What do you think?
Rate this book
بؤس البنيوية
بؤس البنيوية اختيار أمثل من المترجم ثائر ديب, لرفد الثقافة العربية بالدراسات القيمة والتي تحمل أفكارا ونصوصا وتحليلات ودراسات لعدد كبير من الفلاسفة والمفكرين العالميين.
نجد ذلك في كتاب بؤس البنيوية للكاتب ليونارد جاكسون, يقدم الكتاب مدخلا لأفكار الفلاسفة ماركس-فرويد وخاصة سوسور ونقدا لها .. والنقد هنا بمعنى العودة إلى أسس النظرية التاريخية والمنطقية.
وحسب تعريف بياجيه البنية هي نظام تحولات, وتصان البنية أو تغتني بتفاعل قوانين التحول الخاصة بها .. والتي لا تؤدي ولا تستخدم نتائج خارجية بالنسبة للنظام.
وبهذا فإن تصور البنية يشتمل على ثلاث أفكار, فكرة الكلية, التحول, التنظيم الذاتي.
يعود تاريخ ولادة البنيوية الأدبية الدقيقة إلى عام 1928 حين قدم جاكسون وتينيانوف نظرية مفادها إن ثمة أنظمة أدبية تزامنية يمكن قياسها على اللغة قياسا دقيقا.
وقد طرأ على البنيوية تغييرا جديدا عندما دخلت البيئة الفلسفية الفرنسية حيث تحولت من نظرية عن اللغة والأدب والمجتمع إلى نظرية في بنية "الذات" وفي هذا الكتاب نموذج عن اللغة البنيوية, والطريق التي طور بها هذا النموذج أو حرف أو شوه أو رفض أو حورب أو حول إلى نقيضه.
في حين نسبوا إلى سوسور مواقف معاكسه تماما لما كان مقتنعا به.
نجد ذلك في كتاب بؤس البنيوية للكاتب ليونارد جاكسون, يقدم الكتاب مدخلا لأفكار الفلاسفة ماركس-فرويد وخاصة سوسور ونقدا لها .. والنقد هنا بمعنى العودة إلى أسس النظرية التاريخية والمنطقية.
وحسب تعريف بياجيه البنية هي نظام تحولات, وتصان البنية أو تغتني بتفاعل قوانين التحول الخاصة بها .. والتي لا تؤدي ولا تستخدم نتائج خارجية بالنسبة للنظام.
وبهذا فإن تصور البنية يشتمل على ثلاث أفكار, فكرة الكلية, التحول, التنظيم الذاتي.
يعود تاريخ ولادة البنيوية الأدبية الدقيقة إلى عام 1928 حين قدم جاكسون وتينيانوف نظرية مفادها إن ثمة أنظمة أدبية تزامنية يمكن قياسها على اللغة قياسا دقيقا.
وقد طرأ على البنيوية تغييرا جديدا عندما دخلت البيئة الفلسفية الفرنسية حيث تحولت من نظرية عن اللغة والأدب والمجتمع إلى نظرية في بنية "الذات" وفي هذا الكتاب نموذج عن اللغة البنيوية, والطريق التي طور بها هذا النموذج أو حرف أو شوه أو رفض أو حورب أو حول إلى نقيضه.
في حين نسبوا إلى سوسور مواقف معاكسه تماما لما كان مقتنعا به.
- GenresTheory
389 pages, Unknown Binding
First published June 1, 1991
3 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 3, 2018
I bought this book hoping for a rational well-structured argument against structuralism or more generally 'theory'. This book was not what I was hoping for. The constant castigating of people on the other side of the debate grew wearisome long before he started accusing others of doing the same. The thing that left spectacularly unimpressed, however, was the ridiculous arguments used in the conclusion.
The author argues that meaning is objective and can be ascertained by looking up the words in a dictionary. This is a structuralist approach to language, rather than a functionalist one, but ignores the possibility of metaphors and polysemic language or historical context. He then goes on to tackle a statement by Catherine Beasley by challenging what she means when she says 'concern'. If the meaning can be divined simply by use of a dictionary as Jackson asserts then the solution should be rather obvious. Also, if meaning is objective then what about unreliable narrators and works that rely on symbolism to defeat single interpretations of works, e.g. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.
Jackson also sets up the ridiculous strawman argument that texts defy a univocal meaning then they can be said to mean anything at all. One example he gives is that a James Bond novel could be mistaken for a chemistry book and Bond could be mistaken for a chemical. This is not an alternative interpretation accessing a possible new or hidden meaning, it's simply dissociative. Historians conjure conflicting interpretations of history by disagreeing on key points but agreeing on the bigger picture. For example, Stalin succeeded Lenin as the Head of the Government of Russia. Nobody would deny that happened but whether it was a continuation or a corruption of a genuine Bolshevik revolution is up for debate.
Jackson claims that theorists confuse meaning and interpretation. If they do then I think this shorthand is forgivable. Yet he goes on to confuse his own distinction by saying that Paradise Lost is about the fall of man (which it is) and that isn’t an interpretation (which it isn’t) and is therefore the meaning. It isn’t. It’s the plot which is certainly one way of conveying meaning but far from the only way. If it was then you would have no need to read Paradise Lost because I have just given you the only possible meaning. But what is the meaning in a character study that has little or no plot or a piece of modernist theatre such as Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’? It is two old blokes stood around doing nothing, talking about nothing and wait for someone who doesn’t turn up. Embellishing any further detail is an act of interpretation. Ever tried translating from one language to another?
The objective of taking a sentence in French and rewording it in English is to access the meaning. Obviously, some translations, or interpretations, maintain a higher fidelity but 100% over a long piece of text is not maintainable. The author cannot lean over a reader’s shoulder and correct the reader every time the text/translation or reader strays from the author’s intent. Roland Barthes famously argued that symbolism is the death of the author. This is correct. The author’s intentions are what he means but the reader’s interpretation is what the work means to the reader. Meaning is not a monopoly.
The author argues that meaning is objective and can be ascertained by looking up the words in a dictionary. This is a structuralist approach to language, rather than a functionalist one, but ignores the possibility of metaphors and polysemic language or historical context. He then goes on to tackle a statement by Catherine Beasley by challenging what she means when she says 'concern'. If the meaning can be divined simply by use of a dictionary as Jackson asserts then the solution should be rather obvious. Also, if meaning is objective then what about unreliable narrators and works that rely on symbolism to defeat single interpretations of works, e.g. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.
Jackson also sets up the ridiculous strawman argument that texts defy a univocal meaning then they can be said to mean anything at all. One example he gives is that a James Bond novel could be mistaken for a chemistry book and Bond could be mistaken for a chemical. This is not an alternative interpretation accessing a possible new or hidden meaning, it's simply dissociative. Historians conjure conflicting interpretations of history by disagreeing on key points but agreeing on the bigger picture. For example, Stalin succeeded Lenin as the Head of the Government of Russia. Nobody would deny that happened but whether it was a continuation or a corruption of a genuine Bolshevik revolution is up for debate.
Jackson claims that theorists confuse meaning and interpretation. If they do then I think this shorthand is forgivable. Yet he goes on to confuse his own distinction by saying that Paradise Lost is about the fall of man (which it is) and that isn’t an interpretation (which it isn’t) and is therefore the meaning. It isn’t. It’s the plot which is certainly one way of conveying meaning but far from the only way. If it was then you would have no need to read Paradise Lost because I have just given you the only possible meaning. But what is the meaning in a character study that has little or no plot or a piece of modernist theatre such as Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’? It is two old blokes stood around doing nothing, talking about nothing and wait for someone who doesn’t turn up. Embellishing any further detail is an act of interpretation. Ever tried translating from one language to another?
The objective of taking a sentence in French and rewording it in English is to access the meaning. Obviously, some translations, or interpretations, maintain a higher fidelity but 100% over a long piece of text is not maintainable. The author cannot lean over a reader’s shoulder and correct the reader every time the text/translation or reader strays from the author’s intent. Roland Barthes famously argued that symbolism is the death of the author. This is correct. The author’s intentions are what he means but the reader’s interpretation is what the work means to the reader. Meaning is not a monopoly.
August 8, 2014
This 1991 book is a noble and angry attempt to cover the confused history of the self-regarding 'scientific' intellectual movement of the humanities, 'Structuralism', and then the subsequent reaction against its failures, the philosophy of 'Post-Structuralism' whose extreme skepticism rebelled against rationality itself. The presence of the French linguist Ferdinand De Saussure, who was fundamental in the scientific paradigm shift in the field, weighs heavily in this history. Jackson seeks to defend his legacy against the many instances of ignorance and pure fabrication in the writings of the late structuralists and post-structuralists. Most strikingly, in Jacques Derrida's baffling 'Of Grammatology', Saussure is claimed to be a chauvenistic 'phonocentrist' (coined from the term 'phoneme', the smallest individual unit of contrastive sound). A purely invented argument upon which Derrida, in opposition, builds his stance.
Jackson eloquently (with remarkable patience) works his way through the hollow arguments of his opponents. But his writing also shows a passionate appreciation of literature. This gives him an advantage over the usual critics of Literary theory/ Semiotics, as he is constantly suggesting ample alternatives for fruitful study of literature that does not involve such intellectually unsatisfying, logically impenetrative relativism.
But why read this book? I personally came to it because my undergraduate knowledge of linguistics didn't square with its adapted role in Literary Criticism (in which I was also an undergraduate), but I think it could also be worth reading for more general interest. For example, if you want to read about how an intellectual culture goes awry from good intentions, and at its nadir, how shallow intellectual fashions are propagated and radical notions become orthodoxies. Above all it's refreshing because its writer is not only defending particular academic territory on the Lit Crit scene. Rather he has a clear passion for knowledge quite generally and defends its clear transmission. The unanswered question is whether criticism of Literature is a worthy exercise if it is, in fact only a matter of subjective, emotional interpretation, without any attempts at "theory," in the structuralist sense or the looser post-structuralist sense.
Jackson eloquently (with remarkable patience) works his way through the hollow arguments of his opponents. But his writing also shows a passionate appreciation of literature. This gives him an advantage over the usual critics of Literary theory/ Semiotics, as he is constantly suggesting ample alternatives for fruitful study of literature that does not involve such intellectually unsatisfying, logically impenetrative relativism.
But why read this book? I personally came to it because my undergraduate knowledge of linguistics didn't square with its adapted role in Literary Criticism (in which I was also an undergraduate), but I think it could also be worth reading for more general interest. For example, if you want to read about how an intellectual culture goes awry from good intentions, and at its nadir, how shallow intellectual fashions are propagated and radical notions become orthodoxies. Above all it's refreshing because its writer is not only defending particular academic territory on the Lit Crit scene. Rather he has a clear passion for knowledge quite generally and defends its clear transmission. The unanswered question is whether criticism of Literature is a worthy exercise if it is, in fact only a matter of subjective, emotional interpretation, without any attempts at "theory," in the structuralist sense or the looser post-structuralist sense.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews