According to many commentators, by the end of the 1960s, Barthes's work shifted from structuralism to post-structuralism. Although it can be valued in that it turns theoretical reorientation
from the value of the individual unit towards system, function and structure, structuralism has been criticized due to its methodological limitations. Two of the main problems of structuralism
were that the overemphasis on how to function results in the negligence of reflection on history or value-judgment, and also that it ignores the individual agency-parole, pragmatic etc.,
focusing too much on structure or system-langue, syntagmatic. As a result, the post-structuralism school began to challenge the objectivity
wh ich was assumed in language as
a reliable yardstick for the measurement of other signifying system,
even though they agreed with the argument of structuralism that analysis of language is
central to any modern intellectual project
(Rylance, 1994, p. 66)
As Rylance (1994) says, Barthes's structuralism, as well as resuming earlier themes, contains a number of his later anti-structuralist positions.
(p.32) For example, despite his agreement with Saussure's concepts, 'langue' and 'parole' in Elements of Semiology (1964), Barthes casts doubt on their limitation; he realizes that it also downgrades
individual language use and the model is undeviatingly controlling which langue controls parole, asking 'if everything in langue is so rigid, how does change or new work come about?'
(Rylance, 1991, p. 40). Barthes was consistently aware of problems of structuralism and eventually gave up parts of it in his later works.
Instead of having one stable denotive meaning, signs are said by the later Barthes to be polysemic, that is, they carry many potential meanings.
1 In his later days, Barthes difinitely emphasized in the difference rather than focusing on repetition. He focuses more on the text, aware of the cleavage between writer
and writing.
His shift can be understood as a rethinking of the biased preposition of the language systems. Despite his anti-idealist view of the subject as a product of cultural forces rather
than an origin, his hedonistic idea of the body in Pleasure of the Text (1975) re-centers the self as a transhistorical source of meaning.
(Haney, 1989, in Semiotica, p. 313) This admits
the relative autonomy of the parole from the langue. At the same time, it opens the plurality of meaning. This is revealed in his discussion about writing and reading.
- 1793 reads
