Download Literary theory about structuralism and more Study notes Literary Theory in PDF only on Docsity!
CHAPTER 4
LITERARY THEORIES: STRUCTURALISM
The first part of this thesis examined the sources of the Gilgamesh Epic. In the following chapters two literary theories will be appropriated in order to analyse the discourse of the Epic - in other words, the text itself will receive attention. It must be stressed once again that this thesis does not pretend to be exhaustive. Only two of many recent literary theories were chosen; these two theories are also considered to be representative of two opposite approaches towards literature. These are (i) a text-immanent structural analysis, and (ii) a reader-orientated approach. However, a structural analysis does not necessarily oppose a reader-orientated theory. It will appear in the end that these two approaches rather complement than exclude each other.
1. Why is a theory necessary?
UUnniivveerrssiittyyooffPPrreettoorriiaaeettddññDDeeVViilllliieerrss,,GG((22000055))
Perhaps one should reflect for a moment on theories in general. What is the sense of having a theory at all? Is it really necessary? Can one not simply read the Epic of Gilgamesh enjoying it for its own sake?
It appears that every scholarly discipline has its theories. Natural sciences, humanities, theology, music ñ all have theories. Likewise theories are also formulated within the field of literary studies. And just like scholars in other fields of research, literary scholars were also appointed or denied posts at universities, due to a particular theory associated with them (see Selden 1986:1-2). Thus, theories seem to be powerful instruments in academic circles: they open or close the doors towards academic promotion.
On a basic, non-academic level, one may argue that a theory spoils the joy of reading, that a theory tends to undermine reading as an ìinnocentî activity (Selden 1985:3). Yet literary theories are also instruments for looking at literature in a different, even in a completely new way, thereby revitalising the engagement between text and reader. Without entering into the debate on one literary theory over against another, this part of my thesis aims to do just this: to look at the Epic of Gilgamesh in different ways and to re-activate its meaning anew.
What is a theory?
A theory is a speculative instrument (Freund 1987:15), an abstract level of discourse...which attempts to formulate, conceptualize (sic) and generalize (sic) the underlying principles of certain phenomena. In other words, a theory is a way of looking at something, and an effort to understand it. Furthermore, the general nature of underlying principles is stressed. One may thus deduce that theories ñ literary theories, to be specific for this study ñ should be appropriable to a variety of texts, not only one. Literary theories usually approach a text by asking questions from one of the following angles: questions regarding the author, the text, or the reader (see Seldon 1986:3). Recent literary theories are less interested in the author. Even if a real author
mostly diachronic studies carried out by historical linguists. They were interested in the origin and development of related languages, especially the Indo-European group. By means of comparing the words of different but related languages, going systematically back in time, these linguists aimed at discovering a common language source which they called Proto-Indo- European (Davis & Schleifer 1991:121).
De Saussure does give credit to the accomplishments of diachronic linguistics. This was also an endeavour to understand the nature of language, and the means by which to come to this understanding, was to trace the historical occurrences of words. However, according to De Saussure these studies fail in that they do not perceive the true nature of the object of study. Elemental words contained within a language is not its nature: the nature of language is to be found in the formal relationships which give rise to words and expressions. What people actually said was not as important as the structure which allowed them to say it (Eagleton 1982:114). Accordingly De Saussure proceeded to re-examine language and to provide a scientific understanding of the object of study.
Some of De Saussureís basic assumptions
- A synchronic approach as opposed to a diachronic one. De Saussure conceived of language as a system of signs (Zima 1999:1-2; Eagleton 1983:96), therefore a scientific study of language needed a system as its point of departure (Davis & Schleifer 1991:121). Furthermore, language functioned as a complete system at a given point in time - its historical development and changes through the course of time were less important than its present qualities. Accordingly De Saussure distinguishes between speech-events (parole) , and the system or code governing those events (langue) (Davis & Schleifer 1991:122). The study of langue is the synchronic study of the relationship among the elements of language at a particular point in time: therefore langue should be studied, not parole.
- A functional relationship as opposed to a causal one. A word is merely a linguistic sign (Davis & Schleifer 1991:122). A sign is made up of a signifier (signifiant) - a sound-image of its graphic equivalent, and a signified (signifiÈ) - a concept or meaning (Davis & Schleifer 1991:123; Eagleton 1983:96). Neither is the cause of the other. Signifiant and signifiÈ both exist simultaneously in a relationship of reciprocal presupposition : their combination is completely functional as this combination differs from all others. Linguistic signs differ due to different combinations of signifiant and signifiÈ.
- An arbitrary relationship as opposed to a motivated one. There is no inherent reason why a sign consisting of a signifiant and a signifiÈ refers to a particular object (Eagleton 1983:97). For example, neither the letters in c a t nor the phonetic sound of the word cat resembles anything connected to a four-legged furry creature uttering the sound miaau. The only reasons may be cultural and historical convention. Therefore, the arbitrary relationship between the word-sign and the object it refers to, is stressed.
2.2. Russian Formalism
De Saussureís structural linguistics were first appropriated for the study of literature in Russia in the beginning of the twentieth century (Davis & Schleifer 1991:128; Eagleton 1983:97). Two groups of critics began working towards what became known as Russian Formalism : the Moscow Linguistic Circle (in
- and Opojaz - the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (in 1916) (Zima 1999:26; Davis & Schleifer 1991:129). Initially the fundamental aim was to analyse poetic or lyrical texts. Indeed, in these early years literature was identical to poetry.
A name to remember is that of Roman Jakobson: in fact, he is seen as the major link between formalism and modern-day structuralism (Zima 1999:36;
Russian Formalism had the following major consequences for literary studies later in the Western world: firstly the interior patterning of the text becomes obvious - one can understand how it works (Davis & Schleifer 1991:129). Secondly form designates a text as belonging to a particular genre, for example a novel, a poem, a drama and so forth. Therefore, according to formalism literature is constituted by relational patterns within a text and which are relevant to that particular text or genre. In this way Russian Formalism produced a science of literature : formal devices created literary effects which could be investigated and analysed by studying the text only. The inspiration of the author and the subjective emotions of the reader were irrelevant: by means of an objective analysis of formal devices one could eventually get a grip on a literary text.
Both the Moscow Linguistic Circle and Opojaz were disbanded in 1930 by the Russian government. Their focus on the autonomous existence of the text governed by its own regularity and independent of history and society was not in line with the ideological standards of socialist realism (Davis & Schleifer 1991:129): they failed to make communist propaganda. So, many of the members of these movements fled to Prague to join the Prague Linguistic Circle where Roman Jacobson had already been working for some time (see below).
2.3. Prague Semiotics
Roman Jacobson migrated to Prague in 1920. When the Prague Linguistic Circle was founded in 1926, he became one of the major theorists of Czech Structuralism (Zima 1999:36; Eagleton 1983:98). Prague Linguistics also used De Saussureís concepts as their point of departure, especially his emphasis on the arbitrary relationship between sign and referent - that is, between word and thing. This was also one of the basic concepts of the Formalists: consequently Prague Linguistics agreed that the text was indeed an autonomous object, detached from its social, cultural and historical
circumstances. But, more than the Formalists, the Czech structuralists stressed the structural unity of a work. The different elements of a text were in fact functions of a dynamic whole: texts were viewed as functional structures which ought to be studied in their own right as they functioned according to their own rules (Eagleton 1983:100). In a sense Prague Linguistics took over the ideas of the Formalists, elaborating on them and systematising them further.
The Prague school of linguistics represented a kind of transition from Formalism to modern structuralism. Later on the terms structuralism and semiology became merged, as semiotic or semiology means the systematic study of signs. Structuralism especially transformed the study of poetry, however, it revolutionized the study of narrative. It created a whole new science - narratology (Eagleton 1983:103).
However, after 1930 Russian Formalism and Prague structuralism had almost no impact on Western criticism and theory until 1960 in France with the coming of French Structuralism (Martin 1987:25; Davis & Schleifer 1991:129).
2.4. Narratology
The Second World War broke out and Roman Jakobson migrated once again, this time to the United States (Eagleton 1983:98) where he met the French structural anthropologist Claude LÈvi-Strauss. The development of modern structuralism was the result of this encounter, this intellectual relationship between linguist Roman Jakobson and anthropologist, Claude LÈvi-Strauss.
LÈvi-Strauss studied many and varied myths, mostly Amerindian (Davis & Schleifer 1991:138). Jakobson helped him to see that linguistic analytic methods could also be used by anthropology (Martin 1987:25; Selden 1986: 58-59). Cultural narratives were the object of LÈvi-Straussís interest: linguistic methodology made him realise that myths, just like texts also consisted of
sjuzet and suggested a narrative should actually be divided in three levels: histoire, rÈcit and narration (to be discussed in the next chapter).
3. A choice for GÈrard Genetteís model
What makes Genetteís Narrative Discourse (1980) especially suitable as a model for structural analysis, is that he does not merely provide a theory, but also applies this to a complex novel - that of Marcel Proust: A la recherche du temps perdu ( Remembrance of Things Past ). This novel consists of three volumes, 1300 pages in total. Culler (in his foreword to Genette 1980:9) states: It is as though Genette had determined to give the lie to the skeptics who maintained that the structural analysis of narrative was suited only to the simplest narratives, like folk tales, and, in an act of bravado, had chosen as his object one of the most complex, subtle and involuted of narratives.
If one accepts that a theory formulates general principles that are appropriable to all specific instances (see above), Genetteís theory of narrative discourse should be equally suitable for Proustís Recherche and SÓn-lēqi-unninniís Gilgamesh Epic. This model was furthermore deliberately chosen for its complexity. Although the Gilgamesh Epic belong to temps perdu , it is anything but a simple folk tale.
For the purposes of the analysis that is to follow, I regarded only tablets I ñ XI as the narrative proper. Although the previous chapter argued that tablet XII was intended as part of the Epic, this tablet does form an appendix to the narrative structure that is so neatly enclosed by the walls of Uruk. Furthermore ñ for reasons that I stated in the section on Methodology ñ the Epic is treated as a narrative, not as a poem. Thus, what follows is a narrative analysis of the Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, tablets I ñ XI.
