In Hamlet

While structuralism would not come into popularity till the mid 20th century, Hamlet contains many ideas that are coherent with the fundamentals of structuralism – primarily binary opposition, the conventions of genre, and its connections to the studies of semiotics.

Binary Opposition is a fundamental concept in structuralism. According to Francesca Marina, PhD of English and University of Florida*, Binary Opposition is the belief that, “all elements of human culture can only be understood in relation to one another and how they function within a larger system or the overall environment.”

Binary Opposition is especially prevalent in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, where various thematic concepts are juxtaposed, like madness and sanity, and treachery and loyalty. Additionally, the characters (especially Hamlet), use binary opposition to express the juxtaposition of the situation and innate human nature:

“Heaven and Earth! Must I remember?” Act 1 Scene 2 line 142
“To be or not to be: that is the question,” Act 3 Scene 1 line 57
“O, that this is too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew!” Act 1 Scene 2 [ in this scene specifically, Hamlet juxtaposes the physical and the transcendental and spiritual]. Hamlet is the most habitual user of binary opposition. He oscillates between impassioned revenge (during his conversation with the ghost of King Hamlet), and quizzical apprehension and self doubt. He’s internally paralyzed and composed of juxtaposition, unable to act bluntly or blindly by confronting Claudius. By being constantly torn between opposing sentiments, he is spiraled into an inability to act forcefully – and represents the juxtaposition of action and inaction, as well as impulsivity and caution.

Additionally, Hamlet uses binary opposition in order to manipulate other characters. Through the play, he tries to get Gertrude to acknowledge her unjust reaction to her husbands murder through the character of the Queen. They can be seen as doubles, yet the Queen in the play reacts differently (more loyally) towards her husband - which serves to accentuate the differences between the two characters, and Hamlet hopes to make Gertrude question her reaction to the death of King Hamlet ("The lady doth protest too much me thinks"). He demonstrates he has a grasp on binary opposition through similar characters who react oppositely and are therefore juxtaposed.

Additionally, at times the characters can juxtapose each other. Hamlet is juxtaposed with the zealous Norwegian prince, Fortinbras. Fortinbras too wants to avenge the death of his father, but acts impulsively and rashly out of violence unlike the scheming and wavering Hamlet. Later Hamlet is also juxtaposed with Laertes, who also wishes to enact revenge in a blunt and forceful matter for his father’s murder. By portraying characters in similar situations yet with vastly different reactions, we are able to see Hamlet’s distinct nature that isolates him from the conventional.

Conventions of Genre

According to John Lye and Genette of Brock university**, Structuralism underlines the importance of genre, i.e., basic rules as to how subjects are approached, about conventions of reading for theme, level of seriousness, significance of language use, and so forth. "Different genres lead to different expectations of types of situations and actions, and of psychological, moral, and esthetic values."
In some ways, Shakespeare’s theatre and literature conforms to specific ideas of genre. The majority of his work follows the a structured framework, generally falling into the category of either comedy, history, tragedy, romance, or problem. Hamlet, a Shakespearean tragedy, follows the story of an honorable protagonist faced with a difficult situation who, due to circumstance and adversaries, will experience a mortal downfall.
However, Hamlet also differs from the conventions of structured theatre and genre in that there is a remarkable absence of action and activity. Instead the play is illuminated through impassioned soliloquy and verbose language that provides a greater sense of disorientation and volatility that makes the play unique, and at times bewildering.

Semiotics

Semiotics, the study of signs and symbols (and methods of communication), is closely interwoven with structuralism – and structuralism works to study how signs interact with each other and play on the larger level of a greater universal system.
An example of this is a traffic light. Green makes Go and Red means Stop. These colors carry certain connotations (hence semiotics), however they would not carry these connotations on their own. Red might mean other things, like violence, anger, or passion. It is because that they are applied all together in a certain structure instead of isolated individually, they carry they develop new meanings or interpretations.
Through the use of puns, paradoxes, deliberate misinterpretations and general word play, Hamlet displays a cunning way of manipulating language. Many of the words in his speeches have double meanings, or carry greater connotations that show the utilitarian prevalence of signs and symbols.
Here are some examples of this:

“Not so, my lord, I am too much in the sun,” Act 1 Scene 2 Line 67.
Hamlet referring to Claudius remark about Hamlet being depressed represents a double meaning, expressing his anger at being referred to as Claudius’ son.
It is because of structuralism that sun can gain this double meaning. Out of context, it means simply “Sun”, but because of its phrasing and the theme of the conversation, we can insinuate that it also is a jab at being referred to as the son of Claudius.

“It would cost you a groaning to take off my edge,” Act 3 Scene 2 Line 249.
Hamlet is making a sexual innuendo directed towards Ophelia.

“You are a fishmonger,” Act 2 Scene 2 Line 174.
While this is commonly interpreted as Hamlet pretending to be insane, fishmonger is commonly acknowledged as slang for pimp. This conversation from “god kissing carrion” to “i’ the sun” is riddled with sly insults and complex double meanings.

“Words, words, words,” Act 2 Scene 2 Line 192.
Hamlet responds to Polonius’s question about what he is reading in a purposely vague way. There is later a double meaning when Polonius asks what the “matter” of the text is, and Hamlet responds to what is the matter in terms of his current situation.

Through Hamlet’s excessive double meanings and tricks of language, we see that he takes advantage of the signifier by giving it multiple signified, a slough of innuendos and intricacies.


Additionally, one can analyze Hamlet through a formalist outlook. Formalism, in terms of literature, rejects analyzing the cultural and historical context of a literary work (such as Hamlet), but focuses on analyzing the intrinsic aspects of a text, like the rhetorical devices. Hamlet is filled with a multitude of tropes (like metaphors), and rhetorical schemes (such as alliteration, apostrophe, and antimetabole).  This allows for a structuralist perspective.

Due to Shakespeare’s inclusion of Binary Opposition, Conventions of Genre, and connections to semiotics, Hamlet contains many ideas that are fundamental to structuralism.

* http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/binary-oppositions-in-literature-list-of-examples.html#lesson
** http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/struct.php
(see works cited)