The Displacement of Structuralism

Unfortunately, I am one of the few who has had trouble keeping up with their blog. My posts have been few and far between, but I am going to make a valiant attempt to remedy this today. Sorry that most of my posts will pertain to past information. I just have quite a bit of catching up to do.

I remember reading in the biography of Tzvetan Todorov that his branch of Literary Criticism, structuralism, had been "less discredited than displaced, supplanted by more socially engaged approaches--among them, Marxism, feminism, the new historicism, and cultural studies" (2098).

This doesn't surprise me at all when looking at the differences between the different literary schools. Structuralism, while a legitimate critical school, focuses so little on the author and so much on the theoretical that it cannot help but be displaced by other schools. Marxism, feminism, the New Historicism and cultural studies all allow the critic to look at the author, the culture, the background, the history. In other words, a critic is given such a wider lens through which to view a work. When one is limited to the overall system of which the work is a part, it almost seems simultaneously too broad and too narrow. What exactly is the whole system of which the work is a part? How do we find and define such a system?

On the other hand, when looking at a work through a cultural, economic, or historical lens it is easier to understand what to look for and now to go about looking for it. The scope then, is much narrower, but the amount of places in a work that a critic has to look for their topic of study is broad and rich.

I personally also think that in order to be a structuralist, especially in this post-modern era, a conscious effort must be made. Sometimes, in order to separate a work from its author and its historical background great pains must be taken. It would take a great deal of effort, that almost seems counter intuitive to make literature yield a scientific knowledge. It almost seems like an attempt to make literature something that it is not.

Perhaps it does not matter that e=mc^2 was posited by Einstein, but in the literary world, I cannot help but think that the author of a work is of paramount importance. It gives a scholar no more information about the equation to know who wrote it, but it cannot be denied that knowledge of an author adds some richness to a text.

Perhaps none of this makes much sense, but I am merely trying to say that structuralism seems a more restrictive field of study when compared to the literary schools that have replaced it. I doubt that very many of us would sit down in class and begin discussing a work from the vantage point of a structuralist. In fact, I think it would prove very difficult for most of us. To separate a piece from an author and a history would be painstaking for most of us today, as we have been raised in a literary tradition where it is desired for reader and author to connect and make meaning from the fusion of the two.