I have recently finished an article for a journal on the possible re-introduction of a more structuralist approach in narrative analysis in TV; I am working on a panel-paper looking at structural/formal elements in Revenge (ABC) and I am not apologetic at the least.
I have read Jason Mittell’s blog on rhythm in TV series and a In Media Res contribution dealing with questions of YouTube comments and their narrative content and importance. What I see not only in these examples is that more and more of us, while stating that they are not calling for structuralism per se, are doing just that.
We as academics are driven by a need to interrogate, and it looks like we begin asking questions again, that were pushed to the margins. Clearly there seems to be a longing in many academics, especially those concerned with narrative, to bring back a sense of poetics and a more clearly defined academic tool. Narrative Complexity and Quality TV and questions of beats and arcs and major discussions of episode/series unity all are looking for something to take root in, it seems. I, personally, believe that I NEED to call for Propp and Todorov, which I do in my paper on Justified (FX), and join their analysis with QTV and narrative complexity, BECAUSE, as simple as it may sound, the root of story-telling, has not drastically changed, as much as it has evolved for our more complex times. Therefore marrying the structuralist approach that I find still holds true at the base with what our current techonologically advanced society demands of us as listeners, viewers, and spectators not only makes sense, but will reveal, again, how change is actually processed in the most human way. No the tricky part will actually lie in creating a meaningful union of the structuralist and contemporary approaches, but it would not be satisfying, if it were easy. I have decided to stop saying that I am “not really calling for structuralism”. I do say: “I call for a contemporary structuralist approach to media analysis.”
Narrative complexity and Propp, Quality TV and Todorov make good partners here and for Jason Mittell’s Scenic Rhythm; and I believe that equal partners exist for the above mentioned YouTube analysis, or any sort of internet based research, such as social websites and locative apps, as well as gaming.
I hope less and less of us will shy away from using as an additional tool what has been dismissed (maybe) to quickly in how we look at, and analyze the narrative constructs which surround us.
Not surprisingly, I’m sympathetic to much of what you’re saying here. However, I do think it’s important to distinguish between structuralism as a tool, and structuralism as a theory. The former allows us to use the insights & methods of many scholars to answer specific questions – how does contemporary television structure its scenes and plotlines? The latter insists that everything is reducable & explicable via a way of looking at things, where the theory precedes the object. That’s why I don’t claim to be a structuralist (theory), but am willing to use structuralism (as a tool) when appropriate to answering a particular question. I think the bad reputation of structuralism comes from those who took the theory side too far, which then made everything that tool-based analyses did seem like a referendum on the larger grand theory.
So that raises the question: what is a “structuralist approach”? Tool or theory?
Posted by Jason Mittell | June 23, 2012, 09:33Thank you so much for your comment.
You are right, of course, there is a difference between tool and theory. I believe, however, that as a tool it stops short of what it can do. How something is structured is interesting, but leaves me wanting more, leaves me asking the why. I am trying to rethink structuralism as a baseline rather than a focal point of research yet believe it is part of the answer to the why; I am not interested in resurrecting the theory as much as I’m interested in re-imagining it. We have, it seems, listened to the same stories for centuries, each individual society in its specific ways, and now television and media are working with the same material, but, fascinatingly, began modifying it (or more specifically modifying certain “brands” and genres).
Not considering it formalism or structuralism as it once was, maybe I need to really think about the terminology I want to use that points towards the importance of structural roots in the model I propose and also makes evident the role that cultural studies, industries studies, and television studies en large must play. There needs to be a way to combine the two, the tool AND the theory, to actually arrive at some meaningful analysis, case-based analysis, strongly connected to structural forms.
I think, as I seem to understand you do also, that the negative associations with structuralism come from a time when structures were taken to equal meaning. That, of course, is something I do not seek to bring back. But I do see a correlation between a structure, a basic structure, especially in narrative, that has remained simple and clear-cut and at its roots unchanged and see meaning in its constant appeal within applicable societies. I also see that modifications that have occurred, especially with characters and equilibria (or the three-act-structure etc) can only emphasize points made by contemporary theory where complexity and Quality TV are concerned and connect it more closely with society. Or maybe you will find that narratives in the realm of comedy have evolved less or differently from drama when you look at scenic rhythm again… I guess I find that structure creates many questions that we often seek to answer without involving structuralism (as a tool) in answering them. By combining the innate structure that I see at the base of narratives with a contemporary approach (the secondary method would change according to the question asked), I believe, we can explore not only TV’s changes, but directly relate them to audiences, industry practices etc. and thereby, or so I hope, find a better way to look at questions regarding a program’s success (a term already riddled with problems) and place in media-society.
I am still trying to make it work. And I hope more comments like yours come in so I can try and work through some of the, not inconsequential, road blocks I am experiencing, taking this idea for its first real stroll for one of my current projects.
Thank you.
Posted by baerbel79 | June 23, 2012, 23:16