Are the Structuralists Right in Claiming That Language Speaks Us - Essay Example

Running Head: Language 'Speaks Us' Are the structuralists right in claiming that language 'speaks us' [Institute's Are the structuralists right in claiming that a language 'speaks us' Structuralism can be defined as a phenomenon that is focused on analyzing different materials or things. This phenomenon has its approach to the areas like linguistic, philosophy, literature, anthropology and so on. Structuralism has given interpretation and analysis to the different materials that exist in the aforementioned different areas. According to the belief of the structuralists, a language speaks us. In this paper, we are going to argue the statements that "are the structuralists right in claiming that a language 'speaks us'". According to the structuralists, every element that is related to the culture of human being is a constituent of the system of signs. The famous structuralists, like, Roman Jakobson, Roland Barthes, Claude Levi Strauss and Ferdinand De Saussure have made their contributions in justifying the fact that "a language speaks us". All of these structuralists have tried to develop the semiology or semiotics. These structuralists always took a language as a sign that reflects the thoughts of human being. The philosophies of structuralism were emerged prominently in the 20th century. The concepts that are provided by the structuralism hold more scope for making criticism. The most of the theories given by the structuralism include a margin of objectivity is the reason of the criticism. This objection is termed as the scientific objection. The structuralists tried to prove that we do not speak a language instead language speaks us. The fact is based on the thoughts that everything is produced as a result of some force or power, but the efforts of humans are not enough to produce anything. This statement has been made as a result of giving more attention towards the structures, patterns and the systems. (West, 170, 1996) The theories of structuralists are quite contradictory if they are compared with the theories developed by the humanists. Now, we are going to argue on the models developed for a language by the humanists as well as by the structuralists. The model that was presupposed and developed by the humanists states that the human minds are capable of understanding the real world. The human minds are rational and can get to everything that is seen. In the same manner, the rational human mind is able to portray and define the real world precisely up to some extent. This definition is given by making a use of some languages. The approach developed by the humanists relies on the fact that some of the languages are necessarily used for illustrating the real world. According to humanists, a language is the generation of the human minds. A language is totally generated by the will of human beings and no external force is involved in it. This theory suggests that an individual has the ability to decide what he wants to say. It clearly notifies the fact that we speak a language. It also defines the fact that the human minds are able to think and what to say. The human minds are also capable of understanding the meaning of the matter that has been uttered. No other external force is used by the human minds to speak. At this point, the theory of humanists regarding a language clearly denies the theory of structuralists. Every individual makes the use of a language for explaining the self essence or feelings. The individual here gets more value as in this case an individual represents the subject as well. The way of representing ideas and thoughts is also depending totally on an individual himself. Hence, the model considers the individual as the main element. All the meanings and concepts of a language are the generation of an individual's mind, and he is not being forced by any power to speak. So this theory suggests that we speak a language. (Martinez, 1, 1999) On the other hand, if the argument is made on the structuralists' model of a language that suggests that a language makes the individual to think. According to structuralists, the reality is produced by the structure of the language. A language makes us to think and then we develop our thoughts and perceptions. All these perceptions and thoughts are just able to be created by the structure of a language. This explanation agrees with the fact that we do not speak a language instead a language speaks us. The structuralists believe that a language speaks us because according to them, the meanings to a language are not given by the human minds. Individuals are not the source of meaning, thus, they are not able to speak as well. The structuralists explain the phenomena that the constituents of a language like, signs, grammar and symbols are responsible for giving meaning to the language. The structuralists share the view point that meaning can never be given by any person or individual rather it comes from the governing system. Human beings do not play any role in speaking language as they are not able to produce meanings. So it is said that a language speaks us and we do not speak a language. The structuralism believes that the center of a language is not individuals but the structure or the system of the language. This is because in this theory, the structure is responsible for developing the sense and meaning of a language. It is said that a language speaks us just because we are not able to produce the meanings and we do not know what we are going to say. Even according to this theory, the identity of an individual is also the production of the system of a language that is being followed. For example, when we say 'I' then this reflects to a part of a language that is showing the subjective position and it does not reflect the individual. The meaning to this subject is being provided by the system of a language and not by an individual. In this regard, the structuralists are correct up to some extent in their theory as they believe on systems not on the human beings. The center for the structuralism is not human beings but the system. This center proves the theory to be the right one. (Klages, 50, 2006) According to the structuralists approach, an individual is just a product of the language system and not the producer of a language. The structuralist theory says that the meaning of any term or word or expression is not influenced by a speaker's intention or experience. The act of speaking assumes that a language already is in place and the speaker must follow that system in order to speak. Ideas or meanings of sentences are chosen on the basis of differences that can be found in the network of words depending on their sound or graphic images that altogether make a language. An idea can be correctly understood in terms of its position that is compared to the differences among position of different words in the network; whereas, the humanist theory denies the idea and says that a human speaks what he thinks, but in reality, a structuralist theory has a more practical approach. The argument raised above is quite convincing as a system holds much value. The system includes all the elements that make up a language and these elements are responsible for providing meaning as well. The structuralists' approach underlines several different principles. Firstly, the focus is made on the structure that is followed by a language. The structure should be given importance more than any other action that is even more purposeful. Although, the structure of a language is underneath and is not observable, but the relations that exist between the elements of the structures are measurable when it comes to the social reality. These relations in the language structure help to maintain the social relations and social lives of individuals. According to the structuralists, the social construction of the structure should be a natural process. When the natural social construction is applied then the second basic thing emerges for the approach of structuralists. The second basic element states that people who are acting in the social lives are not the real actors. They are just produced by the structures, relationships of the social life and discourse. This fact also suggests that the feelings of a person are also not his/her own creations, but the production of the structures. As a result, we can say that we just speak the words but cannot be the authors by just uttering few words. The third main feature that underlies the structuralism approach imposes that the structures are universal and will remain the same (more or less). According to the structuralists approach, the language model can be extended to all cultures for the structuralists who are mostly seen in wider aspects of structural systems. We always consider that the issues like eating habits, watching, likes and dislikes and so on are related to the choices of human beings. But according to the structuralists these are only the aspects of daily operation of rules, laws and structures. These aspects then produce meanings in any cultural sphere; examples can be given as; media texts are not seen as their authors' intentions, but the working of textual rules. This kind of analysis allows identification of common structures to a very wide range of stories, legends, folk tales, etc. A lasting example can be given as prop's work on the Russian folk tales. Primarily, structuralism is concerned with the texts that what and how these actually mean. (Casey, 234, 2008) Structuralists have different concepts regarding a language. They think that a language speaks us and we do not speak a language. They have performed different analysis to prove their thoughts. They think that some external forces help us to speak a language and the human power is not enough to speak itself. To find out that whether the structuralists are right or wrong, we have observed different theories. One of these theories is discourse theory. Discourse theory is actually based on the concept of discourse, means discussion or speech. In this theory, discourse analysis is done in the humanities and social sciences. Looking at the assumptions of a discourse theory, we noticed that every object and every action is meaningful. It means that everything is already given meanings by some external forces. Some particular system of rules specifies their meanings. In this theory, the writer considers the example of a forest that stands in the path of a motorway, and which is going to be constructed according to a proposal of the motorway construction. Some people might consider it as an inconvenient object which is creating hurdles in the construction of the motorway. On the other hand, those who are interested in the nature and then natural environment would definitely view that forest differently. They would take it as God's blessing or a natural heritage. It means that whatever the situation is, meanings depend entirely on the way you see it or you take it. Meaning depends on the identity and importance of that object. Here it shows that every object keeps its own importance and that importance is spoken by us. We are the ones who can give that object any meaning. When an environmentalist views the forest then he would take it as a symbol of a beauty and the nature, and when an economist view the forest, he might think that it will contribute in the economic growth and prosperity. It clearly means that the forest already holds some importance with itself. Human beings just identified the importance as some other forces already have created this identity. By looking at the above example, we have seen a relationship between a social and political construction. (Howarth, 2, 2000) According to this discussion, a particular relation is established between the objects and practices - social agents identify these objects. In the above example, the social agents are developers, naturalist, economist, etc. but on the whole, political practices are required to identify these objects. Political practices are needed to establish the relation with the objects and their identities. Different piece of works of discourse are essential to organize the ground of significance between the object and the practices in a specific field. So it is shown that the discourse theory supports the concept of structuralists that a language speaks us. The discourse theory has proved it by the above example. Actually, they are not incorrect up to some extent as if an object already holds some meaning with itself then human beings can only name those meanings by their practices. It means that a human power is not enough to speak a language. Apart from that the discourse theory investigates that in what ways these social and political practices represent the social and political reality. The social and political practices cannot change the entire meaning of any object as the whole system of meaning is dependent on each other. It means that the system of meaning is not independent and the social and political practices do not have an ability to change the entire system. To understand this concept, the discourse theory splits its meanings into more simple terms, which can be easily understood by anyone. In the simpler words, the discourse theory states that all objects are the objects of a discussion or a speech because their meanings are dependent on the system of rules and significance differences. The system is made by the social practices. This idea of the discrimination as a possibility of important practices and considerable divergence does not decrease everything to words or need skepticism about the survival of the world. On the opposite, it thwarts skepticism and optimism by arguing that we are always restricted internally to a world that suggests practices and objects. (Howarth, 4, 2000) In the concept of structuralism, it does not matter that whether we are restricted internally or externally. Because if anything has its own meaning then whatever we think, the meanings will always remain the same. The research programmers of the discourse theory Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's have explained this internal and external view of taking objects. Laclau and Mouffe stated that if every object has formed its own identity and significance then discourse has nothing to do with it, no matter what are the thoughts of human beings (realism/idealism). Laclau and Mouffe set an example of an earthquake or a falling brick on the external and internal thoughts of the world. They said that the events of earthquake and falling brick exist in the reality. It happens in the world. It is out of anybody's will to stop it from existing. But the way of discussing these events are always different. The earthquake has some purpose of existence and some meaning of existence, but the way of discussing this event is different. Some people define it as specificity in terms of "natural phenomena" or some define it as "expressions of the wrath of God". It shows that meaning of the existence is the same but the thoughts are usually different as human beings have discussed it differently. The object is external to thoughts and they could only constitute themselves as objects outside any discretion circumstances of appearance. According to Heidegger's terminology, human beings never fall into a discussion. They are always kept away from the meaningful practices and discourses of objects. They never think about the objects outside of it. He is right up to some extent as human beings always give names to already existing system of meanings. They never go for the purpose of meaning. (Torfing, 81, 1999) Discourse means a system of those practices that keeps some meanings with them to form a significance of different subjects and objects. As we have discussed above that discourse establish links between the system of social practices and relations with the political practices. These practices establish involvement between outsiders and insiders. Social agents always take part in giving the proper structure to the meanings of objects. Political practices also help social agents to implement these practices. It again shows that practices just define the meanings; they do not form the meaning. It means that a language speaks us and meaning is hidden in the language. Discourses are dependent and past constructions, political forces are disqualified because they are open in their construction as well as the displace effects of events are away from their control. (Brown, 5, 1983) Stuart Hall has defined the meaning of political discourse; he has analyzed Thatcherism through his studies. Thatcherism involves number of ideological elements. These elements include a number of traditional values like family, culture and traditions, patriotism, law and order, rules and regulations, classical view of capitalism and homo-economics and so on. Hall linked up all of these values together with the conservative party and its supporters and between those who supported the discourse of the social democracy and wanted their restructuring. So, Hall introduced different types of practices that may be political, sociological, economical or ideological. But on the other hand, discourse theorists completely rejected the idea of ideological practices. They have just established the relation in the social areas, not in the ideological areas. They categorize these economical, political and ideological practices in internal and realistic terms of the discourse theory. It shows that the term discourse is also a set of different ideas and beliefs contributed by the policy makers, politicians and social movements. The discourse theory ends up with different discussions - the analysis in the theory refers to the practices. This analysis results in a wide range of linguistic and non-linguistic data. This data has kept a significant meaning with it depending on the practices, words, and also depending on the world of objects. All these things are combined and resulted in the formation of the discourse theory. It has actually helped the theorists to develop a number of different procedures and techniques in the literary and linguistic theory equal with its ontological hypothesis. It includes the Derrida's deconstruction of philosophy and metaphysics, Saussure's distinction between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic poles of language, Laclau and Mouffe's logics of equivalence and difference, Foucault's archaeological and genealogical approaches to the discourse analysis, the Jakobsonian concepts of metaphor and metonymy and the theory of rhetoric and tropes. (Glynos, 133, 2007) All of the above assumptions prove that the structuralists' concept is absolutely correct that a language speaks us and human efforts are not enough to give every object its proper significance. Some of the significance is given by manpower by implementing the social or political or other practices, but external forces already organize the main system of meanings. These forces are driving the identity and significance of every object. The discourse theory is totally based on the theoretical framework. In some regions of research and methods, it is limited and neglects the positive points of different approaches. It means that up to some extent, it is correct to their concepts, but beyond that extent, this theory has certain limitations. The discourse theory is more concerned to its own abstract theoretical concepts and logics. These concepts are so concrete that they can be easily adapted and deformed in any process of different applications. It means that concepts and logics are flexible enough to be adapted and transformed in to different processes. As we have noticed that the theory has something lacking. It excludes different basic and essential reductionist theories in its assumptions. If it includes those theories then it would be better explained the term discourse in innovative accounts of phenomena. We have seen that the discourse theory has some weak points in terms of existing paradigms of the social science research. It shows that it does not include positive approaches and behaviors in it. The discourse theory is more based on relationships between the social and political analyses and practices, and the role of these practices in identifying the significance of objects and different characters of the social and historical changes. The discourse theory challenges to reduce the effect of class and will-power of the economy of classical Marxism. Now, the discourse theory is deconstructed the Marxist ontology in which the class reductionism was found and then the discourse theory has introduced the relational concepts. By doing so, the discourse theory draws upon the post-structuralism critiques of language - Gramsci's and Althusser's reworked the Marxist concepts of politics and ideology. The discourse theorists also rejected rationalist approaches to the political analysis because the discourse theorists believe that social agents are involved in giving preferences and meanings to objects according to their interests. So they concentrate on the rational functioning of the social system. The social system is dependent on inter related elements and their functions are also inter related. Some essential concepts of the social and political agencies are missing from the discourse theory that shows the weakness in it. These deficiencies may be created due to their research methods or research programs. In spite of all these deficiencies, the discourse theory is successful in explaining the historical and social changes in the world by choice to political factors and logics. (Howarth, 300, 2005) It is proved by the above research that the concept of structuralism is correct, but in some areas, it is not satisfying the logics and different situations. Also, we cannot neglect this claim that a language speaks us. The way to see the world differs from a person to person, but the world has always kept its own identity and significance in itself. This identity and significance cannot be changed by anyone as the system of meaning is contingent on each other and the same is proved by the discourse theory. The discourse theory holds authentic reasons in itself and these reasons are the purpose of its existence. The theory covers almost all the major aspects of a life, like, political social, ideological, behavioral and economical. These aspects are categorized as external and internal thoughts; all of these thoughts are exposed to the significance and identity of objects. The claim of structuralists is satisfying up to some extent. This concept is more of a theoretical type as it is the concept of philosophy so it lacks some objectivity and logics, but in the end, we cannot say that the claim of structuralists is incorrect. It is correct as they proved the whole idea with respect to the social and political relations. References Brown, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press. Casey, B. (2008) Television Studies: The Key Concepts. Canada: Routledge. Fort, J. (2008) French theory: how Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. transformed the intellectual life of the United States. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press. Griffin, J. (2008) On Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press US. Glynos, J. (2007) Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. New York: Routledge. Howarth, D. (2000) Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: identities, hegemonies and social change. New York: Manchester University Press. Jespersen, O. (2008) Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. Canada: Read Books. Klages, M. (2006) Literary theory: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Martinez, E. V. (1999) Deconstructivism and Post structuralism [online] available from http://mural.uv.es/envimar/page2.html [20 Feb 2010] Moran, M. (2006) The Oxford handbook of Public Policy. London: Oxford University Press. Stritzel, H. (2010) Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond [online] available from http://ejt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/357 [20 Feb 2010] Torfing, J. (1999) New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Malden: Wiley Blackwell. West, D. (1996) An Introduction to Continental Philosophy. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell. Read More