Ferdinand de Key Work: Course in General Linguistics (1916)

Saussure Contribution: Saussure is considered the father of

Structuralism. His theory of the signifier and
signified, and the relational nature of language, laid
the groundwork for understanding language and
culture as systems of signs.
Claude Lévi- Key Work: The Savage Mind (1962), The
Strauss Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949)
Contribution: Lévi-Strauss applied Structuralist
ideas to anthropology, suggesting that human
cultures operate based on universal structures,
such as binary oppositions, found in myths and
kinship systems.
Roland Key Work: Mythologies (1957), Elements of
Barthes Semiology (1964)
Contribution: Barthes expanded Structuralism into
literary theory and semiotics, analyzing how cultural
texts and symbols function within larger social
structures. His essay, The Death of the Author,
suggested that meaning is derived not from the
author’s intent but from the structure of the text.
Roman Key Work: Linguistics and Poetics (1960)
Jakobson Contribution: Jakobson was a linguist who
contributed to the Structuralist analysis of language.
His communication model and theory of metaphor
and metonymy influenced both linguistics and
literary theory.
Overview of Structuralism & Post-Structuralism

Post-Structuralist Writers:
Jacques Derrida Key Work: Of Grammatology (1967), Writing and
Difference (1967)
Contribution: Derrida is best known for developing
deconstruction, a method of reading texts that reveals
the instability of meaning and the inherent
contradictions within language and structures.
Michel Foucault Key Work: Discipline and Punish (1975), The
Archaeology of Knowledge (1969)
Contribution: Foucault examined the relationship
between power, knowledge, and social institutions,
arguing that discourse shapes reality. His work often
critiques the rigid structures of thought proposed by
Structuralists.
Roland Barthes Key Work: S/Z (1970)
(Post- Contributions: In his later work, Barthes moved
Structuralist towards Post-Structuralism, analyzing how texts can
Phase) produce multiple meanings through codes and
suggesting that interpretation is an open, reader-driven
process.
 Structuralist writers focused on uncovering the underlying, universal
structures that shape culture, language, and society.
 Post-Structuralist writers challenged these rigid frameworks,
emphasizing the fluidity of meaning, the instability of language, and
the impact of power and discourse on human thought.
 Structuralism Literary Theory
Structuralism is a way of thinking that looks at how parts of culture, language, and
society are connected within a larger system. Instead of focusing on one thing by itself,
Structuralism studies how things relate to each other in an organized way. It suggests
that meaning comes from these connections, not from the individual elements alone. In
fields like literature, language studies, and anthropology, Structuralism tries to find
hidden patterns and systems that influence how we think, communicate, and create
meaning.
“Structuralism is an approach to understanding culture and meaning in the arts by
connecting individual works (like novels, paintings) to a broader context. In Structuralist
theory, cultural phenomena are part of an underlying web or structure that shapes how
we think, behave, and create art.”
1: Origin and Development of Structuralism :
Structuralism originated in the early 20th century, primarily in linguistics, and later spread
to other fields like anthropology, literary theory, and psychology. Its roots can be traced
back to the ideas of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure , who laid the foundation for
Structuralism through his theories on language and meaning.
Origin:
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913):
 Saussure’s “Course in General Linguistics” (published in 1916 after his death)
changed the way people studied language. He explained that language is made
up of “signs” which have two parts: the “signifier” (the word or sound) and the
“signified” (the idea or concept the word represents).
 Saussure believed that the meaning of words comes from how they relate to and
differ from other words, rather than from a direct link between a word and the
object it refers to. This new way of thinking introduced the idea that language is a
“structured system”, which became the foundation of “Structuralism”.
 He also made an important distinction between “langue” (the overall system or
rules of a language) and “parole” (individual speech acts or how people use
language). Saussure emphasized that to understand meaning, it’s crucial to
study “langue”, or the structure, rather than just individual acts of speaking
(parole).
Development:
1:Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009)
  Anthropology: Structuralism grew from the study of language into anthropology,
mainly because of the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss. He took the ideas of
Ferdinand de Saussure and applied them to human culture. Lévi-Strauss argued
that cultural practices, myths (traditional stories), and family systems are
structured in a similar way to language.
 In his books, such as “The Elementary Structures of Kinship” (1949) and
“Structural Anthropology” (1958), he suggested that underneath the different
cultural practices we see, there are common mental structures that all humans
share. He focused on concepts called “binary oppositions”, which are pairs of
contrasting ideas, like nature vs culture or raw vs cooked. These oppositions help
shape how societies function.
2:Jacques Derrida (1930 – 2004)
 He was a French social philosopher, literary critic and founder of
deconstructionism who may be labelled both a “structuralist’ and a
“poststructuralist”. Derrida wrote critiques of his contemporaries works, and of
the notions underlying structuralism and post structuralism.
3:Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984)
 He was a French social philosopher whose works also have been associated
with both structuralist and poststructuralist thought, more often with the latter.
 Foucault largely wrote about issues of power and domination in his works,
arguing that there is no absolute truth, and thus the purpose of ideologies is to
struggle against other ideologies for supremecy (think about competing news
networks, arguing different points of view). For this reason, he is more closely
associated with poststructuralist thought.
4:Structuralism in Literary Theory
 Roman Jakobson and Roland Barthes: Linguists like Roman Jakobson and
literary theorists like Roland Barthes used Structuralism to analyze literature.
They looked at the deeper structures that influence stories and genres. Barthes,
for example, argued that the meaning of a text comes from specific codes and
conventions that shape it, rather than being a direct reflection of what the author
meant.
 In his famous essay “The Death of the Author” (1967), Barthes claimed that the
meaning in literature is not determined by the author’s intentions. Instead, it is
shaped by the structure of the text and the reader’s interpretation. This idea was
a significant moment in Structuralist literary theory.
5:Structuralism in Psychology
  In the field of psychology, “Jean Piaget” applied Structuralist ideas to how people
develop knowledge. He suggested that human understanding is organized into
cognitive structures, which change and grow as individuals mature. His research
focused on how children create mental frameworks to make sense of the world
around them.
6:Philosophical Structuralism

 Louis Althusser, a French Marxist philosopher, brought Structuralism into Marxist

theory. He argued that it is the structures of society—rather than individuals or
their choices—that shape history and ideas. Althusser’s work connected Marxism
with Structuralism, highlighting how underlying structures play a crucial role in
maintaining social order and norms.
2: Characteristics of Structuralism:
The key features of Structuralism in literary theory include:
1. An emphasis on the fundamental structure of a literary work.
2. The meaning of a text arises from how its various parts relate to one another.
3. Understanding a text relies heavily on identifying binary oppositions.
4. The unique traits and identity of the author are not significant; the focus is on the
deeper structures within the work.
5. Literary texts are viewed as constructed entities. Meaning is derived from how
each part connects with others rather than from within the text itself.
3: Ferdinand de Saussure’s Theory of Structuralism:
Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, is commonly seen as the founder of modern
linguistics and a significant contributor to the development of Structuralism. His theories
profoundly changed the way we understand language and meaning, providing a
foundation for several fields, including linguistics, anthropology, literary theory, and
sociology. His most important work, “Course in General Linguistics,” was published after
his death in 1916 and introduces several key concepts that shape his Structuralist
theory.
Key Concepts of Saussure’s Theory :
1: Language as a System of Signs:

 Saussure proposed that language is composed of signs, each of which consists

of two parts: the signifier and the signified.
 Signifier: The physical form of the sign (e.g., the sound of the word or the written
word itself).
 Signified: The concept or idea that the signifier represents.
 Things that give meaning –
word/image

Signifier
Sign
=
Signified
Anything that conveys
meaning
What is evoked in the mind
– mental concept

2: Arbitrary Nature of the Sign:

Saussure explained that the connection between the signifier (the word or sound) and
the signified (the concept it represents) is arbitrary, meaning it is not natural or fixed but
based on social agreements. This is why different languages have different words for
the same thing.
For example, the concept of a “tree” is called “árbol” in Spanish and “baum” in German,
showing that the relationship between words and their meanings is not universal or
fixed.
3:Langue and Parole:
Saussure made an important distinction between langue and parole:
 Langue refers to the overall system of rules and conventions that govern a
language. It is the shared structure of language that exists in the minds of
speakers in a community. It’s the social, abstract side of language.
 Parole refers to the individual, everyday use of language in specific situations.
It is how people actually speak, communicate, and express themselves.
 Saussure believed that to truly understand how meaning is created in
language, one must study langue (the structure), because this reveals the
underlying patterns that shape how people use language (parole).
4:The Relational Nature of Meaning:
Saussure argued that the meaning of a word (or sign) is not fixed or contained within
the sign itself. Instead, meaning comes from the relationships and differences between
signs.
For example, the word “cat” gains its meaning partly because it is different from other
words, like “dog” or “mouse”. This concept, known as differential meaning, highlights
that words do not have inherent meanings but are understood in relation to other words
in the system.
5:Temporal and Spatial Aspects of Language:
Saussure also pointed out that language has temporal (time-related) and spatial
(contextual) dimensions. Language changes over time, so the meaning of words can
shift based on historical and cultural factors. He introduced two ways to study language:
 Synchronic: Focusing on the structure of language at a particular moment in
time.
 Diachronic: Looking at how language evolves and changes over time.
Saussure believed that the synchronic approach, which examines language at a specific
point, is more important for understanding the system of rules and structures that create
meaning in language.
4: Claude Lévi-Strauss:
Claude Lévi-Strauss was a French anthropologist who is widely regarded as one of the
most influential figures in the development of Structuralism, particularly in the field of
anthropology. His work extended Structuralist ideas, originally rooted in linguistics by
Ferdinand de Saussure, into the study of human culture, focusing on myths, kinship
systems, and social structures. Lévi-Strauss proposed that just as language operates
according to underlying structures, so too do cultural phenomena, revealing universal
patterns in human thought and society.
Key Contributions to Structuralism:
1: Application of Linguistics to Anthropology:
Claude Lévi-Strauss was greatly influenced by the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure,
especially his theory that the meaning of words comes from their relationships with
other words, not from a direct link between the word and the object it represents. Lévi-
Strauss took this idea and applied it to anthropology, proposing that cultural practices,
traditions, and social structures operate in a similar way to language. In other words,
just as language is made up of systems of rules and relationships between signs,
human cultures also follow hidden systems and structures that organize how societies
function.
He believed that, despite the variety of cultural practices across the world, there are
“universal mental structures” shared by all humans that influence the way people think
and behave. These structures shape how we perceive the world, make sense of our
surroundings, and interact with others. This idea allowed Lévi-Strauss to claim that
culture can be studied scientifically by identifying these deeper patterns that lie beneath
the surface of cultural differences.
2:Binary Oppositions
One of the central ideas in Lévi-Strauss’s work is the concept of binary oppositions,
which refers to pairs of contrasting elements that are fundamental to human thought. He
believed that people understand the world through opposites, such as nature vs.
culture, raw vs. cooked, or life vs. death.
 Lévi-Strauss argued that these binary oppositions are not just important in
language, but also in myths, rituals, and social structures. They form the building
blocks of human cognition and are present in all cultures.
 In myths, for example, stories often revolve around resolving or mediating these
oppositions. For instance, many myths explore the transition from nature to
culture, symbolizing human evolution and societal development.
3:Myth and Structure:
Claude Lévi-Strauss’s work on myths is one of his most important contributions to the
field of Structuralism. He believed that, like language, myths follow specific patterns that
can be studied and analyze to reveal important truths about human culture. In his well-
known book, “The Raw and the Cooked”(1964), Lévi-Strauss studied myths from
different cultures and found that, despite their differences, these myths shared similar
structures at a deeper level.
 Lévi-Strauss argued that myths help societies make sense of conflicting ideas
and challenges in human life, such as the contrast between nature and culture or
between life and death. Myths, according to him, act as a kind of “cultural
language” that societies use to express and resolve these fundamental issues.
 Just like language has rules (like grammar and syntax), myths are also built on
“repeating patterns and structures”. By analyzing these patterns, Lévi-Strauss
believed we can uncover “universal themes” that are common across different
cultures, helping us understand shared human concerns and ways of thinking.
Myths, in his view, are not just stories but tools that reflect the deeper mental and
cultural structures that shape society.
4:The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949):
Claude Lévi-Strauss’s first major work, “The Elementary Structures of Kinship” (1949),
applied Structuralist principles to the study of family and social relationships. In this
book, he explored how kinship systems—rules about marriage and family ties—are
organized in different cultures.
Lévi-Strauss argued that, like myths, kinship systems are based on “binary oppositions”
(e.g., distinctions between different social groups or roles) and follow specific structural
relationships. He believed that kinship is not just about biological connections or family
relations, but is a “cultural system” governed by societal rules. These rules, which
determine who can marry whom and how family structures are formed, reflect deeper
patterns in human thinking that can be analyze using a Structuralist approach. By
studying how societies organize their kinship systems, Lévi-Strauss sought to uncover
the underlying structures that shape social relationships.
5:Structural Anthropology (1958):
Lévi-Strauss further developed his Structuralist theory in his book “Structural
Anthropology” (1958), which became a key text in the field. In this work, he proposed
that the human mind naturally organizes the world into structures, whether through
“language, kinship systems, or myths”.
Although different cultures might seem very diverse on the surface, Lévi-Strauss argued
that they all share similar mental frameworks that help humans make sense of their
experiences. These mental structures, he believed, are reflected in “cultural practices”,
such as rituals, myths, and social institutions.
Lévi-Strauss saw anthropology as a scientific discipline that could uncover these
“universal patterns” in human thought, much like linguistics had done for language. By
analyzing myths, kinship rules, and social systems, anthropologists could reveal the
hidden structures and “rules” that govern human behavior across all societies.
Claude Lévi-Strauss changed the field of anthropology by using Structuralist ideas to
understand human culture. He focused on “binary oppositions” (like contrasts between
groups or ideas), the study of myths, and the hidden patterns that shape family and
social systems. He showed that, even though cultures may look very different, they are
all influenced by “universal ways of thinking” shared by all humans.

5: Roland Barthes’s Theory of Structuralism:

Barthes claimed that the way certain aspects of reality are presented by specific social
groups, such as the middle class, is a form of manipulation or misleading
representation. Let’s break that theory down.
Key Contributions to Structuralism:
1:Roland Barthes’ Mythologies:
After laying out his ideas in the essay collection “Mythologies “and the book “The
Fashion System”, Roland Barthes shifted his focus to studying language and text. His
work naturally evolved from his interest in semiology, leading him to explore
“Structuralism”. This was a dominant school of thought during the early to mid-20 th
century that proposed that individual units of meaning, such as words, should be
understood within the context of a larger system or structure.
Barthes made significant contributions to this idea, particularly in the field of literary
theory. He developed a method for identifying different ‘levels of language’ within a text
—such as its functions, actions, and narrative. He was particularly interested in how
these levels interacted to create a unified meaning. The term “semantic” refers to
meaning, so “semantic unity” implies that all the meaningful elements of a sentence or
text are aligned and work together to form a cohesive whole.
2:The Death of the Author:
Roland Barthes’ most renowned essay, “The Death of the Author” (1967), challenged
traditional notions of authorship and literary interpretation. In this ground breaking work,
Barthes argued against the idea that a text’s meaning can be fully understood through
the author’s intentions. This theory aligned with post-Structuralist thinking, which
suggests that language is fluid, ever-changing, and shaped by various external
influences. Because of this, Barthes proposed that no novel, poem, or any other text
can be accurately explained or understood solely as the product of what the author
intended.
In “The Death of the Author”, Barthes questioned the reliability of the author’s intent,
suggesting that what an author means to convey through their writing is ultimately
inaccessible. He challenged the common practice of interpreting a work of literature by
relying on what the author might have “meant” or “intended.” Instead, he argued that
focusing on the author’s personal background, experiences, or intentions limits our
understanding of the text.
Barthes criticized the whole concept of trying to pin down a text’s “true meaning,” much
like he had previously criticized the bourgeois myths in his work “Mythologies”.
According to him, the belief that a text contains one definitive meaning, rooted in the
author’s intent, is itself a myth. He emphasized that texts are open to multiple
interpretations, shaped by the reader’s perspective, social context, and the language
system within which the text exists.
In essence, Barthes declared that once a text is written, the author’s role diminishes,
and it is the readers who bring meaning to the text, making interpretation a dynamic,
collaborative process.
Structuralism – Key takeaways
• Structuralism is a way of understanding culture and meaning in the arts by
relating the individual piece of art (a novel, a painting, a symphony) to
something larger.
• Structuralism comes from a branch of language study called ‘structural
linguistics’.
• Structuralism is explicitly anti-individual.
• Structuralism is about a shared structure of meaning.
• Binary oppositions are key to understanding a text.

Post-Structuralism Literary Theory

1:Jacques Derrida & Post-Structuralism:
Jacques Derrida was a French social philosopher, literary critic and founder of
deconstructionism who may be labeled both a “structuralist’ and a “poststructuralist”.
Derrida wrote critiques of his contemporaries’ works, and of the notions underlying
structuralism and poststructuralist.
Derrida’s Deconstruction:
Derridean deconstruction is sometimes described as bringing a literary approach to
philosophy, a way of reading philosophical texts like literature, using methods of literary
analysis. Irrespective of how accurate this view of deconstruction is, Derrida is now a
prominent figure in literary analysis and criticism itself.
Origins of deconstruction can be found in Derrida’s books Writing and Difference (1967)
and Of Grammatology (1967) and the lecture titled ‘Structure, Sign, and Play in the
Discourse of the Human Sciences’ which Derrida gave at Johns Hopkins University in a
1966 symposium.
Deconstruction theory, developed by Jacques Derrida, is based on his critique of
Western philosophy, which he argued was centered on “phallogocentrism” (-the
dominance of male-centered and reason-based thinking). Deconstruction emerged
mainly as a response to structuralism, particularly the ideas of Claude Lévi-Strauss.
Derrida challenged the structuralist idea of binary oppositions (such as light/dark or
good/bad) by arguing that these opposites are not neutral. Instead, one is usually seen
as more important or superior to the other, creating a hierarchy.
For example, while light and dark are opposites, light is often viewed as better or more
desirable than darkness. Deconstruction aims to break down and analyze these kinds of
assumptions and hierarchies by closely examining the relationships between opposites.
Other notable deconstructionists include “Paul de Man and Geoffrey Hartman” who, like
Derrida, used this approach to rethink and analyze texts in new ways.
Derrida’s concept of deconstruction is based on the concept of “Zerstörung or
destruktion” by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976). Deconstruction
was initially a philosophical proposition but gained a foothold in literary analysis and the
interpretation of texts in religion, law, and several other social institutions. Today, the
term ‘deconstruction’ is used in mathematics and even gastronomy.
Deconstruction relies on concepts of structural linguistics.
 Structural linguistics is a branch of linguistics that treats language as a system of
interconnected units.
 Semiotics is the study of how meaning is generated during the process of
communication.
 A sign is the basic unit of communication that refers to anything (word, image, or
symbol) that carries a meaning. In structural linguistics, the sign is made of a
‘signifier’ and a ‘signified’.
 A signifier is a verbal or graphic symbol or code that represents an idea or an
object. For example, a word or an image.
 Signified is the object or concept the signifier tries to represent.
Derrida pointed out that Western thinking is based on or heavily influenced by certain
key ideas, such as:
 Phonocentrism is the idea that speech or sound is superior to the written word.
 Logocentrism (derived from the Greek word ‘logos’ which means word or reason)
refers to the inclination in Western thought to privilege the word over what it
stands for.
 Phallogocentrism is a new word created by Derrida to describe the tendency to
privilege masculinity in the understanding of society and meaning.
 Metaphysics is a branch of physics that studies the nature of reality and the
relationship between different aspects of life, such as knowledge, perception,
identity, existence, and time.
Deconstruction – Key takeaways
•Deconstruction is a critical theory and philosophical approach proposed by the French
philosopher Jacques Derrida.
•The key argument in deconstruction is that meaning is unreliable as the language that
communicates meaning is itself unreliable.
•It is impossible to determine fixed, underlying meanings in a text.
•Therefore, all texts are open to multiple interpretations.
2:Michel Foucault and Post-Structuralism:
Michel Foucault (1926–1984) was a French philosopher, historian, and social theorist
whose work had a profound influence on post-structuralism, a movement that critiqued
and extended the ideas of structuralism. Foucault’s innovative approach challenged
conventional ways of thinking about power, knowledge, and social institutions, offering
new insights into how societies are structured and controlled.
Key contributions to Post Structuralism:
1. Critique of Structuralism:
Foucault was heavily influenced by structuralism but eventually moved beyond its limits,
marking his shift toward post-structuralism. Structuralism, particularly in the works of
thinkers like Ferdinand de Saussure and Claude Lévi-Strauss, emphasized that human
culture and language are governed by deep, universal structures. Foucault, however,
argued that these structures are not fixed and universal but are historically and socially
constructed.
In contrast to structuralist, who sought underlying, unchanging structures, Foucault
believed that meanings, social norms, and power relations evolve over time and are
shaped by historical contexts. This led him to explore how knowledge and truth are
constructed within specific periods, rather than seeing them as timeless or neutral.
2. Power and Knowledge:
One of Foucault’s most significant contributions to post-structuralism was his theory of
the relationship between power and knowledge. He argued that power is not just held
by individuals or institutions but is dispersed throughout society and operates through
various systems, including language, education, medicine, and law. Foucault claimed
that what we consider “truth” or “knowledge” is often a product of power relations, and
that knowledge is used as a tool for controlling and shaping behavior.
For Foucault, knowledge and power are inseparable. This idea is best illustrated in his
concept of “biopower”—the ways in which institutions like prisons, schools, and
hospitals regulate and manage populations through their control over knowledge and
norms. He explored these ideas in several of his works, such as “Discipline and Punish”
(1975) and “The History of Sexuality” (1976).
 Michel Foucault’s contributions to post-structuralism lie in his innovative analyses of
power, knowledge, discourse, and the subject. He showed that power is not just
imposed from above but works through systems of knowledge and social practices,
fundamentally shaping how we understand ourselves and the world around us. His work
remains a key reference point for anyone studying the complex ways in which society,
language, and power interact.

Structuralist analysis of Frankenstein

To apply “structuralism” to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, we can analyze the novel
through the “system of language and signs” and examine how its meaning is
constructed through “relationships between elements” rather than focusing solely on
individual themes or character psychology. As with any structuralist reading, we will
focus on “binary oppositions”, “syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations”, and “how the
text fits within broader narrative conventions”.

1. The Novel as a System of Signs:

According to Saussure, meaning in a text is constructed through a system of signs—
composed of the “signifier” (the form of the word or image) and the “signified” (the
concept it represents). In “Frankenstein”, the central characters, objects, and events can
be understood as signs within a broader system of meaning.
Key Signs:
 The Creature (Monster): The creature serves as a complex sign in the novel. As
a signifier, it is presented as a physical being—a grotesque, unnatural creation.
However, its signified meaning shifts between different contexts: it symbolizes
both the “consequences of unchecked scientific ambition” and the “outsider” in
society, someone who is marginalized and demonized. The monster’s meaning is
constructed in contrast to other signs, particularly “Victor Frankenstein”(his
creator), society, and human norms.
 Frankenstein (the Creator): As a sign, Frankenstein represents human ambition
and the desire for mastery over nature. His act of creation is a “signifier” of
human potential, but it also signifies the dangers of “hubris ”and the moral
dilemmas associated with scientific exploration.
 Nature”: Nature, both in terms of its literal presence and its metaphorical
implications, plays a crucial role. It serves as a sign for the “sublime”, the
uncontrollable forces of the world, and often contrasts with the artificiality of
Frankenstein’s scientific pursuits.
In this framework, each of these elements becomes meaningful in relation to the others,
not in isolation.
2. Binary Oppositions:
Structuralist analysis often identifies **binary oppositions** that structure the meaning of
a text. *”Frankenstein”* is full of such oppositions, and these oppositions help generate
the novel’s central tensions.
Key Binary Oppositions in “Frankenstein”:
 “Nature vs. Science”: One of the novel’s most prominent oppositions is between
the natural world (symbolized by the beauty of landscapes, weather, and the
creature’s existence) and the artificial world of scientific creation (represented by
Victor Frankenstein’s laboratory, tools, and creation of life). The novel explores
the tension between respecting natural laws and human beings’ desire to
manipulate and control nature.
 “Creator vs. Creation”: The dynamic between Frankenstein and his creation is a
fundamental binary in the novel. Frankenstein, as the creator, represents
authority, order, and control, while the creature represents chaos, subversion,
and rebellion. However, the opposition is complicated, as both characters share
traits of isolation, ambition, and suffering.
 “Good vs. Evil”: The novel also sets up an opposition between “good” and “evil”—
often represented by the creature (initially seen as a symbol of evil) and the
humans who reject and harm him (initially seen as good). The text complicates
this binary, showing how the creature’s violence stems from his treatment by
others, suggesting a critique of simplistic moral judgments.
 “Civilization vs. Isolation”:Throughout the novel, characters are isolated from one
another—Frankenstein isolates himself in his quest for knowledge, and the
creature is isolated because of his monstrous appearance. This opposition
between “belonging” (society, civilization) and “alienation” (isolation, exclusion)
shapes much of the novel’s emotional and moral conflicts.
These binary oppositions work to structure the novel’s meaning, illustrating the
complexity of the human condition and the ethical questions surrounding scientific
progress.
3.Syntagmatic Relations:
Syntagmatic relations are concerned with how elements in a text are organized in
sequence. In Frankenstein the novel’s structure is central to how meaning is
constructed.
The Frame Narrative:
Frankenstein uses a frame narrative, meaning it contains multiple embedded stories.
The primary story of Victor Frankenstein and his creature is framed by the letters of
Captain Walton, a polar explorer who encounters Frankenstein in the Arctic. This
narrative structure creates syntagmatic relations by sequencing the events in a way that
emphasizes parallels between characters.
 Walton and Frankenstein: Both characters represent the dangers of ambition and
the pursuit of knowledge. Walton’s narrative frames Frankenstein’s story,
suggesting that Walton might follow a similar destructive path. The syntagmatic
relation between the two characters creates a thematic link: Walton’s interactions
with Frankenstein serve as a cautionary tale for his own exploration.
 The Creature’s Story: Embedded within Frankenstein’s narrative is the creature’s
account of his experiences, which he shares with Frankenstein. This layering of
narratives forces the reader to view events through multiple perspectives,
creating a more complex understanding of the motivations and consequences of
both the creator and the creature.
The syntagmatic relations between these embedded stories shape how the reader
understands the central themes of creation, responsibility, and isolation.
4. Paradigmatic Relations:
Paradigmatic relations refer to the selection of elements from a set of possible
alternatives, and in Frankenstein, Shelley’s choices of words, images, and characters
help build the novel’s meaning through “what is included versus what is left out”.
For instance:
 Victor’s Relationship to Science: Shelley could have chosen to portray Victor as a
traditional heroic figure, someone who masters science and conquers nature.
Instead, she presents a character whose relationship with science leads to
destruction and guilt. The paradigmatic choice to depict science as dangerous
rather than purely progressive reflects the anxieties of the Romantic era, during
which there were increasing concerns about the limits and ethics of scientific
experimentation.
 The Creature’s Appearance: Shelley emphasizes the creature’s hideous
appearance, contrasting it with the idealized forms of humanity and beauty in
other characters. This paradigmatic choice creates a sense of the creature as
“other,” excluded from the norms of human society. However, his intelligence and
eloquence challenge this simplistic binary, complicating how the reader views
monstrosity and humanity.
These paradigmatic choices reveal underlying tensions within the novel about identity,
morality, and the boundaries of human experience.
5. Langue and Parole:
Saussure differentiates between langue (the abstract system of language) and parole
(individual instances of language use). Frankenstein operates within the larger langue of
literary and cultural traditions, particularly the Gothic and Romantic traditions, but it also
contains specific instances of parole that shape its unique meaning.
 Gothic Tradition (Langue): The novel fits into the broader “Gothic genre”,
characterized by dark settings, a focus on the supernatural, and an atmosphere
of fear and mystery. The isolated settings, such as Frankenstein’s laboratory, the
desolate Arctic, and the remote landscapes, all align with Gothic conventions.
 Romanticism (Langue): Shelley also draws from romantic ideas about the
sublime power of nature, the dangers of unchecked ambition, and the importance
of individual emotion. Frankenstein’s relationship with nature (often depicted as
either a comfort or a force of destruction) reflects this tradition.
However, within this langue, Shelley’s novel also deviates in its specific instances of
parole—particularly through its scientific themes, complex moral questions, and its
exploration of responsibility.
Conclusion:
A “structuralist” reading of “Frankenstein” emphasizes how the novel’s meaning is
constructed through “systems of signs”, “binary oppositions, and its relationship to
broader “literary conventions”. The novel gains meaning through the interaction of its
characters, themes, and imagery, all of which are defined in relation to one another. The
“binary oppositions”—such as nature vs. Science, creator vs. Creation, and good vs.
Evil—help structure the novel’s exploration of ambition, responsibility, and the
consequences of creation. By analyzing these “relations” and the text’s structure, we
can better understand how the novel functions within the broader “system of language
and cultural discourse”.