Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to NOVEL: A
Forum on Fiction.
http://www.jstor.org
TZVETAN TODOROV*
The themeI propose to deal withis so vast thatthe few pages which followwill
inevitablytake the form of a resume. My title,moreover,contains the word
"structural,"a word more misleading than enlighteningtoday. To avoid mis-
understandingsas much as possible, I shall proceed in the followingfashion.
First,I shall give an abstractdescriptionof what I conceive to be the structural
approach to literature.This approach will thenbe illustratedby a concreteprob-
lem,thatof narrative,and morespecifically, thatof plot. The exampleswill all be
taken fromthe Decameron of Boccaccio. Finally,I shall attemptto make several
generalconclusionsabout thenatureof narrativeand theprinciplesof its analysis.
Firstof all, one can contrasttwo possible attitudestowardliterature:a theoreti-
cal attitudeand a descriptiveattitude.The nature of structuralanalysis will be
essentiallytheoreticaland non-descriptive;in other words, the aim of such a
study will never be the descriptionof a concretework. The work will be con-
sideredas the manifestationof an abstractstructure,merelyone of its possible
realizations;an understandingof thatstructurewill be the real goal of structural
analysis.Thus, the term"structure"has, in this case, a logical ratherthan spatial
significance.
Anotheroppositionwill enable us to focusmoresharplyon the criticalposition
which concernsus. If we contrastthe internalapproach to a literarywork with
the externalone, structuralanalysis would representan internalapproach. This
oppositionis well known to literarycritics,and Wellek and Warren have used
it as the basis for theirTheory of Literature.It is necessary,however,to recall
it here, because, in labeling all structuralanalysis "theoretical,"I clearly come
close to what is generallytermedan "external" approach (in impreciseusage,
"theoretical"and "external,"on the one hand, and "descriptive"and "internal,"
on the other,are synonyms).For example,when Marxistsor psychoanalystsdeal
witha work of literature,theyare not interestedin a knowledgeof the work it-
self,but in the understandingof an abstractstructure,social or psychic,which
manifestsitself throughthat work. This attitudeis thereforeboth theoretical
and external.On the otherhand, a New Critic (imaginary)whose approach is
obviously internal,will have no goal otherthan an understandingof the work
itself;theresultof his efforts will be a paraphraseof thework,whichis supposed
to revealthemeaningbetterthantheworkitself.
Structuralanalysisdiffersfromboth of theseattitudes.Here we can be satisfied
neitherby a pure descriptionof the work nor by its interpretation in termsthat
are psychologicalor sociologicalor, indeed,philosophical.In otherwords, struc-
turalanalysiscoincides(in its basic tenets)withtheory,withpoeticsof literature.
Its object is the literarydiscourse rather than works of literature,literature
that is virtual ratherthan real. Such analysis seeks no longer to articulatea
* Translatedby ArnoldWeinstein.
The firstobjectionloses all its weightas soon as we put ourselves in the per-
spectiveof structuralanalysis; althoughit does aim at an understandingof con-
ceptslike "description"or "action," thereis no need to findthemin a pure state.
It seems rathernaturalthat abstractconceptscannotbe analyzed directly,at the
level of empiricalreality.In physics,for example,we speak of a propertysuch
as temperaturealthoughwe are unable to isolate it by itselfand are forcedto
observe it in bodies possessing many other qualities also, like resistance and
volume. Temperatureis a theoreticalconcept,and it does not need to exist in a
purestate; suchis also truefordescription.
The second objectionis stillmorecurious.Let us considerthe alreadydubious
comparisonbetweena work and a livingthing.We all know that any part of our
body will containblood, nerves,muscles-all at the same time; we nonetheless
do not requirethe biologistto abandon these misleadingabstractions,designated
by the words: blood, nerves,muscles. The fact that we findthem togetherdoes
not preventus fromdistinguishingthem. If the firstargumentof Jameshad a
positive aspect (it indicated that our objective should be composed of abstract
categoriesand not concreteworks), the second representsan absolute refusalto
recognizetheexistenceof abstractcategories,of whateveris notvisible.
There is anothervery popular argumentagainst the introductionof scientific
principlesin literaryanalysis. We are told in this instancethat science must be
objective,whereastheinterpretation of literatureis always subjective.In myopin-
ion thiscrudeoppositionis untenable.The critic'swork can have varyingdegrees
of subjectivity;everything depends on theperspectivehe has chosen. This degree
will be much lower if he tries to ascertain the propertiesof the work rather
than seekingits significancefora givenperiodor milieu.The degreeof subjectiv-
itywill vary,moreover,when he is examiningdifferent strataof the same work.
There will be veryfew discussionsconcerningthe metricalor phonic scheme of
a poem; slightlymore concerningthe natureof its images; stillmorewith regard
to themorecomplexsemanticpatterns.
On the otherhand thereis no social science (or science whatsoever)which is
totallyfreeof subjectivity.The very choice of one group of theoreticalconcepts
instead of anotherpresupposesa subjectivedecision; but if we do not make this
choice, we achieve nothingat all. The economist,the anthropologist,and the
linguistmust be subjectivealso; the only differenceis that they are aware of it
and theytryto limitthissubjectivity,to make allowance forit withinthe theory.
One can hardlyattemptto repudiatethe subjectivityof the social sciences at a
timewhen even the naturalsciencesare affectedby it.
It is now time to stop these theoreticalspeculationsand to give an example
of the structuralapproach to literature.This example will serve as illustration
ratherthan proof: the theorieswhich I have just exposed will not be necessarily
contestedifthereare some imperfections in the concreteanalysisbased on them.
The abstractliteraryconceptI would like to discuss is that of plot. Of course,
thatdoes notmean thatliterature, forme,is reducedto plot alone. I do think,how-
ever,thatplot is a notionthatcriticsundervalueand, hence,oftendisregard.The
ordinaryreader,however,reads a book above all as the narrationof a plot; but
8. We mightalso ask: is therea way back? How does one get fromthe abstract,
schematicrepresentation to the individualtale? Here, thereare threeanswers:
a) The same kind of organizationcan be studiedat a more concretelevel: each
clause of our sequence could be rewrittenas an entiresequence itself.We would
not therebychange the natureof the analysis,but ratherthelevel of generality.
b) It is also possible to studythe concreteactionsthatincorporateour abstract
pattern.For instance,we may pointout the different laws thatbecome violatedin
thestoriesof theDecameronor thedifferent punishmentsthatare metedout. That
would be a thematicstudy.
c) Finally,we can examinetheverbalmediumwhichcomposesour abstractpat-
terns.The same actioncan be expressedby means of dialogue or description,fig-
urative or literaldiscourse; moreover,each action can be seen froma different
pointof view. Here we are dealingwitha rhetoricalstudy.
These three directionscorrespondto the threemajor categoriesof narrative
analysis: studyof narrativesyntax,studyof theme,studyof rhetoric.
At this point we may ask: what is the purpose of all this? Has this analysis
taughtus anythingabout thestoriesin question?But thatwould be a bad question.
Our goal is not a knowledgeof the Decameron (althoughsuch analysis will also
serve thatpurpose), but ratheran understandingof literatureor, in this specific
instance,of plot. The categoriesof plot mentionedhere will permita more exten-
sive and precisedescriptionof otherplots. The object of our studymustbe narra-
tivemood,or pointof view,or sequence,and not thisor thatstoryin and foritself.
Fromsuch categorieswe can move forwardand inquireabout the possibilityof
a typologyof plots. For themomentit is difficult to offera valid hypothesis;there-
foreI mustbe contentto summarizetheresultsof myresearchon the Decameron.
The minimalcompleteplot can be seen as the shiftfromone equilibriumto an-
other.This term"equilibrium,"which I am borrowingfromgeneticpsychology,
means the existenceof a stable but not staticrelationbetween the membersof a
society;it is a social law, a rule of the game,a particularsystemof exchange.The
two momentsof equilibrium,similarand different, are separatedby a period of
imbalance,which is composed of a process of degenerationand a process of im-
provement.
All of the storiesof the Decameron can be enteredinto thisverybroad schema.
Fromthatpoint,however,we can make a distinctionbetweentwo kinds of stories.
The firstcan be labeled "avoided punishment";the fourstoriesI mentionedat the
beginningare examples of it. Here we follow a completecycle: we begin with a
state of equilibriumwhichis brokenby a violationof the law. Punishmentwould
have restoredthe initialbalance; the factthatpunishmentis avoided establishesa
new equilibrium.
The othertypeof storyis illustratedby the tale about Ermino(I,8), which we
may label "conversion."This storybegins in the middleof a completecycle,with
a state of imbalancecreatedby a flawin one of the characters.The storyis basi-
callythedescriptionof an improvement process-until the flawis no longerthere.
The categorieswhichhelp us to describethesetypestellus muchabout theuni-
verse of a book. With Boccaccio, the two equilibriumssymbolize (for the most
part) cultureand nature,thesocial and theindividual;the storyusuallyconsistsin
illustrating the superiorityof thesecond termover thefirst.
We could also seek even greatergeneralizations.It is possible to contrasta spe-
cificplot typologywith a game typologyand to see them as two variants of a
commonstructure.So littlehas been done in this directionthat we do not even
knowwhatkindsof questionsto ask.1
I would like to returnnow to the beginningargumentand to look at the initial
question again: what is the object of structuralanalysis of literature(or, if you
wish, of poetics)? At firstglance,it is literatureor, as Jakobsonwould have said,
literariness.But let us look moreclosely.In our discussionof literaryphenomena,
we have had to introducea certainnumberof notions and to create an image of
literature;this image constitutesthe constantpreoccupationof all research on
poetics."Science is concernednot withthingsbut withthe systemof signs it can
substituteforthings,"wroteOrtega y Gasset. The virtualitieswhichmake up the
objectof poetics(as of all othersciences),theseabstractqualitiesof literatureexist
only in the discourse of poetics itself.From this perspective,literaturebecomes
onlya mediator,a language,whichpoeticsuses fordealingwithitself.
We mustnot,however,concludethatliteratureis secondaryforpoeticsor that
it is not,in a certainsense, the object of poetics.Science is characterizedprecisely
by this ambiguityconcerningits object, an ambiguitythatneed not be resolved,
but ratherused as the basis foranalysis.Poetics,like literature,consistsof an un-
interrupted movementback and forthbetweenthe two poles: thefirstis auto-ref-
erence,preoccupationwithitself;the second is what we usually call its object.
There is a practicalconclusionto be drawn fromthese speculations.In poetics
as elsewhere,discussionsof methodologyare not a minorarea of thelargerfield,a
kind of accidentalby-product:theyare ratherits very center,its principalgoal.
As Freud said, "The importantthingin a scientificwork is not the natureof the
factswithwhichit is concerned,but the rigor,the exactnessof the methodwhich
is priorto the establishmentof thesefacts,and theresearchof a synthesisas large
as possible."
1 A few bibliographicalsuggestions:I deal more at lengthwith the same problemsin the chapter
"Poetique"
of the collective work Qu'est-ce que le structuralisme?(Paris, Editions du Seuil, 1968); and in my book
Grammairedu Decameron, to be published by Mouton, The Hague. Several studies using a similar per-
spective have been published in the periodical Communications(Paris, Editions du Seuil), Nos. 4, 8, 11
(articlesof Barthes,Bremond,Genette,etc.).