Archetypal Literary Criticism and Structuralism

Kuan Syuli PhD in Cultural Studies Graduate student, St. Petersburg State University, st091475@student.spbu.ru 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg region, Saint Petersburg, ul. 5th linya V.O., 66 2322650412@qq.com Other publications by this author

Yan Chen'bei Graduate Student, Department of Theory and History of Culture, St. Petersburg State University 199178, Russia, Saint Petersburg region, Saint Petersburg, ul. 5th line V.O., 66 st091475@student.spbu.ru

Introduction

The consideration of literary creativity from the point of view of the theory of archetypal images and the structural analysis of cultural texts are the two key trends of all. For all the difference between these two approaches, due to different points of view on (the theory of archetypes is rooted in psychology, more precisely, in psychoanalysis, whereas the basis of structuralism is linguistics, namely the teaching of F. de Saussure on the two-dimensional nature of language) both theories do not contradict each other, but rather complement each other. Our goal was to show what the deep similarity of both theoretical approaches is, and what aspects unite them. The reason why the archetypal criticism of myth can be correlated with structuralism is that both approaches focus on the search for deep patterns and elementary components.

Behind these two theories, within the framework of seemingly very different systems, there are many amazing similarities and intersections. This article aims to study their intersection in theory and method, as well as to identify the relationship between archetype and structure. However, in order to discover the points of contact between them.

The concept of the archetype

The term "archetype" comes from the Greek word "ar chetypo n", meaning "primitive or original form". Plato used this term to denote the ideal origin of things. "The concept of the archetype, which is an integral correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of certain forms of the psyche, which, as it seems, are always and everywhere present. In mythological studies they are called "motives"; in the psychology of primitive people they correspond to the concept of Levi-Bruhl about "collective representations", and in the field of comparative religion they were defined by Hubert and Mauss as "categories of imagination". Adolf Bastian has long called [them] "elementary" or "primary thoughts"." ^{[9, c13]}. The Jungian concept of the archetype is completely tied to the idea of the collective unconscious, which he proposed, and they are inseparable as a pair of conceptual terms. According to Jung, the archetype is characterized by two key points: 1) the archetype implies a mythical image, the totality of these images constitutes the collective unconscious; 2) the external form of manifestation of the archetype can be very different, but the essence of the archetypes are always repeated.

From Jung's point of view, archetypes are typical patterns of understanding, and whenever we encounter universal consistent and repetitive patterns of understanding, we are dealing with archetypes. Although Jung's definition of the archetype is not very clear, its spiritual essence is clear, that is, the archetype is a certain form of a certain spirit, which is repeated at the psychological level.

Archetypal criticism of G.N. Fry

For all its psychology, the Jungian theory of archetypes has proved to be in great demand outside of psychology proper. One of the first specialists who applied it to the analysis of cultural phenomena, namely artistic creativity, was the Canadian literary critic and literary critic Herman Northrop Fry. He deeply researched the essence of myths that dominated Western culture, systematically established archetypal criticism, and made an outstanding contribution to the development of literary theory throughout the world. 

Fry forced the archetypal concept to penetrate from the field of psychology into the field of literary criticism. His definition of an archetype is: "An archetype is a transferable symbol", "a typical or repetitive image". Fry emphasizes that an archetype is a recurring image that has a communicative and symbolic function. Later, Fry argued that the archetype can be a semantic association that is repeated in the work and has a conventional and unified symbolic meaning, He reinterpreted the archetype from the point of view of literature. For Northrop Fry, literary archetypes "play an important role in the transformation of the material universe into an alternative verbal universe, understandable and viable, since it is adapted to basic human needs and concerns" ^{[1, pp. 224-225]}. 

The publication of N. Fry's "Anatomy of Criticism" marks the rise of archetypal criticism. In this book, Fry expounds in detail his point of view on literature as a whole, that is, grasping the patterns of generality and evolution of literary types as a whole, and when analyzing and researching literary works, one should pay attention not only to the genre model, but also pay attention to the internal motives of the work.  Works should be studied in the relevant background and related fields, that is, literary works should not be considered in isolation from the cultural context, but should be studied in the general relationship of literature, considering literary creativity as a whole from a macro perspective.

Structuralism

However, the interest awakened in the XX century in the unconscious mechanisms of the human psyche is connected not only with psychoanalysis. This interest is also characteristic of one of the key areas that for several decades determined the course of development of socio-humanitarian sciences in the West, namely structuralism.

The key concept in the structuralist anthropological system of Levi-Strauss is "structure". His definition of structure is: "structure is the sum of elements, and the relationships between elements. These relations remain unchanged in a number of deformation processes." "The term 'structure' or 'social structure' has nothing to do with empirical reality, but with models based on empirical reality." The structure consists of a model that meets the following specific requirements:

(1) the structure should reveal the nature and meaning of things;

(2) the structure consists of several parts; changing any of the components will cause all the other components to change;

(3) the structure is full of binary opposite elements and relations;

(4) the structure is a constantly changing dynamic form, not an eternally unchanging static form, but this transition does not go beyond the structure itself. According to Levi-Strauss, "structure has no definite content; natural relationships are a projection or even the result of conceptual games taking place in the mind.

According to the formulation of E.N. Yarkova, "the initial theoretical and methodological position of structuralism is the idea that a person has universal invariant, unconscious mental structures that organize and regulate the life of a person and society and act as the main mechanisms of human reaction to a complex of influences of the natural and cultural environment" ^{[10, p. 232.]}.

Unconscious structures are objectified into symbolic forms. They have priority over the subject and consciousness (which is figuratively expressed as "the death of the subject"). Language, mythology, religion, art, traditions are qualified as sign-symbolic systems, as texts constructed on the basis of universal structural patterns.

Structuralism is a methodology that studies the elements of culture from the point of view of their position in a larger, comprehensive structure. The literary theory of structuralism is based on the postulate that all works are based on basic universal structures, and conclusions about the work and the systems from which it arises can be formulated by combining these basic patterns. This universal structure underlying each text gives an experienced reader the opportunity to interpret the text more easily than someone who lacks a lot of reading experience. Thus, structuralism explores the linguistic units in the text, the universal basic structures of the text and analyzes how the author uses the structure to convey meaning. Structuralism analyzes the universal underlying structures of the text, strives to establish the connection of the text with other works, as it explores the general basic structures.

Structuralism rethinks the ideas of formalists, removing the opposition of formal and meaningful. He proposed to study both aspects as manifestations of the same deep structures; the basis was the theory of F. de Saussure is about two planes of language – the plane of expression and the plane of content – which each have their own matter and form, according to which they are organized (that is, structure), while their structures partially correspond to each other (otherwise it would be impossible to understand the language). Binary (i.e. binary) oppositions have become the fundamental tool of their description: complex systems of meaning and form are considered as combinations of elementary pairs. The structural description of meaning led to the deprivation of any aura of mysticism: the accuracy of the analysis revealed the ideological meanings hidden in the text, just as Roland Barthes did with the help of his theory of connotation. In the process of evolution, structuralism has moved from literary problems to general cultural problems and extended iconic models to general patterns of social behavior, the structure of society and culture.

The conclusions reached by V.Y. Propp, who analyzed a fairy tale (which, as is known, is a desacralized myth), using a structuralist approach, are very indicative.:

1. The texts contain objective automatisms or algorithms of thinking that are independent of a person, according to which he moves and illuminates reality.

2. These algorithms must be detected, identified, broken down into units of thinking: analysis and synthesis, since they do not lie on the surface.

3. As a result, the conclusion is that there are objective structures of language outside of connection with the subject (later Levi–Strauss expressed it this way: not people think in myths, but myths exchange thoughts among themselves).

A striking example of such an approach can also be the work of V.N. Toporov and Vyach.Vs. Ivanov "Slavic language modeling semiotic systems" (1965), in which an attempt is made to restore the mythological picture of the world of the ancient Slavs, using the above method of searching for binary oppositions, key to the worldview of the people who lived a thousand years ago. This method outputs pairs: "life – death", "one's own – another's", "house – forest", "right – left", etc. ^[5]. The result of the reconstruction of the Slavic picture of the world and its comparison with the pictures of the world of other Indo-European peoples should be considered the "theory of the main myth" about the hero's duel with the chthonic serpent. We draw attention to the fact that anything can be a specific motive for both a snake and a snake wrestler, but it is the general structure that is fundamentally significant.

The same thing is observed when structuralism goes beyond the limits of linguistic creativity, for example, in the field of anthropology, the most prominent figure is Claude Levi-Strauss. According to Andrew Samuels, "... Levi-Strauss, like Jung, decided to discover the nature of collective phenomena. In his approach to the structure and meaning of the myth, Levi-Strauss concluded that real phenomena are transformations of earlier structures or infrastructures, "the structure of primitive thoughts is present in our consciousness." […]   Now it is obvious that such theories as the concept of the unconscious (a "universe of rules" devoid of content) in Levi-Strauss strikingly resemble Jung's thoughts. Indeed, at times Levi-Strauss writes like Jung, especially when he reflects on kinship and incest" ^[8].

The next round of structuralist thought was the teaching of Roland Barthes, which brings us close to the theory of intertextuality, which also has a lot in common with the theory of archetypes. Literature as a reflection of the spiritual world of man cannot go beyond psychology and memory, and psychology in this respect is comprehensive. Memory as a psychological mechanism will surely become an eternal topic that literature cannot avoid.

Although there are great differences between Fry's theory of archetypes and Levi-Strauss's theory, at the same time they also show great similarities, mainly reflected in the following points:

1. The presence of underlying unconscious structures.

The unconscious structure is inherent in the human mind, it determines the conscious behavior of people, produces various social phenomena and thereby becomes the deep structure of the latter. Since primitive times, the long accumulation of universal psychological experience from generation to generation "deposition" in each unconscious depth of its content is not individual, but collective, is a projection in the historical "memory of the people" and is therefore called the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious, hiding in the depths of the psyche, never enters the realm of consciousness, its existence can be judged only by a few signs. The manifestation of the collective unconscious is the archetype. According to the terminology of Jung's analytical psychology, a work of art is an "autonomous plot", the process of its creation is not completely controlled by the author.

The dominance of the conscious, which it reflects, is not the entire content of the personal unconscious of the author, but has its roots in the transpersonal deeper "collective unconscious". Fry discovered the "unconscious structure" - the "archetype" in literature through mythology and based on this discovery created his own system of critical theory.

A work of contemporary art seems to maintain a fundamental nostalgic connection with the works of the past. It is not in harmony with itself, nor with its author, nor with its time. It is a shadow cast by classical works, it is also a memory, a gesture turned to the past that has gone and will never return.

This point of view once again confirms Jung's statement that there is nothing new under the sun and all "new ideas" have a kind of prototype in the past – in fact, the archetype N. Fry also agrees with this idea: the central position of the theory of N. Fry is the understanding of literature as a system of archetypal models.

2. Focus on studying the structure of literature

In short, Fry conducted a comprehensive study of the development of Western literature and its historical aspects, gave a schematic structuralist interpretation of the prototype of the development of Western literature — from prehistoric sacrificial culture to modern satirical literature. The purpose of the structure of a separate myth is to provide a common archetypal "conceptual framework" for literary criticism and to establish a common critical system.

Levi-Strauss also pointed out when exploring the subconscious structure of various institutions, different cultures and different customs: "If... the unconscious activity of the mind consists in adding form to content, if these Forms are basically the same in all minds — old and modern, primitive and cultural... Principles of interpretation common to institutions and customs". From this it can be seen that Levi-Strauss very clearly pointed out that in order to become a real science, structuralism must find an ontological basis, that is, a deep structure of language, i.e. an unconscious structure. He pointed out that "language behavior mainly occurs at the level of the unconscious. When we speak, we are not aware of the rules of syntax and morphology of the phoneme to the existence of a set of phonetic counterpoints with special meanings." His goal is to bring these deep unconscious structures to consciousness and clarify them.

3. Focus on the study of literary works in general.

One of the strengths of archetypal criticism is its understanding of the integrity of the work. This requires a common understanding of the generality and evolution of literature. According to Fry's point of view, we should use a "long view", that is, a macroscopic and panoramic literary perspective, in order to place various literary phenomena in all literary relations for research. Just like evaluating an oil painting, we need not only to stand in front of it to observe its elegant strokes, but also to "step aside", focus on the overall picture, consider the composition of literary works from a wider angle, break through one or two types of literature in order to achieve a clear understanding of the general plan of literature. Obviously, this kind of archetypal criticism has opened up a new way of thinking for Western literary criticism with its macroscopic nature of the cosmos.

One of the most important features of the structuralist approach of Levi-Strauss is also his understanding of the integrity of the work, that is, the acceptance of integrity as the main feature of the structure. Integrity emphasizes the organic connection between the various components of things. Only when the constituent parts of things are considered as an organic whole can we find the inner connection of things and the mutual influence between functions. From a general point of view in literary studies, we will not break away from the general connection of the work and isolate individual factors.

4. The emphasis is on revealing the deep structure of literary works

 Changes in the rules and ways of connecting parts within the whole will affect the expressiveness of the article and the depth of thought. Fry embeds the work into a narrative surface structure consisting of images and a deep structure consisting of archetypes in order to reveal the true meaning of the work through scattered hints of archetypes.

According to Fry's archetypal theory, "a critic is an anthropologist, a specialist in identifying mythical patterns in variously displaced forms or in the form of fragments. The critic will try to describe and classify — but will not comment." This is also the main goal of archetypal criticism.

At the same time, the same trend is observed in Strauss' structural criticism. He inherited Chomsky's theoretical views on the creation and transformation of language and further refined his structural theory and methods. He argued that Chomsky's theory that the structure of language has a superficial and deep structure has a very general meaning and can be used to explain all social phenomena. The true meaning of things does not lie in the surface structure of the constantly changing phenomena that appear before our eyes, its internal logic is really contained in the deep structure, it is it that regulates and dominates the ever-changing and chaotic surface phenomena. Based on this, Levi-Strauss urged anthropologists to discover "the unconscious structure of every convention, every custom, in order to

The acquisition of principles of interpretation that are equally valid for other customs of other customs.

M.M. Bakhtin wrote: "Even the meanings of the past, that is, those born in the dialogue of the past centuries, can never be stable (once and for all completed, final) — they will always change and be updated in the process of the subsequent, future development of the dialogue. At any moment of the development of the dialogue, there are huge, unlimited masses of forgotten meanings, but at certain moments of the further development of the dialogue, in the course of it, they will be remembered again and come to life in an updated (in a new context) form." ^{[3, p. 373]}

Roland Barthes wrote that "the concept of intertext gives a social scope to the theory of text: the whole language as a whole, both previous and modern, enters the text, but does not arrive by identifiable filiation or conscious imitation, but by dissemination" ^{[2, p. 94]}. 

However, it is impossible not to mention the significant difference between archetypal criticism and the search for intertextual connections. The most important difference we see is that the archetype is primarily unconscious, whereas the authors resort to intertextual techniques arbitrarily; if the author consciously uses any archetype in the work, then he does not appeal to any particular work of another author - unlike intertextuality, in which (ideally) always you can set the source of borrowing. In other words, the archetype is impersonal, while intertextuality, contrary to Roland Barthes, continues to consider a specific text as a product of a specific author's thought.

Comparison of archetypal and structuralist approaches.

As a result of our analysis, it can be established that archetypal criticism and structuralism have many common features.

Structuralism is based on binary oppositions; the theory of archetypes is also based on them to some extent. According to Jung's concept, the world consists of pairs of opposites. Opposites flow into each other (this state is called "enantiodromy"), their polarity is a condition for the flow of energy, and the connection (conjunction) leads to the appearance of higher levels of the organization of being ^[6].

Thus, spirit and matter appear to us as a dichotomy of the archetypes of the one unus mundus. The archetype of spirit corresponds to the male archetypal image of the Heavenly Father, and the archetype of matter corresponds to the female image of the Great Mother (Mother Earth). Jung does the same with individual archetypes. In the layer closest to consciousness, there is such a pair of opposites as a person and a shadow. In the deeper layer of the archetypes of the soul, there is a pair of anima and animus. In an even deeper layer of the archetypes of the spirit are the wise elder and the chthonic mother ^[4].

1. Archetypal criticism is looking for ancient images; structuralism does not declare its goal to search for ancient images, but it somehow comes to them. For example, any novel about the formation of a person's personality, according to Fry, inevitably reproduces the course of the initiation rite. The author may not know anything about this, but this is not necessary, since he is revitalizing one of the variants of collective memory in his work – this is an act of the unconscious. Thus, the archetype is not just ancient old images, it is universal prototypes of culture or art. Here we can recall the work of V.Y. Propp "The historical roots of a fairy tale", in which the same idea is carried out by the main line: the fairy tale is an echo of the initiation rite.

2. Critics of both approaches found the same shortcomings behind them. The disadvantages of N. Fry's criticism were the deliberate belittling of the role of the individual principle in art, that is, the history of literature remained nameless; the extreme manifestation can be considered the reduction of analysis to the search for stable mythological images. Structuralists were reproached with exactly the same thing: determinism was imputed to them (structuralism declares the denial of subjectivity in humans: as K. Levi-Strauss stated, "it is not people who think with myths, but myths exchange thoughts among themselves / think in people without their knowledge," that is, mental structures predetermine the human spirit and limit its possibilities. As Paul Riker wrote, according to structuralism, cultural universals are declared innate, therefore, a person cannot create anything new and only recombines already existing possibilities ^[7].

At the same time, it is impossible not to note the difference between archetypal criticism and structural analysis. The key difference between the two approaches is that archetypal criticism explores artistic creativity in diachrony, it is interested in the historical roots of plots and genres, whereas structuralist literary studies, art criticism, cultural studies, etc., following the precepts of de Saussure, refuse any diachrony. They are not interested in any primary prototypes, they analyze the structural elements of the narrative in the form in which it is revealed to the analyzer, even if the output is data on the past state of the system, as, for example, V.N. Toporov and Vyach.Vs. Ivanov.

In conclusion, it should be noted that literature, as a way for a person to comprehend the world, is the result of comprehensive creativity, and the text, as a form of expression of this result, also implicitly or explicitly shows the features of synthesis, and the theory of archetypal criticism, and the theory of structuralism pay attention to the integrity of the object, which in fact is a unanimous recognition of the comprehensive characteristics of the object of critical literary texts.