Using the structural differential as a mnemonic to teach literary theory.

IN THE SUMMER 2003 ETC, I offered the case for metaphoric eclecticism when I suggested that we continue to look for new uses for classic theoretical constructs, including Alfred Korzybski's structural differential. As D. David Bourland, Jr., noted, Korzybski demonstrated greater flexibility with his constructs than have some of his faithful disciples, who have occasionally shown a tendency to hypostasize his formulations or their corollaries. (Bourland, p.253) For example, when illustrating the process of abstracting, Korzybski occasionally substituted a horizontal linear diagram that from left to right depicted the event [right arrow] perception [right arrow] silent response [right arrow] other semantic reactions. (See Kendig, M. Alfred Korzybski: Collected Writings 1920-1950, pp.565-568)

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

A Novel Mnemonic 

I would like to propose yet another serendipitous use for the structural differential. We may also employ this diagram as a novel mnemonic to introduce organizational paradigms for Literary Criticism.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

Literary theory often appears as a confusion of conflicting organizational schemes. In critiquing representative seminal works, some literary theory seems organized along a chronological timeline, emphasizing literary periods or phases (Walter Bate's Criticism: The Major Texts); while other theory appears as a survey of divergent schools (Guerin and Labor's Handbook of Critical Approaches and Kaplan and Anderson's Criticism: Major Statements).

The last time I taught a course in literary theory, I used a popular text by Hazard Adams, Critical Theory Since Plato (originally published in 1971 and revised in 1992) in which Adams classified our rather amorphous mass of critical theory on a four-fold taxonomy encompassing:

* ontological approaches (those theories focusing on the 'nature of being and existence')

* epistemological approaches (those theories focusing on the study of how we come to know what we know)

* linguistic approaches (emphasizing the language of the work itself)

* political or cultural criticism (growing or emanating out of political ferment)

Adams acknowledges his debt to a previous four-fold taxonomy that Meyer Abrams had developed in his The Mirror and the Lamp (published in 1953), classifying literary theory as:

* mimetic theory (assuming art to be an imitation of nature)

* pragmatic theory (focusing on the practical value of a work of art--or what a work of art should do for the reader)

* expressive theory (viewing art as the product of some inner wonderful creative process)

* objectivist theory (isolating the work from the socio-cultural milieu and concentrating on its language)

Both Abrams and Adams acknowledge that these approaches have the tendency to recycle themselves endlessly, and that a "case can be made that the history of critical theory is one of cyclical error" (Adams, p.1). Though not entirely similar, the Abrams and the Adams taxonomies seem to mesh together in the following pattern:

Abrams:  Mimetic      Expressive       Objectivist  Pragmatic
Adams:   Ontological  Epistemological  Linguistic   Political Motivation

As the class and I discussed Hazard Adam's introduction, I glanced at the structural differential hanging on the cork board next to the speaker's podium. It occurred to me that the diagram could provide a mnemonic for the study of Literary Theory, as follows:

* the event level parabola represents the ontological and mimetic approaches

* the object of perception circle corresponds to the expressive and epistemological approaches

* the first verbal level tag represents the objectivist or linguistic approaches

* the succeeding phases of abstraction tags (with resultant semantic reactions) seemed to correspond with the pragmatic, political, or cultural approaches

Using Korzybski's structural differential diagram, we could well envision this pattern:

Abrams:      Adams:                Korzybski:

Mimetic      Ontological           Event               Parabola
Expressive   Epistemological       Perception          Circle
Objectivist  Linguistic            Language            [Tag.sub.1]
                                   Symbol
Pragmatic    Political Motivation  Other               [Tag.sub.2]
                                   Semantic Reactions

The structural differential as a mnemonic to introduce organizational
paradigms for Literary Criticism

As Adams points out, no one school of criticism has ever maintained its place in the sun in perpetuity, but has continually cycled and recycled through the bricolage of discarded theory. It would benefit teachers of Literary Criticism to remain flexible and eclectic regarding approaches to Literary Criticism, observing the continual give and take, ebb and flow of theory, formulation, and practice.

Event Level: Ontological and Mimetic Approaches

Adams suggests that the longest phase of criticism derived its focus from contemplating the nature of being and existence. Plato attempted to visualize the locus or center of being as eternal ideas or forms, suggesting that poetry was a twice-removed copy of being. The whirling dance of electrons and continual change (represented by the parabola on the structural differential) seem to initially clash with the more static presentation of forms and ideas envisioned by Plato, but Korzybski recognized that certain processes such as the pattern of the cell--a genotype emerging into the phenotype represents a relative invariance under transformation. This kind of event occurs on the submicroscopic atomic level represented by the parabola. Korzybski was just as solicitous as Plato, insisting that a neutral word like characteristic ought to be used rather than atom or molecule (terms Plato may have considered corporeal distortions). Ontological approaches, insisting on fidelity or verisimilitude to what we would consider the event, dominated critical theory from classical times through the middle ages and well into the Renaissance. Art strived to imitate (we might substitute the term abstract from) external nature or human nature a representation of a noble action. In its extreme application, art becomes a mirror or photograph, faithfully reproducing true-to-life copies of the original--perhaps in the sense which the narrator of Dragnet insists, "The story you are about to see is true; only the names have been changed to protect the innocent." In the classical understanding of Plato, poetic truth served as a kind of "allegorical representation of pure ideas." (Adams, p.3)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Object of Perception: Epistemological or Expressive Approaches

The object level on Korzybski's structural differential represents the human nervous system (equipped with sensory organs to abstract from the event level) in the process of perceiving/abstracting an object.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Epistemology focuses upon how we come to know what we know. J. S. Bois often referred to general semantics as up-to-date epistemology (p.14). Rene Descartes' exclamation, "I think, therefore I am," focuses upon the nervous system's role in processing information. John Locke in his division of experience into primary (objective) and secondary (subjective) suggests that primary knowledge could be attained through measurement. This primary / secondary distinction anticipates some of the features of the general semantics extensional / intensional dichotomy. Other builders of epistemological theory include David Hume, who emphasized the role of taste in the evaluation of art. All of these epistemological approaches focus upon the working of the mind (we could substitute the term nervous system), emphasizing the role of subjectivity--a function of unique nervous systems. Emile Zola added to the epistemological approach by insisting that art, specifically the creation of the novel, should follow the systematic process of the scientific method. Adams suggests that epistemological approaches overemphasize the role of perception and underemphasize the role of language (or language symbols) in shaping reality for us. Literary Criticism teachers with a general semantics orientation understand that getting stuck at one level of abstraction can lead to a pernicious elementalistic distortion of the entire evaluative process.

In discussing his classification of the Expressivist approach to Literary Criticism, Abrams suggests that the Expressivist orientation arose from a harsh reaction to the excesses of Classicism, which denigrated the inner creative life of the poet. The lamp, a metaphor Abrams used for the poet's creative spirit, now focused upon the contents of the artist's nervous system--what made him tick and what inspired him to work. The critic regarded biographical details as legitimate tributaries contributing meaning to a work. By inference, we could consider the relatively higher incidence of percussion and timpani in Beethoven's later symphonies as his attempt to compensate for his deafness. The critic could also examine or debate about the mysterious "Z" in Tchaikovsky's diaries and its influence upon his creative output.

Language Symbol Level: Linguistic and Objectivist Approaches to Criticism

Another elementalistic distortion stemming from fixating upon levels (or phases) of abstraction occurs in the objectivist or linguistic approaches, which considers any evaluation apart from the language symbol itself as outside of the purview of criticism. Abrams points out that the common denominator of Objectivist approaches stems from treating works of art as autonomous--independent from both the artist's intention or the reader's reaction to the work. Proponents of objectivistic evaluation include T.S. Eliot, Cleanth Brooks, and Wimsatt and Beardsley, all concentrating on the poetic object as a "unique system of internal relations." (Adams, p.2)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

According to Adams, the linguistic or objectivist emphases derived from the work of Ernst Cassirer, Kenneth Burke, and Ferdinand de Saussure (the founder of Structuralist Linguistics), insisted that language (metaphorically) has its own life and has its own system. I.A. Richards, following this focus, suggested that we should not regard a poem as an imitation of nature or an expression of a great action, but instead as a piece of language (Adams, p.4). T.S. Eliot, father of the Imagist School of Poetry and a powerful influence on 'New Criticism,' also regarded a poem as a linguistic artifact. Notable contributors to the Linguistic or Objective phase of Literary Criticism include Cleanth Brooks and Allan Tate. Adams complains that the terminology of linguistic criticism appears derived and secondhand, with its philosophical underpinnings borrowed from Kant. Criticism of the excesses of the New Criticism (with its emphasis on symbol-only analysis) came from Northrop Frye who complained in his Anatomy of Criticism that New Criticism had the tendency to parochialize itself from cultural anthropology and other tributaries of evaluation. Jacque Derrida, attacking the notion of "a possible center of meaning" in existing linguistic or objectivist approaches, opted for a kind of 'semantic relativism.' Deconstruction evolved, had its place in the sun, and developed a technique which for a time captivated American literary academic circles.

Other Semantic Reactions: Pragmatic and Political (or Cultural) Motivation Approaches

The pragmatic approach to Literary Criticism focuses upon what a work of art does to or for a reader. Pragmatic criticism focuses upon the practical value of a work of art as it delights, instructs, or teaches. In the Mimetic or Ontological phases of criticism, traces of pragmatic theory began to emerge. Both Plato and Aristotle took into account the effect of a work of art on the reader or audience. Aristotle examined the practical cathartic purgative value of tragedy to displace or neutralize unhealthy emotions. Longinus emphasized the effect of the sublime as a positive poetic effect designed to delight. Pragmatism dominated literary theory during the Middle Ages and into the 18th century (especially in the works of Sir Philip Sidney and Immanuel Kant), a period known for its many strongly moralistic or didactic works.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Adams points out that Deconstruction (with its insistence upon the elusiveness or non-existence of a center) makes it an anathema both to idealistic and ideological approaches to criticism, especially those advocating political action such as Feminist, Marxist, or New Historicism approaches, which evolve out of political and cultural ferment. Here, the journey from event [right arrow] perception [right arrow] language symbol [right arrow] other semantic reactions reaches its apparent terminus with some kind of political stance.

Marxist critical theory commits itself to a particular abstraction of historical events, evaluating literature as it portrays class conflict. Foucault's New Historicism also maintains a rigid focus on relations of power, insisting that every work of literature is written from a base of power or political position. Edward Said views criticism as a political act in service of some moral principle. Feminist criticism, provoked by the exclusion of certain works from the literary canon, complains that male writing ignores the female perspective, and raises strident voices against the canon's exclusiveness. Feminist theory has developed its own politically oriented "textual analysis--sensitive to gender differences." (p.6) Adams suggests that many reader-oriented criticisms derive from a political stance, allying themselves with power-oriented forms of theory. Stanley Fish, objecting to the semantic relativistic approach (advocated by the New Criticism and Deconstructionist approaches to criticism) suggests that a community of readers must set the standards.

Adams, in the conclusion of his introduction, laments that often, instead of discussing literary texts, the emergent theorists spend far too much time savaging one another's theories--and far too little time evaluating. If we compare literary theory or chronological phases of literary theory as part of a larger picture of abstracting from the event through the perception through the language symbol to the action or behavior, we must learn to continue the abstracting process by connecting our evaluations back to the silent event level. With each round of abstraction, we should not let the process stop; it should continue to circulate, as indicated by the returning arrow in the structural differential diagram. We know, for example, that we cannot know for certain the author's intention, but we can, on the basis of extra-textual artifacts, make some inferences that will shed additional light on the meaning of the text. We know that the same text can trigger a multitude of responses, dependent upon the metaphorical maps readers use to navigate through the territory.

Dr. Sanford I. Berman, in his visual aid for his lecture on the difference between the signal and symbol reaction, provides the following diagram to differentiate the two processes. Here, we notice the absence of the human evaluation component in the signal reaction. Berman notes that confusing levels or orders of abstraction or fixating upon orders of abstraction will lead to the tendency to cut short, truncate, distort, or misevaluate the otherwise dynamic process of Literary Criticism.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

Conclusion

The structural differential, which helps us visualize the different levels of abstracting, can also help us visualize and remember various approaches to Literary Criticism. Reading down, we can envision Meyer Abrams' notions of the Mimetic, Expressive, Objectivist, and Pragmatic approaches, or Hazard Adams' Ontological, Epistemological, Linguistic, and Political Motivation interpretations. Reading across, we can make comparisons.

I invite educators to discover other creative ways to use the structural differential for teaching purposes, and to also experiment with the horizontal diagram. Thus we may employ the structural differential diagram as a novel mnemonic to introduce organizational paradigms for Literary Criticism.

REFERENCES

Abrams, Meyer H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953.

Adams, Hazard. Critical Theory Since Plato. Revised edition. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1992.

Bate, Walter Jackson. Criticism: The Major Texts. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952.

Berman, Sanford I., Ph.D. How to Think, Communicate, and Behave Intelligently: An Introduction to General Semantics. San Diego: Educational Cassettes, 1974.

Bois, J. Samuel. The Art of Awareness: A Textbook on General Semantics and Epistemics. Third edition. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1978.

Bourland, D. David, Jr. "[summation]EOS: A Fourth Non-Aristotelian Model" in ETC: A Review of General Semantics, Fall 1998, pp.250-289.

Guerin, Wilfred L. et al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. Third edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Kaplan, Charles and William Anderson. Criticism: Major Statements. Third edition. New York: St. Martins Press, 1991.

Kendig, M., Editor. Alfred Korzybski: Collected Writings 1920-1950. Englewood, New Jersey, Institute of General Semantics, 1990.

Korzybski, Alfred. Science and Sanity. Lakeville, Connecticut: Institute of General Semantics, 1933. (Fifth edition now available from the Institute of General Semantics.)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

EDITOR: DAVID F. MAAS, ED.D.

* Dr. David Maas is a Professor of English at Wiley College in Marshall, Texas, and is the author of many ETC articles. He currently serves as VP/Education, ISGS.