El impacto académico que genera las TIC en el proceso de enseñanza del Curso de

Form vs. content

Many o f its critics argued that structuralism was formalism in a new guise. It promoted an investigation o f form, and ignored the content, tlhan Kutluer, for instance, maintains that the structure o f a thing does not have anything to do with its essence or nature, but with its form (1981:22). For Asim Bezirci, semiotics is mainly useful for the analysis o f “the formal/ narratological plot” (198la: 103). He often equates the “stmctural characteristics” o f a work with its “formal characteristics”, and while he is evaluating the work o f Mehmet Rifat, Bezirci accuses him o f privileging form over content, and defines his analysis as a “study o f form” (1981b:86). Similarly, Aziz Çaliçlar asserts that “structuralism reduces content to form, identifies structure with form, and then sets out to examine the structure o f a form without content” (1983:24).

Not all critics join in this disapproval. Güler Güven acknowledges that the departure point for structuralist endeavour is limited to form, but adds that only evaluations which do not neglect the unity o f form and content may be successful in literary criticism (1981:250- 251). Bema Moran recognises that for stmcturalists content is the stmcture itself, which

generates the meaning “on its own”; stmcturalists analyse the stmcture to attain the

meaning (1994:196). Hilmi Yavuz, too, opposes the identification o f stmcture with form: “It is necessary to make a distinction between Stmcture and Form. In the conventional context. Form is defined by contrast to Content. However, Stmcture does not have an independent content. As Lévi-Strauss suggests, stmcture is content itself [...]” (1983:22). These debates led to acknowledgements on the part o f socialist-realist critics that they had, until then, focused all their attention on the criticism o f content, neglecting its relationships with the form, and thus, becoming unable to account for the stmcture or the style o f the work o f art (Comert 1981:138). This “one-sided approach to literature” was later much criticised by the socialist-realists themselves (Ateç 1986:5).

Lack of evaluation

According to their critics, stmcturalists did not “bother to interpret texts” (e.g. Moran 1994:178; Bezirci 1981b:89), because they were not interested in the evaluation o f the work o f art. Since their criticism ‘stopped’ at the level o f analysis, the results they obtained were no more than isolated observations which did not have much to say about

the value o f a work o f art, and about its place amongst other works o f the same author, o f other authors in the national literature or in world literature. In order to better understand this objection, it would be useful to take a brief look at some o f the definitions given and goals set for literary criticism and its functions in Turkey during the time structuralism was being imported. The evaluative aspect o f criticism is given priority and prominence in almost all the definitions (e.g. Ozdemir 1971:729; Uyguner in “Eleçtiri Tartiçmasi” 1985:62). Criticism introduces, explains, interprets, classifies, assesses the value of, evaluates and judges (Ozkmmli 1985:77; Bilen 1985:78; Erdogan 1991:39). The critic has to point out the “good and bad, beautiful and ugly, right and wrong aspects” o f the work o f art (Bezirci, in “Eleçtiri Tartiçmasi” 1985:63). “Genuine criticism” shows “what has been done, what has been done well, and what has been done badly. It places the work under the powerful light o f common tastes and judgements” (Dogan 1975:96). Although the role o f “detailed study” or analysis which will be carried out on the work is also strongly emphasised, this type o f examination is

considered to be a mere tool for successful evaluation (Aytaç 1991:50; Bilen 1985:78).

The importance o f analysis “should not be made absolute. Analysis is not a goal in itself, it is a means. It is a preliminary study which facilitates judgement” (Bezirci 1985:69). The most striking and concise definition o f criticism in this respect is given in the Dictionary o f Literary Terms published by the then-influential Turkish Language Academy (see 5.2.1.): “A piece o f writing which examines the good and bad aspects o f a work o f art, and which finally judges it” (cited in Bezirci 1985:69).

Providing ‘blueprints’

Some critics were concerned about “a certain danger” that people might actually start producing art/literature according to the principles o f structuralism (Ince 1983:33). There were also some who believed that works had already been created in Turkey and abroad (Çaliçlar 1983:23) according to “the features looked for or suggested by structuralist theory” (Onart 1973:249), and this was seen as something undesirable. To be able to appreciate this criticism, we need to know more about the attitude in the Turkish literary system towards the relationship between writers and critics. There were two opposing views on this topic. On the one hand, “the critic ha[d] nothing to tell to the writer about how the work o f art should be” (Vardar 1985:77). Artists would not care about critics who tried to domineer them: “Great writers would only make use o f the experiences o f other great writers” and this was only “until they themselves achieved mastery” (Kocagoz 1972:268). Criticism could not “show the artist what to

do” (Dogan 1975:96). In fact, “no one can command artists. They are free; even though they are subject to a thousand influences, their work is still their own creation” (Uygur 1963:722). Accordingly, “exercising laws on, advising rules and principles, or devising

methods for an artist” were seen as “futile attempts” {ibid,). It was necessary “to save

the artists from the critics’ whim” (Yetkin 1963:541). An authoritative criticism which could set rules and oblige the writers to create according to these rules - and, this was apparently how structuralism was regarded by some - was an ‘impossibility’:

The theory o f writing put forward [by the critic] is a summary o f the successes o f the past. Therefore, it is only meaningful for the works o f the past. As for the theory put forward with a desire to shape the writing activity o f the future, it can only be a framework without substance. It can only be useful for blunt and colourless writers, listless poets, and uncreative novelists. It is indeed a pitiable endeavour to try and place art at a certain orbit, by relying on the attractiveness o f theoretical abstractions and their consistency (Uygur 1963:723).

On the other hand, some did expect the critic to show the way to creative writers and artists (e.g. Okay 1991:25). The critics “should guide both the writers and the readers to the good, the right and the beautiful. They should teach, and act like a teacher” (Bilen 1985:78). Also, if the writers or artists wished “to see the effects o f their work on their audience, they ha[d] to listen to the words o f the critic who act[ed] as the representative o f that audience” (Dogan 1975:96). Yet this view did not support a more favourable reception o f structuralism either, since the critic in question usually had to come from the socialist-realist tradition. Because o f the socio-political conditions and the censorship in Turkey, the critic had to interfere in order to ensure that literary works would reach the masses, and to become a bridge between writers and readers (Ate? 1986:4). The critics were considered to be the best, or more experienced, readers (Dogan 1975:94; Kiliçbay 1991:32); however, they had a task beyond being mere receptors o f art. A critic’s responsibility was to disclose the codes imbedded in the work which might be difficult for the lay readers to solve (Bugra 1991:25), and to interpret the texts in such a way that there would be new horizons opening up for them (Okay 1991:25; Idil 1985:76), but not too much room left to their wandering imagination which could “distort the gist o f the text” (Yetkin 1972:130).

2.1.3.2. Structuralism and ‘apoliticalness’