Critical Approaches Sofia Perez Torres

Fall 2020 sofia.pereztorres@unil.ch

Boris Vejdovski & Benjamin Pickford 12.11.2020

1. Ferdinand de Saussure posits that “the bond between the signifier and the signified is
arbitrary”. Explain the theoretical justification for this statement, and discuss one
potential benefit or drawback that follows for Structuralist theory.
During the 20th century, Ferdinand de Saussure gave classes of linguistics at the university of

Geneva, where he developed a new theory about language. Also known as “the father of modern

linguistics” (820), his theory influenced the mid-twentieth century in multiple fields. After his

death in 1906, a compilation named Course in General Linguistics was published and convulsed

the entire milieu of linguistics. Indeed, he focused on the nature of language and provided a

new perspective with the “principle of the ‘arbitrary’ (purely conventional) nature of the sign”

(821). However, his theory reposes on “the relation between words and things cannot be based

on natural resemblances” (821), in other words, there are codes and conventions that rule the

system of language. He explains that language is not a nomenclature (821) and cannot be only

based on terminology, it has a strong connection with the external world. He developed his

theory naming it semiology (821), he saw in the study of language a wider vision than only an

elementary network between words.

To briefly describe the main principle of his theory, Saussure considers the sign as the

atom of language (822) that he divides in two inseparably parts: the signifier (sound-image) and

the signified (concept). Along his theory, he states that “the relation between the signifier and

the signified is ‘arbitrary’, not ‘motivated’ (by natural resemblance) […]” (822). Through the

term arbitrary Saussure means firmly that in the language, the sign is designed as a convention

which is based in a “collective behavior” (828). Thus, the speaker is not implied in the choice

of the signs since they have a natural and codified relation to the external world (828), in other

words, the sign is an idea associated to another idea (831).

The combination of signs and the correlation between the signifier and the signified

highlights a new perspective concerning the language used in society. However, Saussure

brings up the notion of value which “refers to the distinctive quality of a given sign amongst
1
Critical Approaches Sofia Perez Torres
Fall 2020 sofia.pereztorres@unil.ch
Boris Vejdovski & Benjamin Pickford 12.11.2020

the broader network of similar signs” (class …). It depends also on its position and relation in

the system of signification and among the codes used, in other words, the human being is

preceded by language. The justification behind the term arbitrary remains in the fact that an

individual decision cannot change the structures of language.

Some scholars criticized the approach of Saussure regarding the semiology. They posit

that Saussure focused on the two dimensions of the sign forgetting the referent (823). Terry

Eagleton think that it is “impossible to speak of language without speaking of reference, things,

history” (823). It is true that Saussure emphasizes a lot on structure and explains the conventions

as a game which can be misleading because History, Linguistics and Literature made us learn

that language changes over time, that it is not fixed. We are certainly preceded by our

apprenticeship of language and the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, but

the world and the social factors may be included in the equation.

4. John Crowe Ransom states in "Criticism, Inc." that appreciation of a literary text is private whereas
criticism is "public and negotiable." Give two examples of ways in which the private/public distinction
is used to define the limits of literary criticism in the work of Ransom and other new critics, and briefly
assess whether or not such a distinction can be maintained in practice.

Before New Criticism, the critics solely examined literature through a cultural and moral

context. Nonetheless, John Crowe Ransom as well as other authors, brought a new approach of

literary criticism, where the text became an object of study, emphasizing on close reading, to

discover how literacy work functioned as a self-contained. To support this claim, John Crowe

introduces in Criticism, Inc. a distinction between public and private that correspond

respectively to “criticism” and “appreciation”.

In Criticism, Inc., Ransom provides an overview of how a critic should consider a text.

On one hand, he asserts that criticism should be “more scientific” (902), shall objective and

“cite the nature of the object rather than its effect on the subject” (908), avoiding subjective

terms such as entertaining, exciting or great, etc. (908) which belong to the private. One the

2
Critical Approaches Sofia Perez Torres
Fall 2020 sofia.pereztorres@unil.ch
Boris Vejdovski & Benjamin Pickford 12.11.2020

other hand, Ransom’s notion of criticism is “public and negotiable” (906), which implies, as

mentioned before, examining the text itself. He also suggests that a text is reachable to anybody,

lacking moral values, historical and cultural context whose meaning is attainable by way of

“technique” such as “metaphors” or “tropes” (910). Therefore, a critique is only pertinent

through an objective analysis of “technique of the art” (910) removing the text from any cultural

and historical device and thus, securing the “aesthetic distance” (910).

Wimsatt and Bradsely also express this distinction in The Intentional Fallacy. In their

work, they argue that the author’s intention cannot be used to judge a literary work (1195). They

consider an artwork as a public utterance and evoke a difference between the public and the

private through the terms internal and external for the meaning of a poem (1204). On one hand,

the internal evidence of a poem designates the public utterance which constitutes the poem

itself, its semantics, its syntax discovered through the habitual knowledge of the language

(1204). Differently, the external refers to the private or indiosyncratic, which implies anything

external to the text itself, such as the revelations about how an author writes his text (1205).

Furthermore, this aspect of external device assigns the intention of the author and its attitude

when composing his piece of art. Thence, Wimsatt and Bradsley consider the poem as an

“impersonal art” (1196) and belongs to the public. The Intention Fallacy underlines the issue

of intention by applying the notions of internal and external features.

Nonetheless, the borders between the public and the private appears to be nebulous in

relation to any form of art. Indeed, these authors present criticism as a way of examining a text

without considering the questions around the intentions of the author or his cultural context. In

addition, it seems difficult to apply this theory nowadays, when major parts of the art works

deal with the actual context.

3
Critical Approaches Sofia Perez Torres
Fall 2020 sofia.pereztorres@unil.ch
Boris Vejdovski & Benjamin Pickford 12.11.2020

5. Two centuries separate Judith Butler from Mary Wollstonecraft. One could argue that such a
chronology makes comparing them look like an absurd task. Yet, as far as the long history of feminism
is concerned, Wollstonecraft, Butler as well as Beauvoir can easily be seen as formulating, each in her
own time, the same basic tenet of modern feminism: sex is history and must cease to be understood as a
natural difference self-evidently producing these or those effects and assignments between men and
women. Please choose two of the three feminist and gender studies authors you have read (i.e.,
Wollstonecraft, Beauvoir, and Butler) and elaborate on the way they focus on the representation of—or
writing about—sex, while demystifying what is taken for granted on the subject in their own time. How
are they different, and how are they similar?

Over time, men and women had been considerably inequal. Indeed, masculine supremacy led

women to be subordinated. From this subordination, the emergence of phallocentrism and

heterosexual compulsory made the male voice become a norm. Nevertheless, women started to

react against this established normality and masculine supremacy. Amongst these women, two

authors brought new perspectives through their time such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Judith

Butler. Supported by examples of gender performance, they demystify the representation of

women, questioning the natural superiority of men or gender.

In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Wollstonecraft demystify the

representation of sex in the 18th century. Indeed, at that time, there were strong representations

of “womanhood” and “mankind” that nowadays we would call them clichés. For example, a

woman needed to be obedient and was “formed for softness and sweet attractive grace” (507).

Through her work, Wollstonecraft deconstructs the arguments of other men writers such as

Milton or Rousseau, to express that women have the right to freely develop their aptitudes in

terms of education. Her argumentation suggests a change against the rules that women must

follow. Both genders must follow some “natural” behavior according to their sex, “men and

women must be educated, in a great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they

live in” (508). As mentioned before, women were considered as the weak sex and the male

authors contributed to give women a mislead representation of them. To support her claim,

Wollstonecraft uses the example of the military men (510) which, she comments that “soldiers,

as well as women, practice the minor virtues with punctilious politeness” (510). Therefore, she

4
Critical Approaches Sofia Perez Torres
Fall 2020 sofia.pereztorres@unil.ch
Boris Vejdovski & Benjamin Pickford 12.11.2020

questions the fact that these men have more rights than women while they are performing the

same virtues that are asked to women. Therefore, through her example, Wollstonecraft suggests

that the binary vision of gender could be considered as “unnatural” (511) since men and women

performed the same virtues according to their social position.

In Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990), Judith Butler

insists on the unnatural gender construction made through the centuries, including sexual

identity and sexual desire. In contrast to Wollstonecraft, her purpose is to dismantle the idea of

gender associated to the anatomical sex (2373). She suggests that “the original meanings

accorded to gender […] might be reframed” (2385). To illustrate her claim, she mentions the

drags that subvert the notion of “primary gender identity” (2385). Through the performance of

the drags she dismantles this heterosexual vision of gender and aims that there is “a perpetual

fluidity of genders” (2386). Therefore, through her paper, Butler suggests that there are many

possibilities of genders “neither true nor false” (2388) by offering a recontextualization.

To sum up, both authors use examples of gender performance to highlight the male or

heteronormativity of society. Even with their difference of time, both authors demonstrate their

assertions by examples that finally can be joined in the accomplishment of their work

5
Critical Approaches Sofia Perez Torres
Fall 2020 sofia.pereztorres@unil.ch
Boris Vejdovski & Benjamin Pickford 12.11.2020

Bibliography
Butler, J. “Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity”. The Norton Anthology
of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Leitch V.B., 3rd ed. New York: Norton, 2018. 2372-2388.
De Saussure, F. from Course in General Linguistics (1916), The Norton Anthology of Theory
and Criticism. Ed. Leitch V.B., 3rd ed. New York: Norton,2018. 820-840.
Ransom, J. C. “Criticism, Inc.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Leitch V. B.,
3rd ed. New York: Norton, 2018. 901-911.
Wimsatt, W. K. Jr., Beardsley C. M. “Intentional Fallacy” The Norton Anthology of Theory and
Criticism. Ed. Leitch V. B., 3rd ed. New York: Norton, 2018. 1198-1211
Wollstonecraft, M. from A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), The Norton Anthology
of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Leitch V. B., 3rd ed. New York: Norton, 2018. 504-514.