What is Formalist Criticism? An Anthropological Perspective
In the field of anthropology, one of the most intriguing aspects of culture is how individuals within a society interpret symbols, follow rituals, and construct their identities. Cultural analysis allows us to explore these elements and understand the social fabric that holds them together. But what happens when we shift our focus from the content of cultural expressions—like rituals and stories—to the form in which these expressions occur? What can the structure and arrangement of cultural elements tell us about a society? This is where formalist criticism comes into play.
Formalist criticism, primarily a literary theory, emphasizes the formal aspects of a text—its structure, style, and language—while minimizing external influences such as historical context or authorial intent. In this blog post, we will approach formalist criticism from an anthropological perspective, exploring how this method can be applied to the analysis of cultural artifacts, rituals, and symbols within different societies. We’ll delve into how men’s individual, structural approaches and women’s relational, community-centered approaches influence the way we understand form and content in the cultural world.
Formalist Criticism: A Cultural Lens
In anthropology, we approach the study of cultures through their symbols and rituals, recognizing that each culture develops its own unique ways of understanding the world. Formalist criticism shares some similarities with this approach. Rather than examining a cultural artifact or text for its meaning or context, formalism emphasizes the structure—the rules, patterns, and forms that shape how the artifact is presented and perceived. In the world of literature, this could mean focusing on the structure of a poem, the arrangement of a narrative, or the way metaphors are used, rather than considering the social or historical context in which the piece was created.
From an anthropological standpoint, this is akin to studying the rituals of a society. While one could dive deep into the cultural meaning of a ritual, formalism would encourage us to focus on how the ritual is structured—the steps, the repetitions, the symbols used—and how these formal elements serve to create social cohesion and cultural identity within a community.
Rituals, Symbols, and Structure: Formalism in Culture
Rituals are central to human societies, providing a structured framework through which cultural values are expressed and reinforced. For example, think of a wedding ceremony in different cultures. Whether it’s a traditional marriage in Hindu culture, a Christian wedding, or a Muslim Nikah, each ritual has its form—the way in which it is structured, the sequence of events, the words spoken, the objects used. Formalist analysis in anthropology would examine how these ritualistic forms contribute to the broader social order and the way in which they shape cultural identity.
In the same vein, consider how symbols are used across cultures to convey specific meanings. A flag, for example, is not just a piece of cloth; it is a symbol imbued with national identity, history, and shared values. The way the flag is designed, its colors, and its proportions—all these formal elements are integral to its power as a symbol. Formalism, in an anthropological sense, would focus on these structural components and how they contribute to the functionality of the symbol within the society.
Men’s Structural and Women’s Relational Approaches to Form
When examining formalism in an anthropological context, it’s also important to consider the gendered ways in which people interact with form, structure, and meaning. In many societies, men tend to focus on individual or structural aspects of culture—things that can be analyzed, measured, and broken down into systems. This is akin to the rationalist approach in economic theory: efficiency, structure, and functionality matter most.
For example, male participation in rituals might focus more on the order of events, ensuring that every step is followed precisely. They may take pride in the formality of a wedding or a political ceremony, valuing the rigidity and structure of the proceedings. From a formalist perspective, this approach would seek to analyze the steps of the ritual, the symmetry of the events, and the symbolic roles played by each participant.
On the other hand, women often engage more with the relational and social aspects of cultural rituals. Rather than focusing solely on the technical form, women are more likely to emphasize the relationships that are formed and expressed through the ritual. For women, a wedding isn’t just a sequence of events, but a social bond—a connection to family, to community, and to the wider social fabric. They might focus on the emotional and social significance of the ritual, such as the bond between the couple, the support of the community, or the generational traditions being passed down.
In the same way, women’s perspectives on formalist criticism might emphasize how structure contributes not just to aesthetic value but also to social cohesion and community well-being. While men might look at the precision of a ritual’s steps, women might focus on how the form creates an environment for emotional expression and connection.
Analyzing Identity Through Form
One of the most fascinating aspects of formalist analysis in anthropology is its potential to reveal how identity is shaped through form. Cultural rituals, from marriage to religious ceremonies, are not just personal expressions; they are deeply tied to collective identity. The form of a ritual, whether it’s the way it’s performed or the symbols it employs, tells us about a society’s values and social structure.
Consider the difference between male and female roles in many traditional societies. Men might perform the more formalized rituals—think of the public speeches or the ceremonial roles in community leadership. Women, on the other hand, might play a crucial role in the behind-the-scenes work, preparing the community, maintaining the relational fabric that holds the ritual together.
In literature, a formalist criticism might analyze how the narrative structure reflects the power dynamics and gender roles in a society. Similarly, in anthropology, the formal aspects of culture (rituals, symbols, and structure) can reveal much about how gender roles and social hierarchies are built and maintained.
Conclusion: Connecting Cultures Through Form
By applying a formalist approach to cultural analysis, we can gain deeper insight into the ways that form, structure, and ritual shape not just individual experiences, but also the collective identity of communities. Whether through the rituals of marriage, the symbols of national identity, or the gendered dynamics of cultural participation, formalism encourages us to look beyond content and context, focusing instead on the power of form itself.
By examining male and female perspectives in these contexts, we begin to see how structural and relational approaches to culture offer complementary insights. The formal elements of culture provide a means of understanding how societies work, but it is the relational elements that bind people together, giving meaning to the forms they create.
So, as you reflect on your own cultural rituals and symbols, consider how form shapes your understanding of identity, community, and connection. How does structure play a role in your cultural practices, and how do relationships influence the meaning behind the forms you encounter?
Feel free to share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below!