Structuralism vs. Poststructuralism
Lomanno (lomanno@ix.netcom.com)
Tue, 03 Nov 1998 08:49:47 -0500
Erin wrote:
> All this deconstructionism is bringing me back to the good old literary
> debate about whether or not we can truly determine the intent of an
> author. Personally, I hate to think that Salinger posed that koan and
> then attempted to throw us clue-like answers in his text. It seems cheap
> to me.
>
> It just makes me wonder about the merits of structuralist readings of
> texts...I mean, how do we bananafish-listers feel about trying to read
> Salinger's works by guessing his intent? I read a lot of Derrida
> recently (despite my ill-constucted, effortless sentences) and seemed to
> see the merit in his view, but I also just heard a really interesting
> lecture on the rewards of structual interpretation.
Particularly in Salinger's case, I like to leave author intent out of
it. He obviously doesn't want us to know, and the nature of his stories
makes it more fun NOT to know.
But actually, both poststructuralists and structuralists find the
author's intent irrelevant. It's just a matter of whether you buy the
notion of being able to know the answers. Structuralists trace the
origin of "signs" (particularly language) through history and culture to
find the "bigger picture," the "original meanings." Poststructuralists
say there are no original meanings because the nature of the signs
themselves is problematic.
When we say "gun," the structuralists say the image that forms in our
head of the object "gun" has been taught to us by our society and
culture; there is no real connection between the word "gun" and an
actual gun. We learn that "gun" means gun, and that's the end of it.
The poststructuralists say the process doesn't stop at the image of a
gun; along with it come the connotations of what a gun represents:
death, violence, hunting, etc. So while structuralists say the answer
lies in the image of the gun, poststructuralists say that's only the
beginning.
Because of this problem with language carrying all these inherent
interpretations, I don't see how the author's intent can ever be a good
method of determining meaning. The reader brings as much imput as to the
meaning of a piece as the author (actually, more). After a story is
written, it no longer matters what the author intended because it is
constantly being "re-written" in meaning by history, society, and
individual readers.
A story can never be captured in its original state in the author's mind
(not even on the author's paper after he writes it). That's the problem
(and the beauty) of language. It is an imperfect means of communication.
But because of this, new meanings of, say, Holden Caulfield, are
constantly being "written." I personally find this invigorating because
it means Holden will never remain static; he is always growing and
changing.
--Kari