2007 年4 月 中国英语教学 （双月刊） Apr．2007

第 30 卷　第2 期 CELEA Journal（Bim onthly） Vol．30 No．

2

THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STRUCTURALISM

＆ DECONSTRUCTION

Li Wei ＆ Ding Yan

Inner－Mongolia University of Science and Technology

Abstract
　　Deconstruction and Structuralism are tw o of the twentieth century western criticism schools ，and their
relationship still is an issue that needs to be syste matically clarified．The paper presents a review study on the
particular relationship of Deconstruction and Structuralism by co m paring these tw o criticism schools fro m the
respects of their origins ，features ，and limitations in the chronological view ． It tends to prove that
Deconstruction ste ms fro m the Structuralism ，ho wever Deconstruction differs itself fro m Structuralism in
certain key features and bases itself upon a certain characteristic critique of Structuralism ．

Key w ords
structuralism ；Deconstruction ；
relationship

I．Introduction
Criticism is for nothing but w orks of art ，w hich is one of the pro minent featuresin twentieth century
western criticism schools． To so m e extent ， Russian form alism ， Anglo－Am erican New Criticism ，
Structuralism and Deconstruction run through the w hole twentieth century western criticism history and
exert great influence on literary criticism ． There is a close relationship a m ong the m ，especially
Deconstruction and Structuralism ． Deconstruction ste ms fro m the Structuralism ，but breaks with
Structuralism in certain key features and bases itself upon a certain characteristic critique of
Structuralism ．If Structuralism were father ，Deconstruction might be regarded as son．So ， the best way to
understand Deconstruction is to understand Structuralism ．

II．Structuralism
1．Definition and Origin
What is Structuralism ？Definitely speaking ，Structuralism is a m ode of thinking and a m ethod of
analysis practiced in 20th century socialsciences and hu m anities．Methodologically ， it analyzeslarge－scale
syste ms by exa mining the relations and functions of the sm allest constituent ele m ents of such syste ms ，
w hich range fro m hu m an languages and cultural practices to folktales and literary texts．Structuralism had
its originsin the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure ，a Swisslinguist ，w hose Course in General Linguistics
published in 1916 and beca m e the m ostim portant source of Structuralism ．Saussure s insight was centered
not on speech itself but on the underlying rules and conventions enabling language to function． By
analyzing the social or collective dim ension of language rather than individual speech ，he pioneered and
pro m oted the study of gra m m ar rather than usage ，rules rather than expressions ，m odels rather than
data ， langue（language）rather than parole （speech ） ．Saussure was interested in the infrastructure of
language that is co m m on to all speakers and that function on an unconscious level． His inquiry was
concerned with deep structures rather than surface pheno m ena and m ade no reference to historical
evolution． （In structuralistterminology ， it was synchronic ， existing now ， rather than diachronic ，existing
and changing over tim e． ）
111
 The Co m parative Study of Structuralis m ＆Deconstruction 　　Li Wei ＆Ding Yan

2．Structuralism and Literature

Although Saussurian linguistics is Structuralism s illustration ，w hat is of interest is how Structuralism
analogically extends Saussure s terms into the analysis of literature．Structuralist critics believe that all
ele m ents of literature m ay be understood as parts of a syste m of signs． Roland Barthes ，a French
se miotician and literary critic ，was one of the first to apply the structuralistideas to the study ofliterature
w ho once said“Literature is sim ply a language ，a syste m of signs．Its being［ê tre］is not in its m essage ，
but in this“syste m ” ．Similarly ，it is not for criticism to reconstitute the m essage of a w ork ，but only its
syste m ，exactly as the linguist does not decipher the m eaning of a sentence ，but establishes the form al
structure w hich allows the m eaning to be conveyed （Brow n 2006 ） ．Barthes ，using Saussure s linguistic
theory as a m odel and e m ploying se miotic theory ，m akesit possible to analyze literary text syste m atically ，
even scientifically．

So m e structuralist critics followed Barthes propose that all narratives can be considered variations on
certain basic universal narrative patterns． The text ，therefore ，is a function of a syste m ，and every
sentence the author writes is m ade up of the already written．In other w ords ，any literary w orks has no
origin ，and authors m erely base on pre－ existing structures that enable the m to m ake specific sentence or
story ，w hich parallels closely the relations between langue and parole．

3． Main Activities
3．1 Dissection and Articulation
What should a critic do if the text is a function of a syste m ？In the Structuralist Activity ，Barthes
suggests ， that the structuralist activity consists of tw o essential parts ：dissection and articulation（Barthes
2001） ． Dissection is to cut the initial text into several parts and find certain m obile frag m ents w hose
differential situation causes a certain m eaning（the frag m ent has no m eaning in itself ，but the slightest
variation w ould change the final m eaning of the w hole text） ． Next ，the dissected units have to be
rearranged according to certain rules of association ，w hich is called articulation．Such reco m bination of
so m e of the ele m ents in the pre－ existing syste m can be regarded as an im portant operation of great
originality in literary evaluation．Structuralist activity therefore ， is to aim at revealing the structure of a
co m plex thing and the abstract fro m its pheno m enal form ． This allows attention to be focused on
structural similarities between different pheno m ena in spite of superficial differences．For exa m ple ，In
the 1950s Claude L é vi－
Strauss ， the Belgian French anthropologist ， first adapts the technique of language
analysis to analytic m yth criticism ．L é vi－
Strauss ， in the study of m ythology ，discovers so m e unchanging
ele m ents or ordered patterns w hich are called m ythe m es． He finds eleven m ythe m es fro m three Greek
tales and arranges the m into tw o groups of binary oppositions to deal with the illustration of the Greek
Mythology（L é vi－Strauss 2001） ．

3．2 Binary Oppositions

Structuralists ，including L évi－Strauss ，generally rely on the search for underlying binary oppositions
as an explanatory device． They stress that m uch of our im aginative w orld is structured by binary
oppositions ，such as being and nothingness ，jungle and village ，and culture and nature ，and etc．
Consequently ， the structuralist critics like to engage in the structures of opposition ，particular binary
oppositions and convince that the detailed study of binary oppositions do greatly help to facilitate the
understanding of the text．To illustrate ，He mingway s short story “Cat in the Rain”understood fro m a
w o m an s point of view ，presents a corner of the fe m ale w orld in w hich the m ale is only slightly involved．
The Am erican girl is the referee between the actual and the possible． The actual is m ade of rain ，
boredo m ，a preoccupied husband ，and irrational yearnings ；the possible ，silver ，spring ，fun ，a new
coiffure ，and new dresses．Between the actual and possible ， stands the cat．The w hole story can be seen
as turning on the opposition between tw o groups of m etony mies — the actual and the possible （Lodge
2002） ．Binary opposition is not only an analysis device of structuralism but also w here Deconstruction
starts to co m e in．

4．Limitation
On the w hole ，Structuralism is drawing so m e critics attention because it adds certain objectivity ，a
scientific m ethodology to the realm of literary studies w hich have often been criticized as absolutely
112
 CELEA Journal 72

subjective．Nonetheless ， it is undeniable that there are m any aspects of Structuralism are expecting to be
im proved．Firstly ， it tends to be static rather than dyna mic ， and itis also ahistorical because it so m etim es
ignores the way history effects the present．Secondly ， it does not m ake m uch difference for structuralist
critics on defining w hether literary w ork is the m asterpiece or rubbish because Structuralism in m any ways
only prefers the structural analysis of textto the literary evaluation．Furtherm ore ， the individuality of the
text disappears in favor of exa mining patterns ， syste ms ，and structures．Inevitably ，Structuralism w ould
be replaced by another critical school． Levi－ Strauss predicted that Structuralism w hich was based on
linguistic revolution w ould take existentialism s place ；however ， it was replaced by Deconstruction．

III．Deconstruction
1．Definition and Origin
Deconstruction ，initiated by French philosopher and critic Jacques Derrida ， is the particular m ethod
of textual analysis and philosophical argu m ent involving the close reading of w orks in literature ，
philosophy ，psychoanalysis ， linguistics ，and anthropology to reveal logical or rhetorical inco m patibilities
between the explicit and im plicit planes of discourse in a text and to de m onstrate by m eans of a range of
critical techniques how these inco m patibilities are disguised and assimilated by the text．

2． Main Activities
2．1 Deffé
rance
Jacques Derrida s Structure ，Sign ，and Play is delivered as a conference paper at the height of the
Structuralism w hich contains his Deconstruction of Saussure s theory of the sign and announces
Structuralism s death． Poststructuralist theory denies the distinction between signifier and signified．
Derrida follows Saussure in describing language as a series of supple m ents and substitutions ，but argues
that the theory of the sign （a self－ sufficient union of signifier and signified ）is itself an instance of
logocentrism ． To indicate this shift in theory ，Derrida introduces the im portant term “diffé rance ”
（Derrida 2001 ）to de m onstrate that language and m eaning have no point of origin and no end ：the
m eaning is always the product of the “difference ” between signs ，and it is always “deferred ” by a
te m poral structural that never co m es to an end．To m ake the step further ，all texts for Derrida exhibit
“diffé rance”． He thinks that the literary w orks keeps its m eaning changeable and indefinite under the
spatial difference and te m poral deferm ent ； alltexts have a m biguity and because of this the possibility of a
final and co m plete interpretation is im possible． Deconstruction is therefore regarded as a new New
Criticism in textual a m biguities．In addition ，Derrida puts forward the theory of “iterability alters”
（Culler 2004 ）based on diffé rance．Iterability is the ability of a sign to be repeated again in a new
context． “Iterability alters”，just as its na m e im plies ，refers to repeated sign in a new context w hich
stands for new set of literary m eanings w hich are both similar to and different fro m the previous．
Repetition in text consequently creates the possibility of a divergence or opposition within a unity of
m eaning．

2． 2 The Dissolution of the Binary Opposition

Derrida says that the history of western thought is always built on the basic units ：the binary
opposition or pair in w hich one part of that pair is always m ore im portant than the other such as light／
dark ，m asculine／ fe minine ，right／ left．The superior is“m arked”as positive and the inferior as negative．
Derrida called such kind of syste m of philosophy that has rank structure and centers on structure
Logocentrism ．Deconstruction challenges the explanatory value of these oppositions．As one of its typical
analytical procedures ，a deconstructive reading focuses on binary oppositions within a text．This m ethod
has three steps ；the first step is to reveal an asy m m etry in the binary opposition ，suggesting an im plied
hierarchy ； the second step is to overturn the hierarchy te m porarily ，asif to m ake the text say the opposite
of w hat it appeared to say initially ；the third step is to displace one of the terms of the opposition ，often
in the form of a new and expanded definition．In this way ，Deconstructive argu m ents try to recover the
subordinated or forgotten ele m ents in literary w orks．In other w ords ，each of the critic techniques of
Deconstruction is variation on the basic idea of reversing conceptual hierarchies． Deconstruction critics
always endeavor to m ake the dissolution of the binary opposition in logocentrism ．For exa m ple ， signifier
and signified were disunited in“Absalo m ，Absalo m ！ ”．and authority center and tradition were denied and
dissolved．Toa m as Sutpen is the m ain character and narrative focus in “Absalo m ，Absalo m ” ． However ，
113
 The Co m parative Study of Structuralis m ＆Deconstruction 　　Li Wei ＆Ding Yan

Faulkner avoids describing him directly in the novel．Sutpen ，as the signified of “linguistic sign ”is
realized by the different narrators ：Miss Rosa ，Mr．Co m pson ，Quentin ，and Shreve．Should the reader
believe Miss Rosa or another narrator ？The understanding to the character of Sutpen is unlimited in the
literary text．Deconstructionist criticism m akes the m eaning of a text entirely up to the reader．

2． 3 Rhetoric of Literary Works

Another technique focusing on the rhetoric ， studies the stylistics and w ord choices in literary w orks．
More often the rhetorical features of a text undermine or contradict the the m e m ade by the text ：What
the text m eans is often in tension with w hat it says． Deconstructionists can also look for unexpected
relationships between see mingly unconnected parts of a text ，or use the m arginal ele m ents of a text as an
uncertain co m m entary on ele m ents w hich appear to be central．Deconstructionists also can play with the
m ultiple m eanings or the ety m ology of key w ordsin the textto figure out possible conflicts or a m biguities．
Puns and plays on w ords are often used to show interesting connections and unexpected tensions between
different parts of the text．Ro m an Jackobson ， a Russian－ Am erican linguist and literary critic w ho takesin
and develops Saussure s linguistic theory ，puts forward m etaphor and m etony m y based on paradig m atic
and syntag m atic relation and argues that m etaphor ，m etony m y ，and other figures of speech have an
im portant ， though neglected ， function of supporting w hat is reasonable and w hat is possible in the text．

3．Limitation
In so m e respects ，Derrida s alternative to the stability of “structure”is inappropriate ，since the
concept of“free play”is controversial with the carefulness of his reading of texts ， and has also been liable
to relativism and subjectivism ．It is criticized as being entirely subjective ，allowing no way for others to
investigate the objective standard of the literary critique．Despite the various critiques of Deconstruction ，
it has a strong im pact on other critical schools ，such as New Historicism and Fe minist Criticism ，w hich
change our m ode of thinking and form a new angle of view of appreciating literary w orks．

IV ．Conclusion
In conclusion ，Deconstruction rejects Structuralism for various reasons yet still defines itself in
relation to Structuralism ．Although Derrida argues against the structuralist position taken by followers of
Saussure and Claude L é vi－
Strauss ，yet they share m any ideas． Both structuralist and Deconstructionist
views try to find so m ething outside literature by looking for patterns in the literary texts．They tw o have
no particular interestin the declared intention of a w ork ， and believe that abstract ordering principles are
the only essential subject m atter．Their essential ideas about a text s reading and co m prehension are of
m utual co m ple m ent and their co m m on purpose is to seek the deep m eaning of w orks of art．However ， the
dissimilarities of Structuralism and Deconstruction outweigh the similarities ：m ost im portantly ，the
Structuralism regards w orks of art as closed syste m ．On the contrary ， the Deconstruction takes it as open
syste m ．Secondly ，Structuralism pays m ore attention to deep structure ，but Deconstruction exposes the
instability of m eaning and a m biguity of language．Thirdly ，for Structuralism ，the text is static to so m e
extent．By contrast ，for Deconstruction ，it s m ore like an extending net ，and ele m ent in text keeps
changing and recycling． We m ay safely draw the conclusion that Structuralism and Deconstruction have
close relationship and exert great influence on literary criticism ，especially ，w orks of art．

References
Barthes ，R ．2001．The Structuralist Activity．In Zhu Gang． Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories（pp．
163－ 167）．Shanghai ：Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press．
Bro w n ，C ．2006． Glossary of Literary Theory ：Structuralism ． Website accessed on Septe m ber 15 ，2006 at ：
http ：／／w w w ．
library．utoronto．ca／utel／glossary／Structuralism ．html
Culler ， J．2004． On Deconstruction（pp．110－ 133） ．Beijing ：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press．
Derrida ， J．2001．Structure ，Sign ， and Play．In Zhu Gang． Twentieth Century Western Critical Theories（pp．
205－ 207）．Shanghai ：Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press．
Lévi－Strauss ，C ．2001． The Structural Study of Myth．In Zhu Gang． Twentieth Century Western Critical
Theories（pp．158－ 162）．Shanghai ：Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press．
Lodge ，D ．2002．Analysis and Interpretation of the Realist Text ：Ernest He ming way s“Cat in the Rain” ．In
Zhang Zhongzai ，Selective Readings in 20th Century Western Critical Theory （pp．180－ 205 ）． Beijing ：
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press．
114