Formalism vs. Structuralism

Attribute	Formalism	Structuralism
Origin	Emerges in the early 20th century in mathematics and logic	Originates in the mid-20th century in anthropology and linguistics
Focus	Emphasizes the formal structure and internal elements of a system	Focuses on the underlying structures and relationships within a system
Approach	Uses mathematical and logical methods to analyze systems	Utilizes structural analysis to understand systems
Methodology	Relies on deductive reasoning and formal systems	Relies on observation, comparison, and analysis of structures
Interpretation	Interprets meaning through formal rules and systems	Interprets meaning through the relationships and structures within a system
Application	Applied in various fields including mathematics, logic, and computer science	Applied in fields such as anthropology, linguistics, and literary theory
Key Figures	David Hilbert, Bertrand Russell, Alfred Tarski	Claude Lévi-Strauss, Ferdinand de Saussure, Roman Jakobson

Introduction

Formalism and Structuralism are two influential approaches in the field of literary theory and analysis. While both approaches focus on the study of texts, they differ in their underlying principles and methodologies. This article aims to explore and compare the attributes of Formalism and Structuralism, shedding light on their key concepts, methods, and contributions to literary criticism.

Formalism

Formalism, also known as New Criticism, emerged in the early 20th century as a reaction against the prevailing historical and biographical approaches to literary analysis. Formalists believe that the meaning of a text lies within the text itself, rather than in the author's intentions or historical context. They emphasize close reading and the examination of literary devices, such as imagery, symbolism, meter, and rhyme, to uncover the inherent structure and aesthetic qualities of a work.

One of the key principles of Formalism is the concept of "defamiliarization," which suggests that literature should present familiar objects or experiences in a new and unfamiliar way to provoke a fresh perspective. Formalists argue that by focusing on the form and structure of a text, readers can gain a deeper understanding of its artistic merits and universal themes.

Formalism also emphasizes the autonomy of the text, suggesting that it should be analyzed independently of its historical, social, or biographical context. This approach aims to establish a clear distinction between the literary work and its external factors, focusing solely on the internal coherence and unity of the text itself.

Furthermore, Formalism places great importance on the role of the reader in the interpretation of a text. It suggests that the reader's subjective response and emotional engagement with the work are crucial in uncovering its multiple layers of meaning. Formalists argue that the text's meaning is not fixed or predetermined but is constructed through the interaction between the reader and the text.

In summary, Formalism emphasizes the intrinsic qualities of a text, such as its form, structure, and literary devices, while disregarding the author's intentions, historical context, and reader's background.

Structuralism

Structuralism, on the other hand, emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction against Formalism and other earlier approaches. It focuses on the underlying structures and systems that shape and give meaning to a text. Structuralists argue that meaning is not solely derived from the individual elements of a text but is produced through the relationships and patterns that exist between these elements.

One of the central concepts in Structuralism is the idea of binary oppositions. Structuralists believe that meaning is created through the contrast and interplay between opposing concepts, such as good vs. evil, male vs. female, or nature vs. culture. These binary oppositions are seen as fundamental to the organization and interpretation of a text.

Structuralism also emphasizes the importance of language in the construction of meaning. It suggests that language is a system of signs and symbols that operate according to specific rules and conventions. Structuralists analyze the underlying linguistic structures of a text, such as grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, to uncover the deeper meaning and structures at work.

Furthermore, Structuralism seeks to uncover the underlying structures that exist across different texts and cultural phenomena. It aims to identify the universal patterns and systems that shape human thought and communication. By examining these underlying structures, Structuralists believe that they can gain insights into the fundamental aspects of human experience and culture.

In summary, Structuralism focuses on the underlying structures and systems that shape a text, emphasizing binary oppositions, language, and universal patterns. It seeks to uncover the deeper meaning and structures that exist beyond the individual text.

Comparison

While Formalism and Structuralism share some similarities in their focus on the study of texts, they differ in their underlying principles and methodologies. Formalism emphasizes the intrinsic qualities of a text, such as its form, structure, and literary devices, while disregarding the author's intentions, historical context, and reader's background. On the other hand, Structuralism focuses on the underlying structures and systems that shape a text, emphasizing binary oppositions, language, and universal patterns.

Formalism places great importance on close reading and the examination of literary devices to uncover the inherent structure and aesthetic qualities of a work. It emphasizes the autonomy of the text and the role of the reader in the interpretation process. In contrast, Structuralism focuses on the relationships and patterns that exist between the elements of a text. It emphasizes the importance of language and seeks to uncover the underlying structures that exist across different texts and cultural phenomena.

While Formalism disregards the author's intentions and historical context, Structuralism acknowledges the influence of these factors on the production and interpretation of a text. Structuralists argue that meaning is not solely derived from the individual elements of a text but is produced through the relationships and patterns that exist between these elements. They also emphasize the role of binary oppositions in the organization and interpretation of a text.

Both Formalism and Structuralism have made significant contributions to literary criticism. Formalism has helped to establish the importance of close reading and the examination of literary devices in the analysis of texts. It has also highlighted the role of the reader in the interpretation process. Structuralism, on the other hand, has emphasized the underlying structures and systems that shape a text, providing insights into the universal patterns and structures that exist across different texts and cultural phenomena.

In conclusion, while Formalism and Structuralism differ in their underlying principles and methodologies, they both offer valuable approaches to the study of texts. Formalism focuses on the intrinsic qualities of a text, disregarding the author's intentions and historical context, while emphasizing the role of the reader. Structuralism, on the other hand, focuses on the underlying structures and systems that shape a text, acknowledging the influence of the author's intentions and historical context, while emphasizing binary oppositions and language. Both approaches have contributed to our understanding of literature and continue to shape the field of literary criticism today.