From the microcosmic realm of an atom or the syntax of a sentence to the macrocosmic realm of our universe or our system of language as a whole, reflexive structures exist in all elements of, well, everything. By reflexive structures I’m referring to the smaller structures within a greater system and how the smaller parts that make up that greater system reflect the whole of the system itself. For example, an atom, a smaller part, can function similarly to our universe, a greater whole, and a sentence, another smaller part, can function similarly to the system of language, another greater whole. How does this work? Well, basically, any occurrence, be it an atom, a sentence, or whatever else, can be interpreted as taking place within an organized structure of sorts, a particular level within a greater system. Take us as human beings for example. When looking at us from a biological perspective, one can see this reflexive nature of parts and their whole by looking at where we fall in the levels of biological organization. Let’s take a look at this greater system of levels from largest to smallest to try to better understand the nature of this reflexive relationship.
To the best of our knowledge, the largest entity we know of is our universe, descending in scale from there on we have galaxies, and within our milky way galaxy we find our solar system, then planet Earth, biospheres, biomes, ecosystems, communities, populations, and then organisms—this is the level where we are categorized amongst many other organisms—then continuing into us we find our organs, tissues, cells, protoplasm, molecules, and atoms. (To make a quick clarification, each of these levels can be looked at as a system in themselves, which is why I’m referring to the system at hand as the greater system. When discussing the greater system, which in this case is the system of the levels of biological organization, these smaller systems become structures within the greater system.) Now, to continue with the example, each of these levels of biological organization function similarly to both the levels that come before it and after it. For example, we function quite similarly to our solar system in the sense that, in order for us to function, the smaller structures within us, too, have to function, as is true for our solar system; in order for our solar system to function, its parts, the planets, the sun and its other parts, must operate in a given way. This similarity can be found when relating any levels of organization: in some way or another each level of biological organization can be said to resemble both its smaller structures and the greater whole.
To offer an analogy, most occurrences can be said to exist as if a single doll within a set of stacking dolls: the smaller doll inside, a structure, though different, will always resemble the biggest doll, the greater system, as the small doll, too, will resemble the even smaller dolls inside of it, the even smaller structures within the said initial structure.
To offer a literary example, poet and novelist Jean Toomer appears to illustrate this reflexive quality of structures and their system, both intentionally and unintentionally, through his novel Cane, through highlighting the reflexivity of the largest doll, the text itself, to arguably some of the smallest dolls, the formal elements of the text.
Let’s examine one of the text’s larger dolls by taking a look at how Toomer structured the novel itself. Cane, as we know, was not set out to be Cane. It initially began as independent vignettes and poems that Toomer eventually arranged into a collection. One could make the argument that, since the development of Cane was an afterthought to the individual elements of the text, one cannot therefore find meaning in the form it takes as a conglomeration: that each piece should stand-alone because they were created alone. However, I would argue that its conglomerate form actually can be interpreted, and that one can in fact see in its formation how the greater overall collection of the novel resembles its smaller parts and vis a vis. I would argue that by offering the reader Cane, a conglomeration of individual poems and vignettes, which had at one point been intended to stand alone, supports a larger doll, one of the novel’s main conversations: the discussion of the post-slavery Black American experience. By offering Cane to the reader as a conglomerate whole of individual pieces, I would argue that Toomer by extension invites the reader to regard post-slavery Black American experience not as one or universal; though elements may be shared, each experience is individual and unique. Therefore, through its structural formation, we see how one level of meaning resembles a different greater level of meaning of the text.
Toomer seems to further demonstrate this reflexive quality of structure in the vignette entitled “Calling Jesus” by demonstrating how the physical order of the paragraphs resembles a metaphorical division of space described within the vignette. In the first and last of the vignette’s three paragraphs the speaker describes a girl apparently detached from herself, comparing her soul to “a little thrust-tailed dog that followers her, whimpering” (Toomer 74). The speaker continues this analogy in the first paragraph, and in different wording in the third paragraph, by describing the relationship between the girl and her soul, her whimpering dog: “each night when she comes home and closes the big outside storm door, the little dog is left in the vestibule, filled with chills till morning” (Toomer 74). From this description, we are given three divisions of spaces: inside the home, the vestibule, and the outside world.
When you take a look at the text, it seems that the order of the vignette itself is supposed to formally resemble this literal division of space. Toomer begins the first sentence of both the first and last paragraph with the phrase, “Her soul is like . . .” (Toomer 74); by using the word “is” to describe her soul, we are presented with the speaker’s fixed interpretation. Before we can develop our own understanding of her, we are met with something set and cold, detached from the girl herself. These first and third paragraphs seem to resemble the detached relationship that the girl has with her soul both inside and outside: inside her soul, the dog, is stuck in the vestibule and outside her soul is behind her on a leash. Meanwhile, in the middle paragraph, we are presented with a description of her actions; Toomer begins the paragraph with “When you meet her in the daytime on the streets . . .” (Toomer 74). Though one could argue that through this expression we still see the girl through the speaker’s eyes, which I, too, would say is true, we are not immediately presented with a fixed statement about her. Thus, by interpreting his portrait of her actual actions, we are more likely to develop an understanding of her that is more connected to, well, her; therefore, I would argue that since this middle paragraph is more connected to the girl it is placed to resemble the literal space of the vestibule, where her soul, her whimpering dog, rests.
Now, so far I have discussed how a few particular structures work within their specific organization system: the different levels of biological organization and elements of the novel Cane. I’ve talked about how we can always find connections, something shared, a resemblance, between all structural levels within a system, and how these structural resemblances are demonstrative of the relationship of the greater whole that is the overall system. But I am not arguing that this reflexive quality of structures, these resemblances, this understanding of the whole, can only be found within a particular system. In fact, I don’t think that’s possible. Although I do believe that systems stand alone, for example the levels of biological organization system is not the novel Cane and vis a vis, I would argue that they still do connect and relate to one another and that looking at one system through the lens of another can actually help one better understand the system in question: the atoms in the atomic level of the levels of biological organization make up the physical copies of the novel Cane and syntax and paragraph organization craft the formal basis of biological texts.
Therefore, to best understand an individual system, we must look at it through its reflexive relationship with its internal structures and through its relationships with other systems. In Joe Moran’s second chapter of Interdisciplinarity, “Literature into Culture,” he comments on the productive nature of these interdisciplinary relationships by bringing into conversation the Australian cultural critic John Frow who argues that, “ the limiting nature of disciplines is thus ‘not the repression of a spontaneously developing knowledge but is precisely productive of knowledge … [T]here can be no knowledge whatsoever that is not enabled by some such structure, however informal, however embedded in everyday life it may be. The question is not, therefore, whether or not there should be disciplines and disciplinary relations, but can only be about their form, their relative flexibility, their productiveness, and so on’” (Moran 71). Basically, Frow is discussing the formal relationships between structures and systems that we’ve been discussing. He’s saying that looking at individual systems as inclusive does not exclude; their autonomy does not limit knowledge. Rather, it produces knowledge for, in order for there to even be knowledge, it must take a certain form, which is pretty similar to what we’ve been saying: the identity of the greater whole, an identifiable form, exists through its internal relationships of its reflexive structures and its external relationships to other systems. Our knowledge of how the human body functions, for instance can be said to derive from the form that is the discipline of human biology, whereas our knowledge of what type of text Cane is can said be said to derive from the form that is the category of genre. And this is where Frow’s “production” comes into play: by relating these different forms, whether internal reflexive structures or external greater systems, amongst which disciplines and categories can be found, we can actually produce knowledge. No matter how big or small the forms related are, through taking a look at the way they work and acknowledging their relationships with one another, through trying to comprehend how dolls fit into a set and gears in a machine, we can discover understandings never before imagined.