Roland Barthes' "The Structuralist Activity" (Summary)

 

Structuralism isn't exactly a formal group or movement, at least not yet, because most authors labeled as structuralists aren't consciously following a shared doctrine. It's also not just a set of words or vocabulary. The term "structure" is widely used across social sciences, making it hard to distinguish who is truly a structuralist. Words like functions, forms, signs, and significations are also commonly used and don't necessarily mark someone as a structuralist.

 

To understand structuralism, we need to look at certain pairs of ideas like "signifier/signified" and "synchronic/diachronic." These pairs are important because they relate to language and time, which are central in structuralist thinking. The first pair comes from linguistics, especially Saussure's work, which focuses on the relationship between words and their meanings. The second pair deals with how we view history. "Synchronic" refers to looking at a specific moment in time, while "diachronic" looks at historical processes over time.

 

Interestingly, the main opposition to structuralism often comes from Marxists, who disagree with its implications for historical analysis rather than its structural concepts.

 

So, in academic terms, structuralism is a theoretical framework that examines the underlying structures and systems that shape language, society, and history. It involves analyzing the relationships between elements, like signifiers and signifieds in language, and synchronic and diachronic perspectives in history.

Structuralism isn't just about philosophers; it can apply to various artists too. It's not a fixed school of thought but more like a way of experiencing and understanding structure. Whether you're analyzing or creating, structuralism is about mentally engaging with structure.

 

So, what exactly is this structuralist activity? It's a series of mental operations aimed at revealing how things function. The goal is to reconstruct an object in a way that shows its inner workings or "functions." It's like creating a model that helps us see what wasn't obvious before.

 

This process involves breaking down the real world, studying its parts, and then putting them back together in a new way. Some might think this sounds trivial, but it's actually quite profound. By doing this, we reveal new insights and make things more understandable. It's like adding a layer of intellect to the object.

 

This intellectual addition is crucial because it helps us understand not just the object itself, but also its significance in human history and society. It's about understanding our place in the world and how we interact with it. So, while structuralism might seem like just rearranging things, it's actually about gaining deeper understanding and insight into ourselves and the world around us

 

 

Structuralism isn't just about observing the world; it's about actively reshaping it into something understandable. It's like creating a mirror image of reality, not to duplicate it, but to make sense of it. So, you could say structuralism is essentially about imitation.

 

In this sense, there's no real difference between structuralism as an intellectual pursuit and artistic endeavors. Both involve mimicking reality, not by copying its substances, but by understanding its functions. Whether it's analyzing language, society, or art, or creating something new, like music or literature, the process is similar.

 

For example, when linguists break down speech sounds into patterns, or when scholars dissect myths to understand their function, they're doing the same thing as artists who compose music or write literature. They're all revealing the inner workings of their subjects through structured representations.

 

It doesn't matter if the starting point is something already organized, like a language or society, or something scattered, like ideas waiting to be formed. What defines art or analysis isn't the nature of the original object, but the way it's reconstructed and enhanced by human technique.

2

So, structuralism isn't just about the end result; it's about the method used to achieve it. By reconstructing objects to reveal their functions, structuralism creates a distinct approach to understanding and creating. That's why we talk about structuralist activity rather than just the outcomes of that activity.

 

The structuralist activity involves two key operations: dissection and articulation. Dissection entails breaking down the initial object into movable fragments whose arrangement creates meaning. These fragments, like squares in Mondrian's art, musical series by Pousseur, or elements in Butor's Mobile, have significance only in relation to their boundaries. These boundaries distinguish them from other fragments and link them to a paradigm—a set of related objects or units.

 

Understanding the paradigm is crucial in structuralism. Objects within a paradigm must share some similarities and differences for their meanings to be distinct. For instance, in French, the words "poisson" and "poison" differ in meaning due to shared characteristics like dental sounds but distinct features like sonority. Similarly, Mondrian's squares share shapes but differ in proportions and colors.

 

The dissection operation creates a scattered array of fragments, but these fragments aren't chaotic. Each belongs to a virtual group or reservoir, forming an organized system governed by the principle of minimal difference. This principle ensures that each fragment relates intelligently to others within its group, setting the stage for the next operation: articulation.

 

After identifying the units, structural thinkers must establish rules for their association, a process called articulation. In every structural endeavor, whether in arts or discourse, there's a commitment to regularity rather than strict formalism. The recurrence of units and their associations gives the work structure and meaning, combating the randomness of chance.

 

These rules of combination, called forms in linguistics, ensure that the arrangement of units isn't merely haphazard. They give coherence to the work, transforming it from a random assembly into something meaningful. This is why abstract works, despite lacking figurative elements, can still be considered art—they demonstrate the human capacity to impose order on chaos.

 

 

3

The constructed simulacrum doesn't merely mirror the world; it introduces a new category of objects: the functional. This aligns with developments in information theory and research. More importantly, it underscores how humans imbue things with meaning. Structuralism, in essence, focuses on the process of meaning-making rather than the meanings themselves.

 

This perspective isn't entirely new; humanity has always sought to understand the world. What's novel is the emphasis on how meaning is generated and at what cost. The goal isn't just to assign meanings but to comprehend the process of meaning fabrication. Thus, the object of structuralism isn't merely man with meanings but rather man as the creator of meanings—a Homo significans engaged in the continual production of semantic significance.

 

According to Hegel, the ancient Greeks found awe in nature, listening to its mysteries and attributing divine significance, like the god Pan, to natural phenomena. Today, in our socialized world where even nature is imbued with human influence, structural thinkers, much like the ancient Greeks, seek meaning within culture. They perceive culture not as a collection of stable truths but as a vast human endeavor constantly creating meaning.

 

For structuralists, the act of meaning-making is more crucial than the meanings themselves. Structuralism sees creation and analysis as inseparable; they are ongoing processes rather than static objects. Like ancient prophets who sensed meaning without necessarily naming it, structuralists engage with meaning without being limited by explicit definitions.

 

Literature, especially, embodies this prophetic nature, both speaking to and questioning the world, reshaping meanings as it interacts with reality. Despite accusations of being detached from reality, structuralism doesn't ignore history. Instead, it seeks to connect historical content and forms, bridging material and intellectual, ideological, and aesthetic aspects.

 

Structuralists understand that their approach is just one form of understanding the world, subject to change like everything else. They find validation not in permanence but in their ability to reinterpret old languages and adapt to new ones. As history evolves, so will structuralism, always ready to embrace the emergence of new languages that speak to the human condition in fresh ways.