sign in sign up
<<
Home , Jacques Lacan

STRUKTURALISME, POST-STRUKTURALISME DAN NEO- STRUKTURALISME

Sannuraini

Universitas Hasanuddin

A.

Structuralism in Europe developed in the early 1900s, mainly in France and Russian Empire, in the structural of and the subsequent Prague, Moscow and Copenhagen schools of linguistics. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, when structural linguistics were facing serious challenges from the likes of and thus fading in importance, an array of scholars in the humanities borrowed Saussure's concepts for use in their respective fields of study. Structuralism in literature can provide the way to understand the culture as Rahman & Letlora (2018) stated that Language and culture are two important elements which cannot be separated each . Language is a medium of communication to acquire the information of culture and others. Communication in daily activity especially in Indonesian tradition which include many expression and idioms in order to strengthen the tradition itself such as ‘maulid nabi’ (Rahman, 2017). Based on Rahman’s research, there is a relation between language and literature. Rahman (2020) stated that literature is an identity which referred to ethno-literature. Literature is a source of learning and entertainment for readers (Rahman, Amir P., & Tammasse, 2019). One of literary work that interesting and has important role in literary research is Shakespeare’s writing as Rahman & Weda (2019) in their research regarding linguistics deviation and rhetoric figures in Shakespeare’s selected plays.

The structuralist mode of reasoning has been applied in a diverse range of fields, including , sociology, , , economics and architecture. The most prominent thinkers associated with structuralism include Claude Lévi-Strauss, linguist , and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. As an intellectual movement, structuralism was initially presumed to be the heir apparent to . However, by the late 1960s, many of structuralism's basic tenets came under attack from a new wave of predominantly French intellectuals such as the philosopher and historian , the philosopher , the Marxist philosopher , and the literary critic . Lévi-Strauss, Lacan, Barthes, and Foucault are called "Gang of Four”. Though elements of their work necessarily relate to structuralism. In the 1970s, structuralism was criticized for its rigidity and a . Despite this, many of structuralism's proponents, such as Lacan, continue to assert an influence on and many of the fundamental assumptions of some of structuralism's post- structuralist critic are a continuation of structuralism.

Ferdinand de Saussure and The Central Concept of Structural Linguistic

1. Synchronic and Diachronic

Synchronic linguistics is one of two main temporal dimensions of language study introduced by Saussure in his “Course in General Linguistics” (1916). It aims at describing a language at the specific point of time. The other is diachronic linguistics, which is the study of language through periods of time in history. The first looks at a snapshot of a language, and the other studies its evolution like a frame of or movie). For examples, analyzing the word order in a sentence in Old English only would be a study in synchronic linguistics. If you looked at how word order charged in a sentences from Old English to Middle English and now to modern English, that would be a diachronic study.

2. Langue and Parole Langue is a complete system of linguistic signs that allows to configure and determine the use of grammar, phonology and vocabulary. This system is conventionalized according to the communicative needs of a society. In contrast, Parole is the physical manifestation of speech, where through individual use of language (langue) each person creates a particular style that characterizes it in the process of communication in a society. Examples: - I went to Bantimurung Yesterday. (Langue=.have a rule) - Yesterday, I go to Bantimurung. (Parole= automatically)

3. Signifier and Signified is concerned with signs and their relationship with objects and meaning. Saussure argued that linguistic signs were composed of two parts a signifier and a signified. Simply put, signifier is the sound associated with or image of something (e.g., a tree), while the signified is the idea of concept of the thing (e.g., the idea of tree). And the is the object that combine the signifier and the signified into a meaningful unit.

4. Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Relation Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic relation are introduced by Saussure (1974) to distinguish two kinds of signifier: one concerns positioning (syntagmatic) and the other concerns substitution (paradigmatic). A syntagmatic relationship involves a sequence of signs that together create meaning. A paradigmatic relationship involves signs that can replace each other, usually changing the meaning with the substitution. The words in a sentences are all syntagms and together they form a syntagmatic relationship that creates meaning. If we change the order of syntagm in a sentence it can change the meaning significantly. Examples: - John ate an octopus - An octopus ate John

Two sentences using the exact same words (syntagms), but very different meanings because the order (the syntagmatic relationship) of the words changed. Sticking with John and his dinner, John might have a chosen a variety of things to eat besides octopus. He might have chosen beef, eggplant chicken, or pasta for his meal. Each is part of a of foods or specifically foods John might eat. The items in a paradigm share some kind of function and the paradigm is the set or category they belongs to. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic can be seen as different dimensions of a sign and they are often shown that way as in the following table.

The cow jumped over the moon

The dog walked around my yard

The cat slept under your bed

Our hamster ran inside its wheel

Their Bird flew through our window

Pat’s fish swam in a fishbowl

The syntagmatic relationship is seen along the horizontal axis and the paradigmatic relationship is seen along the vertical axis. Start at any row and read across for the syntagmatic relationship. For example “The cow jumped over the moon” (syntagmatic) together for one meaning, but cow could replace with another word in the column (paradigmatic) to form a different sentence with a different meaning such as “the fish jumped over the moon”. Another example, here are a couple of three course meals. The combination salad, salmon, ice cream forms a syntagmatic relationship as does soup, steak, and pie. Salmon and steak have a paradigmatic relationship because one can be substituted for another. Syntagmatic is vertical relationship and Paradigmatic is horizontal relationship.

Salad Salmon Ice Cream

Soup Steak Pie

B. Post- structuralism

Post-Structuralism is a late 20th Century movement in philosophy and literary criticism, which is difficult to summarize but which generally defines itself in its opposition to the popular Structuralism movement which preceded it in 1950s and 1960s France. It is closely related to Post-Modernism, although the two concepts are not synonymous. The prefix "post" refers to the fact that many contributors such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and were former structuralists who, after abandoning structuralism, became quite critical of it. In direct contrast to structuralism's claims of culturally independent meaning, post- structuralists typically view culture as inseparable from meaning.

While post-structuralism is difficult to define or summarize, it can be broadly understood as a body of distinct reactions to structuralism. There are two main reasons for this difficulty. First, it rejects definitions that claim to have discovered absolute 'truths' or facts about the world. Second, very few people have willingly accepted the label 'post-structuralist'; rather, they have been labeled as such by others. Therefore no one has felt compelled to construct a 'manifesto' of post-structuralism. Thus the exact nature of post-structuralism and whether it can be considered a single philosophical movement is debated. It has been pointed out that the term is not widely used in Europe (where most supposedly "post-structuralist" theory originates) and that the concept of a post-structuralist theoretical paradigm is largely the invention of American academics and publishers.

In the Post-Structuralist approach to textual analysis, the reader replaces the authors as the primary of inquiry and, without a central fixation on the author, Post-Structuralists examine other sources for meaning (e.g., readers, cultural norms, other literature, etc), which are therefore never authoritative, and promise no consistency. A reader's culture and society, then, share at least an equal part in the interpretation of a piece to the cultural and social circumstances of the author.

Some of the key assumptions underlying Post-Structuralism include:

1. The concept of "self" as a singular and coherent entity is a fictional construct, and an individual rather comprises conflicting tensions and knowledge claims (e.g. , class, profession, etc). The interpretation of meaning of a text is therefore dependent on a reader's own personal concept of self. 2. An author's intended meaning (although the author's own identity as a stable "self" with a single, discernible "intent" is also a fictional construct) is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives, and a literary text (or, indeed, any situation where a subject perceives a sign) has no single purpose, meaning or existence. It is necessary to utilize a variety of perspectives to create a multi-faceted interpretation of a text, even if these interpretations conflict with one another.

Post-Structuralism emerged in France during the 1960s, a period of political turmoil, rebellion and disillusionment with traditional values, accompanied by a resurgence of interest in , Western , Phenomenology and Nihilism. Many prominent Post- Structuralists (generally labeled as such by others rather than by themselves), such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Roland Barthes (1915 - 1980), were initially Structuralists but later came to explicitly reject most of Structuralism's claims, particularly its notion of the fixity of the relationship between the signifier and the signified, but also the overall grandness of the theory, which seemed to promise everything and yet not quite to deliver.

In his 1966 lecture "Structure, Sign and Play in the of the Human Science", Jacques Derrida (a key figure in the early Post-Structuralist movement, although he later founded the Deconstructionism movement), was one of the first to propose some theoretical limitations to Structuralism, and identified an apparent de-stabilizing or de-centering in intellectual life (referring to the displacement of the author of a text as having greatest effect on a text itself, in favor of the various readers of the text), which came to be known as Post- Structuralism.

Roland Barthes (1915 - 1980), originally a confirmed Structuralist, published his“The of the Author” in 1968, in which he argued that any literary text hasmultiple meanings, and that the author was not the prime source of the work's semantic content. In his 1967 work "Elements of Semiology", he also advanced the concept of the metalanguage, a systematized way of talking about concepts like meaning and grammar beyond the constraints of traditional (first-order) language.

C. Neo- structuralism

Manfred Frank (1945-) German philosopher and cultural critic. A prolific author of books on the German Romantic tradition in philosophy (especially the work of Schleiermacher and Johhan Gottliebb Fichte), very few of which have been translated into English, Frank is probably best known though for his sympathetic critiques of and post-structuralism, or what he himself labels neo-structuralism. Operating in the hermeneutic tradition of Hans George Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, but radicalizing their positions significantly, Frank charges Roland Barthes, , Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jean Francois Lyotard with underplaying the importance of the subject and overplaying the arbitrariness of the sign. Frank upholds the structuralist position that the sign is constituted in a systematic network of interconnections between other signs, but resists the implication that the meaning of specific signs is completely arbitrary. He insists rather that meaning is multi-layered and that the network of signs is influenced by history. But rather that argue, as structuralism does, that it is the system of signs that confers meaning, Frank takes the contrary view and suggest that it is the historically sediment meaning of signs that produce structures.

Frank argues that post-structuralism is inappropriately named because the body work it refers to cannot be thought of or understood independent in his view, it is better thought of as neo-structuralism because it can be seen as a continuation of structuralist project, with new means. As Frank sees it, neo-structuralism is an essentially French movement, albeit one with adherents all over the world.

Neo-structuralism then presents itself as a variation of structuralism, a repetition of this earlier repetition. We can hear it clearly in what Derrida says of Levi-Strauss:

If Lévi-Strauss, better than any other, has brought to light the freeplay of repetition and the repetition of freeplay, one no less perceives in his work a sort of ethic of presence, an ethic of nostalgia for origins…As a turning toward the presence, lost or impossible, of the absent origin, this structuralist thematic of broken immediateness is thus the sad, negative, nostalgic, guilty, Rousseauist facet of the thinking of freeplay of which the Nietzschean affirmation—the joyous affirmation of the freeplay of the world and without truth, without origin, offered to an active interpretation—would be the other side…There are thus two interpretations of interpretation, of structure, of sign, of freeplay. The one seeks to decipher, dreams of deciphering, a truth or an origin which is free from freeplay and from the order of the sign, and lives like an exile the necessity of interpretation. The other, which is no longer turned toward the origin, affirms freeplay and tries to pass beyond man and humanism, the name man being the name of that being who, throughout the history of metaphysics or of onto-theology—in other words, through the history of all of his history—has dreamed of full presence, the reassuring foundation, the origin and the end of the game.

REFERENCES: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism https://www.thoughtco.com/synchroniclinguistics-1692015

Https://www.educaplay.com/learning-resource/3226541-langue_and_parole.html https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/theory/signs.html https://vanseodesign.com/web-design/syntagms-paradigms https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/post-structuralism https://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_poststructuralism.html

Rahman, F. (2017). The Revival of Local Fairy Tales for Children Education. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(5), 336. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0705.02 Rahman, F. (2020). Literature of the Minority in South Sulawesi Endangered. (April 2018). Rahman, F., Amir P., M., & Tammasse. (2019). Trends in reading literary fiction in print and cyber media undergraduate students of hasanuddin university by. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.72.66.77 Rahman, F., & Slamatin Letlora, P. (2018). Cultural Preservation: Rediscovering the Endangered Oral Tradition of Maluku (A Case Study on Kapata of Central Maluku). Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(2), 91. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.2p.91 Rahman, F., & Weda, S. (2019). Linguistic Deviation and The Rhetoric Figures In Shakepeare’s Selected Plays. XLinguae, 12(1), 37–52.