Editing Structuralism (section)

== {{Anchor|In literary theory and criticism}}In literary criticism and theory<!--'Structuralist semiotics', 'Structural semiotics', and 'Structuralist literary criticism' redirect here--> ==
{{Main|Semiotic literary criticism}}
In [[literary theory]], structuralist criticism relates literary texts to a larger structure, which may be a particular [[genre]], a range of [[Intertextuality|intertextual]] connections (such as patterns of [[metaphor]]<ref>
{{cite book
 |author1              = Suzanne Hecht Juhasz
 |date                 = December 1970
 |title                = Patterns of Metaphor: Their Function in Some Modern Long Poems: Studies in Williams, Pound, Stevens, and Eliot
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=UN5KAQAAMAAJ
 |publisher            = University of California
 |page                 = 1
 |access-date          = 26 February 2025
 |quote                = A reason why unifying structure in modern long poems has often escaped notice is that readers have not been sensitive to the organizing function of metaphor.
}}
</ref>),
a model of a universal [[narrative structure]], or a system of recurrent patterns or motifs.<ref>Barry, P. 2002. "Structuralism." Pp. 39–60 in ''Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory''. Manchester: [[Manchester University Press]].</ref><ref> Slavutin, Evgeny, and [[Vladimir Pimonov]]. 2018. ''Plot Structure''. Moscow: [[Nauka (publisher)|Nauka]] / Flinta Publishing.</ref>

The field of '''structuralist semiotics'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> argues that there must be a structure in every text, which explains why it is easier for experienced readers than for non-experienced readers to interpret a text.<ref>[[Winfried Nöth|Nöth, Winfried]]. 1995. ''Handbook of Semiotics''. Indiana University Press. p. 312.</ref> Everything that is written seems to be governed by rules, or "grammar of literature", that one learns in educational institutions and that are to be unmasked.<ref>Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. 2005. ''A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory'' (5th ed.). Harlow. p. 76.</ref>

A potential problem for a structuralist interpretation is that it can be highly reductive; as scholar [[Catherine Belsey]] puts it: "the structuralist danger of collapsing all difference."<ref>[[Catherine Belsey|Belsey, Catherine]]. 1983. "Literature, History, Politics." Pp. 17–27 in ''Literature and History'' 9.</ref> An example of such a reading might be if a student concludes the authors of ''[[West Side Story (musical)|West Side Story]]'' did not write anything "really" new, because their work has the same structure as Shakespeare's ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]''. In both texts a girl and a boy fall in love (a "formula" with a symbolic operator between them would be "Boy '''+''' Girl") despite the fact that they belong to two groups that hate each other ("Boy's Group '''-''' Girl's Group" or "Opposing forces") and conflict is resolved by their deaths. Structuralist readings focus on how the structures of the single text resolve inherent narrative tensions. If a structuralist reading focuses on multiple texts, there must be some way in which those texts unify themselves into a coherent system. The versatility of structuralism is such that a literary critic could make the same claim about a story of two ''friendly'' families ("Boy's Family '''+''' Girl's Family") that arrange a marriage between their children despite the fact that the children hate each other ("Boy '''-''' Girl") and then the children commit suicide to escape the arranged marriage; the justification is that the second story's structure is an 'inversion' of the first story's structure: the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed.

'''Structuralist literary criticism'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> argues that the "literary banter of a text" can lie only in new structure, rather than in the specifics of character development and voice in which that structure is expressed. Literary structuralism often follows the lead of [[Vladimir Propp]], [[Algirdas Julien Greimas]], and [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] in seeking out basic deep elements in stories, [[Mythology|myths]], and more recently, anecdotes, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the ur-story or ur-myth.

There is considerable similarity between structural literary theory and [[Northrop Frye]]'s [[Archetypal literary criticism|archetypal criticism]], which is also indebted to the anthropological study of myths. Some critics have also tried to apply the theory to individual works, but the effort to find unique structures in individual literary works runs counter to the structuralist program and has an affinity with [[New Criticism]].