War, Archetypes, Mayan Writing

This morning I read about structuralist criticism in Tyson's (2006) Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge). Basically, structuralists believe there are "underlying principles" (p. 209) which govern writing. For example, we can differentiate poetry from prose because all poetry shares some structural commonality which enables us to recongize it as poetry. By the same token, we know prose when we see it because it utilizes a structure we associate with prose.

Structuralist criticism also looks at the way a piece of writing may be structured internally. For example, The Great Gatsby is a "seek-find-lose story" (p. 236) because all of the characters' experiences follow this pattern. Gatsby seeks out Daisy after many years, finds her at Nick's house, and loses her again to Tom. Tom seeks a mistress, finds Myrtle Wilson, and loses her during the car accident. Daisy seeks a lover, finds one in Gatsby twice, and loses him both times--once to the war, the second time through death (Tyson, 2006, pp, 236-237).

Does anyone else have an overwhelming urge to reread The Great Gatsby? I love that novel! I've probably read it more times than any other book I own. I may have a borderline obsession with it, though, evidenced by the facts that my computer wallpaper is a picture of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and I named my car "Gatsby."

But I digress. Returning to structuralism, Tyson explains the scholarship of Northrop Frye. Frye believes "the word archetype refers to any recurring image, character type, plot formula, or pattern of action" (Tyson, 2006, p. 223). Archetypes provide a narrative model from which other genres derive in the Western literacy tradition.

This evening I was reading "Writing and Secular Knowledge Outside Modern European Institutions by Charles Bazerman and Paul Rogers (2008) in the Handbook of Research on Writing. The chapter described how the Mayans "used writing to reinforce a ruler's military power and to legitimize his descent from noble ancestors and the gods" (p. 146). Later writing from the Mayans focused on themes of war and conquest. As I read this passage, I scrawled in the margin, "Archetype?"

If you think about most historical writing, especially that sanctioned by a ruler or government, isn't it structured in a way that paints the ruler as a hero? If we read a German school text from the late 1930s or early 1940s, would Hitler be painted as a hero or a villian? Would Hitler still be considered "evil" if he had been the winner in history? What about Saddam Hussein? Americans painted him as the villian, and by defeating and putting Hussein to death, America declared itself the hero-winner.

Patriotism is based on an archetype that one's government and country are good and those who challenge its way of life are evil, which is why citizenships texts are highly critical of other countries while praising their own (whether that praise is deserved or not). Structuralsim helps us understand that there are very few variations of human stories. Whether its 650 BCE or 2010 AD, the only way rulers can stay in power is to give their people the hero myth they expect. There's only one alternative--loser.