If Michael Ryan, in his chapter on Structuralism, gives a definition for the theory: “Structuralism studies the enduring, universal aspect of the human experience as that manifests itself in literature and culture” (Ryan 22), then Primo Levi’s piece, “A Tranquil Star,” certainly goes to prove that fact and also to prove to us the inadequacies of the human language system “seems laughable” (Levi 2). Human culture and language, it would appear, is what makes stories like that of “A Tranquil Star” possible, even if they provide inadequate representations. Structuralism provides casual readers and serious critics alike with a basis by which to understand and interpret these inadequacies.
The concept of Structuralism is based in part in Ferdinand de Saussure's theory of Structural Linguistics, that is the idea the word, referred to here as the “sign” “unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound image” (Saussure 66). The terms “concept and sound image” will respectively to be referred to as the “signified” and the “signifier.” The signified refers to the idea that the sound represents; the signifier is the physical manifestation of the written or spoken word. These two parts, the signifier and the signified, make up the whole of the sign (Ryan 22). We then must question how we interpret both the signifier and the signified.
Levi makes this point in “A Tranquil Star.” He writes that our language “was born with us, suitable for describing objects more or less as large and as long lasting as we are; it has our dimensions, it’s human” (Levi 2). In the case of a story about a star, human language, and what it signifies is both hopeless to adequately give us information to understand the signified, and helpless to make sense of the signifer. He goes on to say that “adjectives are hopelessly unsuitable, because the star we started with was ten times as big as our sun … we can represent it only with a violent effort of the imagination” (Levi 2). In this case, the human language system has no words, no signifiers, to signify to us intangible and incomprehensive concepts, so we must make do by interpreting the presentation of the sign rather than what the sign itself is necessarily attempting to signify.
In Ryan’s account of Structuralism, he claims that “in language we often assume that words are determined by what they do. They are names for things … Language is impersonal and shared, but it is also a field of infinite variation linked to the actual use of language” (Ryan 24). While Levi argues that language fails to represent certain concepts, Ryan makes the point that language is merely contextual, and that Structuralism can help provide a basis by which to understand the use of language in relation to the specific context. It could be understand that language is universal but the interpretation of that language is not.
Regardless if Structuralism is used by a reader or a critic to either contextualize or understand the failures and shortcomings of human language, Structuralism is a lens that can be employed to help us understand how the “signs substitute “myths” for an accurate representation of reality” (Ryan 25). While it may be impossible to ever accurately signify the concept of “reality,” because reality can only be experienced, not described, Structuralism addresses these concepts and forces the reader to view the text with a critical eye as the reader interprets their own version of said “reality.”
