My interpretation, since it's finally allowed

Movements and theories always bring about some sort of reaction or rebellion from society. Thus, at the root of post-structuralism is society’s reaction to structuralism. However, post-structuralism did not reject all aspects of structuralism. Post-structuralism retained the scientific aspect and systematic approach of structuralism. It is still reliant on observing the language, but instead of merely looking at things linguistically, it operates philosophically. Post-structuralism questions the language instead of accepting the arbitrary relationship between sign and signified. When studying a sign, you can not use tunnel vision and perceive only the signified. The perception of the signified is impacted by its surroundings, especially it’s opposite. Thus, when thinking about summer, you define it depending on the surrounding words. You inherently think about the other seasons in order to define summer. Therefore, signs can not have structured meanings. Unlike structuralism, post-structuralism relies on the interaction of the words and their interpretation. You must philosophically question the surroundings of a word instead of just the actual word. I think this is more of a realistic method than structuralism. I feel like if my interpretation isn’t necessary to find the meaning of a text, there is no reason for me to contemplate its meaning. Therefore, post-structuralism would have most likely been my reaction to structuralism as well.

Structural Importance

"the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (35)

While much of what Saussure writes did not hold particular value or meaning to me, I was somewhat intrigued by his concept of the “bond between the signifier and the signified.” As Saussure says, this bond is completely arbitrary. His comparison of the front and back of a piece of paper being the signifier and the signified was very fitting. Even if I try not to carry a certain connotation with a sound, my brain connects the sound to the meaning. What is even more intriguing is the fact that certain sounds can carry with them meanings far beyond the base definition of the word. For example, to take a “signifier” that has been altered lately, I think of the words Barry Bonds. This is merely a name, does not hold a definition, and yet when I hear it, my brain immediately has a connection. I think of steroids and dishonesty. The fact that a signifier is not only connected to a definition but is in fact responsible for word associations plays an important part in the method we use to choose such signifiers. One example of how this is used in every day life is in trial law. While a prosecutor might not be able to refer to the defendant using inflammatory and suggestive language, he is allowed to use words that carry negative connotations with them. Lawyers know that these signifiers have an arbitrary bond with the signified, which will lead jury members to lean toward the nature of the signified language. This concept is key to Saussure’s method of breaking down language because his point was that the placement and structure of a word carries with it the meaning.

Marxism

The Marxist perspective that literature is a product of the time and social class of which it is written is certainly a rational theory. When writing, I often include underlying things that are influential in my life without even realizing it. Therefore, it makes sense that an author would produce a work through the perspective of a social class from which he/she is in. It is much easier to write from a perspective which you have experienced; and even when trying not to, you usually let your societal background creep into your work.
However, the fundamentals of Marxism sharply conflict with those set forth in liberal humanism. If good literature is timeless, it seems that the time period in which it is written should not ground it. If text does have a base meaning, the time period or social class it is written for will not change its interpretation. Good literature is read by all classes and passes the test of time. While the author may have been influenced by his/her background, it remains a fact that good literature conveys that human nature is a constant. Therefore, while the context of this nature may change, its base result will remain the same. When contemplating Marxism, the scene where I’m sitting on the bench and Sean (Robin Williams) is lecturing me comes directly to mind- he says:

You presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine and ripped my fuckin' life apart. You're an orphan, right? Do you think I'd know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you?

This makes me think that while you can read as many books as you want on a social class or setting, until you’ve actually experienced it, you really can’t understand its true magnitude. Therefore, the Marxist position that literature is defined by the author’s social class and time period makes perfect sense, as the author will portray the only true experience he has-his own.

Hi All

My past experiences with Literary Criticism are few and far between. I took Persuasive Strategies at Emmanuel and a class that resembled it at my former college. While I understand the basis and objective of most of the viewpoints, I often feel like they take their initiative a bit too far and in doing so, lose sight of any semblance of reason a piece may have contained. In this blog, I hope to gain a better understanding of just what is accomplished by deconstructing a piece to such levels and a greater appreciation for doing so. When reading for pleasure, I sometimes try to deconstruct a work with a certain criticism, just to see if it holds any weight when I do it for myself. While helpful on occasion, usually the only thing I end up deconstructing is my pleasure. While I can not fully relay the genius that Will Hunting is, I do hope to gain an iota of his swagger and intellect through blogging- while throwing in a few humorous anecdotes or quotes from Good Will Hunting.

While reading Barry’s background of liberal humanism, I found myself saying “duh” almost every time I turned a page. Yes, good literature is timeless. Yes, human nature is a constant. There are always certain reactions and behaviors that are foreseeable. Yes, a good author displays his points through actions instead of just telling his audience things. All these are valid points, and seemed rather obvious to me when reading them. However, upon a few moments reflection, I realized how many books there are that I’ve read where the author did just tell us things or misrepresented human nature. After realizing this, I was more concerned with the number of authors who don’t conform to these seemingly simplistic points. Thus, it made sense as to why theory is used to deconstruct works and analyze what they actually represent. Hopefully I will now be able to do so in this blog.