1. Appearances are not reality in human conduct and affairs.

2. Reality is structured.

3. This structure is code-like

It is not first of all the structure of texts (the

"object" of biblical criticism) that is preconceived in

theory, but the structure of language to which individual

texts as particular linguistic expressions must conform in

order to be intelligible.

"Structure" here is a trans-textual rather than

simply an intra-textual "reality."

The whole (the structure) is more than or other than

the sum of its parts; further, the whole determines the

parts.

Its goal is to discover the underlying deep structure

which was responsible for "generating" a given text.

This fundamental structure is not to be thought of

as an outline from which the author worked, but rather as a

system or configuration that in some way offers an

explanation for the visible pattern in the text.

The general features of grammatical structure are

common to all languages and reflect certain fundamental pro-

perties of the mind.

Language is based on the social conventions of the

community using the language rather than on some

supposedly natural or essential relationship between

language and that which it signifies.

Synt¦gm/P¦r¦digm

The value of each term in a language results solely

from the simultaneous presence of other terms. This

understanding results in the description of relationships as

syntagmatic and paradigmatic. (e.g., Stancil, p. 53)

L¦ngue/P¦r§le The distinction between l¦ngue and p¦r§le is

fundamental to Saussure's theories. The term l¦ngue refers

to language as a system or code, whereas p¦r§le represents a

specific speech act.

Though some have theorized that language (l¦ngue) as

a code is an ideal entity, Saussure himself believed that

language as a system (l¦ngue) is no less concrete than

speech acts (p¦r§le), since the linguistic signs are

actually contained in the brain.

Only l¦ngue, therefore, constitutes the proper study

of linguistics.

Di¦chr§ny/Synchr§ny

Saussure also called into question the diachronic

approach to language. (Chart on phonetics, p. 222,

Poythress)

Signifier/Signified

Saussures' understanding of signs is also import-

ant for the development of structuralism. Saussure taught

that a linguistic sign is a dual entity involving both

signifier and signified. The signified is not so much a

"thing," according to Saussure, as it is the mental

representation or concept of the thing. These two entities

together make up the linguistic sign. The structuralist

does not speak of objective meaning in such a way that a

text exists independently of one's experience of it. That

is, an interpreter does not "objectively" exegete a text

without some "subjective" involvement. The signified

(concept or image) is to some extent a product of the

preunderstanding of the interpreter, thus eroding a strict

subject-object schema and establishing the necessity for a

hermeneutical circle.

Bin¦ry_Opp§siti§ns

Contrasts within a system are referred to as "binary

oppositions" and make up the basic elements of language.

Tr¦nsf§rm¦ti§ns_&_Gener¦ting_§f_Texts

Transformations are used to convert the deep

structures to surface structures. According to Chomsky, the

deep structures are identical in all languages, because they

are a reflection of basic human mental processes.

It is the pattern, not the elements, that are the

only valid objects of study.

The paradigm or controlling idea, guiding the

research of literary critics is, on the other hand,

literature. Consideration of the Bible as literature is

itself the beginning and the end of scholarly endeavor.

Structuralism thus differs in focus from that of

historical-critical methodologies in that the category of

history is essentially absent.

There are several common characteristics of the new

literary criticism.

First, no extraliterary hypotheses (e.g. that the

text is Scripture, that it is historical reportage)are

introduced to account for any features of the text or as

evidence in support of any conclusions drawn.

Second, for the literary critic nothing depends on

the truth or falsity of historical claims.

An objection to literary analysis is that literary

methods of analysis are successful only on works that are

self-consciously written as literature.

Literary Criticism is not identical with

Structuralism. While literary criticism sees a conscious,

symbolic structure, structuralism sees an unconscious deep

structure.

Structural Exegesis no longer aims at what the

author meant. The structuralist studies the l¦ngue of the

author with no concern for authorial intent.

Structural meaning is nothing else than the various

intra-textual and extra-textual correlations. Traditional

historical criticism has assumed that a text does not exist

as an autonomous entity apart from author, referent,

cultural context, and other such relationships. In

structuralism, the structure of the text is its meaning.

As opposed to the unicity of the historical meaning

(the author meant one thing), the structuralists acknowledge

the plurality of `structural meaning.'

Appearances are not reality. Phenomena (like

literary texts) as they meet the eye are to be explained by

phenomena below the surface, called deep structures.

Deep structures express themselves as codes. All

human activities, from kinship patterns to literary texts to

fashions, are coded expressions of the deep structures of

the human brain.

The fundamental model for understanding all codes is

language, which explains the peculiarly important place that

linguistics plays in structuralist theory. By decoding

human activities one can not only discover the reality

behind the appearances of everyday life, but can also,

potentially, map the structure of the mind.

It is less accurate to say that a narrative or

myth "has" a structure than that it conforms to a structure,

the formulation or diagrammatization of which is

accomplished theoretically only by the study of a large

number of texts.

What constitutes a deep structure and how it is to

be modeled or diagramed, are all moot points.

In order to break codes one must pay attention to

wholes.

Persons innately organize life in terms of binary

oppositions. The task of the interpreter, then, would be to

uncover these fundamental oppositions, or if they are too

deeply embedded, to at least uncover secondary oppositions

which the culture has constructed as shields for avoiding

threatening contact with basic metaphysical oppositions such

as life/death, heaven/earth, and god/man.

It is not always clear how the analysis of the code

relates to the interpretation of the message, if it does at

all. The message of the Bible is not simply a by-product of

a more important code.

On a positive note, It is possible to use structural

methods without necessarily subscribing fully to

structuralism as an ideology.
 
 

1. Consciousness has a structure which exists prior to all

knowing and prior to all formulation of what is known. All

experience is informed by this absolute structure, hence,

2. This structure is universal to all consciousness (insofar

as it is sentience). The structure is quintessentially

"human."

3. Self-reflective consciousness arises only through and is

mediated only by language. If it is not communicable, in

some language system, it is not knowledge. Language is the

sine qua non of coming into being.

4. The structures of consciousness underlie and are mediated

through language as its deep structure. The structures of

consciousness correlate with the deep structures of

language.

5. The structures of consciousness are in dialectical

relationship with the historical existence of a particular

individual who comes into being self-reflectively.

(Synchrony/diachrony)

6. Out of this dialectic arise meanings and interpretations

of existence. Understanding of structure is essential for

meaning-adequacy.

7. Each individual statement in a language reflects and

gains its adequacy of meaning from the structures of

consciousness which underlie it. Structures of conciousness

correlate with grammar. They are syntactic, not merely

semantic.

8. Understanding of the underlying structure of a statement

is a necessary condition for understanding the meaning of

the statement. Until correspondent structures are

understood, no adequate understanding of any other meaning

level of the text is possible.

9. Correspondent structure does not close the meaning

potential of language, or the potential contextually

meaningful statements (i.e., "practical") possible within a

non-trivial language are infinite and open.

10. Structural analysis is the essential precondition for

all historical interpretation of literature.

In conclusion, all these claims bar structuralism from being a pragmatic

science. They are not demonstrable or verifiable

scientifically.

Furthermore, these claims are absolute, not relative.