate from or follow those cultural codes? �How does that subversion relate to the other elements in the text—the kiss and the slap? �How do these elements together (cultural codes & textual elements) function to create possible meaning?

Genre is another code �Cultural codes establish expectations in a text �Genre codes likewise establish expectations �Texts may be generic or may subvert expectations: There once was a man from Nantucket who ate all his meals from a bucket when asked ‘bout his style, he replied with a smile, “No more damn limericks. Alcoholism is no joke. ”

How can we use this stuff? �To explain how a dominant meaning is created from the elements of a text �To explore the relationships among elements within a text �To explore the relationships between textual elements and expectations created by genre and by culture (or sub-culture) �To find possible polysemy (arising from ambiguity) in the text and in all the elements within

Exercise: Structuralist Reading of a Diet Coke Ad Areas to Focus on: �Cultural expectations as related to: Gestures Color codes �Technical codes �Music codes: genre, signification in lyrics �Intertextual readings (other ads) �Paradigmatic analysis �More…?

extras �"STRUCTURALISM AND LITERARY CRITICISM“ �http: //www. brocku. ca/english/courses/4 F 70/g enette. php �Semiotics for Beginners �http: //www. aber. ac. uk/media/Documents/S 4 B/semind. html �Notes on Saussure �http: //group 249. blogspot. com/2010/10/howdo-you-like-them-apples. html

Stuart Hall � 1932 -

Stuart Hall: Encoding/Decoding �A message is encoded with one meaning but may be decoded as another. �Based on Gramsci’s theory of Hegemony. �The reading of a text may be read (decoded) in three different ways: dominant, negotiated, and oppositional.