1

Nicholas HozaHNRS 354Kathleen Lundeen

Borges’ Library of Babel: The Common Ground between Structuralism and Poststructuralism

In this paper I explore the interaction between rhetoric and physics and offer a

possible clarification of their relationship through Jorge Luis Borges’ short story, “The

Library of Babel”. Borges has been hailed by many as a master in postmodern writing,

but few consider his roots in symbolism and modernism. A range of ideas that are

assosciated with both modernism and postmodernism will be considered here, and held

up to the light of Brian Greene’s book, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the

Texture of Reality, which will act as a standard against which to compare and contrast

Borges’ ideas.

Borges’ short story has led me to suggest that our reality, which manages to

encompass the seemingly disparate fields of rhetoric and physics, can be explained

through an unlikely coupling of the ideas presented by structuralism and

poststructuralism. Specifically, I submit that physics and rhetoric exist independently of

one another; neither can influence or modify the identity of the other. Furthermore, the

entirety of our known existence can be divided between the realm of physics and the

realm of rhetoric. However, I also hold that this structuralist view of the universe is

complemented by the poststructuralist view that the physical world only has meaning or

significance when it is perceived through human thought, and that the physical world

greatly influences human thought and rhetoric, creating a context paradox with no solid

2

foundation – a sure sign of poststructuralism. On the following pages, I will first use

Borges’ short story to examine the structuralist claim that physics and rhetoric are

separate entities, and then evaluate the poststructuralist idea that physics and rhetoric

are, while fundamentally separate, intimately entwined through perception and meaning,

and finally conclude with some of the philosophical ramifications of this view of the

universe.

Borges’ short story, “The Library of Babel,” describes a library, also known as the

universe, which appears to be a perfectly structured and infinite collection of books. The

library consists of repeating hexagons, where each hexagon has 20 shelves, each shelf

has 32 books, each book has 410 pages, each page has 40 lines, and each line has 80

characters (80). The characters in the books are random, and the library contains all

possible books, which is reminiscent of Greene’s “many worlds” interpretation of

quantum mechanics (455). Though Borges only ever refers to them as books in his

short story, as a self-proclaimed anti-modernist writer he clearly intends for the reader to

consider the word “text”, which is a politically charged word in the literary world. The

word “text” most commonly refers to symbols or letters used to represent ideas or

meaning; for example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “text” as, “data in the form

of words or alphabetic characters”. However, a semanticist may make the claim that “all

the world is text”. On the same vein, a postmodernist may assert that the reader of a

piece of literature is the text. Taking these three views into consideration results in the

very meaning of the word “text” being stripped away completely; as Jacques Derrida

said, “There is nothing outside text.”

3

Derrida’s claim could easily be seen as an attempt to create a unified theory of

the universe, similar to Einstein’s long quest for a unified theory – the same aspiration

that has, according to Greene, been the driving force for “a whole generation of

physicists” (329). Borges uses his short story to fight this line of reasoning, expressing

the idea that the universe has distinct parts that cannot be unified, and that applying the

word “text” to everything denies this basic reality. Borges demonstrates this view

through clear distinction and separation of the components of the library/universe – a

dangerously structuralistic move for an anti-modernist. Through the extended metaphor

that makes up his short story, Borges is, at the denotative level, able to exclusively use

the common definition of “text”: symbols or letters used to represent ideas or meaning.

The text of “The Library of Babel” includes the books within the library, which, though

seemingly a random collection of characters, are nevertheless studied fervently by the

library’s inhabitants for meaning (81-82). Further analysis shows that the physical

structure of the library itself is included in Borges’ text; the shapes of the rooms and

repeating patterns are analyzed by the library’s inhabitants as symbols of text in the

same way that the characters within the books are (79-80).

If the books and physical structure of the library make up the text of Borges’

library/universe, the other components of his extended metaphor make up something

other than text. These other components are the people who wander the library as well

as their conjectures, opinions, and actions. These other components do not fit the

common definition of the word “text”, a fact which Borges uses to form a separation

between the elements of our universe represented by the text of his extended metaphor

and those represented by the non-text of his extended metaphor. This separation is

4

readily apparent when “The Library of Babel” is looked at in terms of text, which is an

obvious theme, clearly indicating that Borges wants the reader to consider the

difference between these two categories. After the reader has realized this, the next

logical step is to try to understand what is being represented by the text of Borges’

world, and what is being represented by the non-text of Borges’ world.

I will begin with an examination of the text of the Library of Babel. These objects,

the books and physical library structures, are of unknown origin (80). The inhabitants

can observe them, and can even manipulate them to a certain extent (some people

burn books or move them), but their source, purpose, and meaning is only guessed at

through empirical data and logical reasoning. These attributes correlate very well with a

description of the physical reality around us, including matter, energy, and the invisible

laws that appear to govern them, which for the purpose of this paper I will collectively

refer to as physics. Just as the inhabitants of the library find that they all share more or

less the same observations of the text of their world with one another, the inhabitants of

our universe overwhelmingly report the same observations about the physics of our

reality. For example, the inhabitants of the library, who may live far apart from one

another in hexagons that have different books than other inhabitants, nevertheless all

observe the repeating hexagon structure of the library, and they all observe that each

hexagon has a specific number of shelves, with a specific number of books, pages,

lines, and characters (80). In our universe, we also live in different places and have

unique experiences, but we independently come to the same conclusions about the

laws and basic structure of our universe. More evidence that the Borges’ text parallels

physics can be found in the concept of symmetry – a major theme of “The Library of

5

Babel”. The symmetrical structure of the library parallels the symmetry of physics, which

Greene asserts forms the very foundation of physics (225).

The non-text of Borges’ world consists of people and their thoughts and actions.

This non-text forms a one-to-one correlation to our reality. In Borges’ library there is a

binary separation of text and non-text, which together make up the entirety of known

existence. Likewise, the corresponding binary of our reality also makes up all of our

known existence, with physics distinct from people and their thoughts and actions. This

distinction has strong implications. In our world, people have bodies which are clearly

made up of matter. Many, such as Greene, think that a person is made up of nothing

more than the interactions of their atoms (455), which would mean that a person is

purely physical. Furthermore, this would imply that a person’s conjectures, opinions,

and actions are simply physical phenomena determined by matter, energy, and the laws

governing them. Borges uses his metaphor to paint a very different picture; his world is

distinctly split between text and non-text, and people fall into the non-text category.

Assuredly, Borges is not suggesting that human bodies are not matter, but he is

certainly suggesting that the essence of what a person is transcends the laws of

physics. The essence of person does not necessarily include the material body, but it

does include human thought. For the purpose of this paper, I will refer to the domain of

thought and language as rhetoric. In Borges’ world, the true nature of the universe is

split between physics and rhetoric.

The rhetoric of “The Library of Babel” suggests that the structuralist line of

thought that separates human reasoning from the physical universe around it not only

6

tells what each of these two entities is, but also gives some idea of what each of them is

like. First, it makes the physical universe objective and indifferent to humans

(remember, the physical universe is comprised of energy, matter, and the laws that

govern them). Although the people The Library of Babel can destroy books, the narrator

notes that this alteration, compared to the infinite expanse library, is infinitesimal (85).

Second, it gives humanness and human thought equal standing to all the rest of the

cosmos. Human thought, however, is far from indifferent to physics. The inhabitants of

Borges’ library spend their entire lives contemplating the meaning of the library and its

books (83). Human thought forms itself around and within physics, sometimes trying to

distance itself from physics, and always forming conjectures, opinions, and speculations

about the nature of physics. Thus, according to Borges’ metaphor, both physics and

rhetoric have their own “behavior” or “nature” that is inherent to their very identities.

This understanding may, at first glance, appear to be a sound, structuralist view

of reality. A closer inspection, however, reveals a problem that shows Borges’ paradigm

of existence to be a combination of structuralism and poststructuralism. The problem is

this: if subjective, speculative rhetoric has equal standing to objective, indifferent

physics, how do we reconcile this with the fact that rhetoric oftentimes constructs

varying or changing views of physics? What makes the true objective physics more

valid than rhetoric’s version of physics, given that physics and rhetoric have equal

standing? Borges’ short story indicates that this question itself is not valid. The concept

of validity is a human fabrication, and falls under the realm of rhetoric. To ask whether

the “true objective” physics is more valid than a human version of physics doesn’t make

sense; the concept of validity exists only within rhetoric, and applies only to things within

7

the realm of rhetoric. Physics, being separate from rhetoric, does not have an attribute

of validity; physics simply is. Greene says of the entire existence of physical reality,

“Moments [of spacetime] don’t change. Moments are.” (Greene, 452). Similarly, Borges

explicitly states that The Library of Babel exists independently of people, and is how it is

for all eternity, unaffected by people or their thoughts (80).

In light of this conclusion, the poststructuralist nature of Borges’ universe begins

to become clear. If physics is completely separate from and outside the realm of

rhetoric, it is beyond evaluation or comprehension, each of which is limited to the realm

of rhetoric. In Borges’ short story, people gain familiarity with very small regions of the

library by perusing the texts in their immediate vicinities (80). Likewise, in our reality,

people possess “partial comprehensions” of physics, which they obtain by partially

assimilating physics into the realm of rhetoric, in a new rhetorical form. An incomplete

rhetorical version of physics exists within every person, and is always changing and

morphing according to new assimilation, speculation, and communication of ideas that

come as a result of new physical experiences. This assimilation is analogous to a

person in The Library of Babel exploring the library and examining more books.

Given that physics and rhetoric are separate, for this assimilation to occur there

would need to be some mechanism of transmitting and converting physical existence to

rhetorical existence. Herein lays the true genius of Borges’ short story -- the concept

that places his story far outside the genre of pure structuralism: Borges explains the

assimilation of physics to rhetoric by stating that “…the inventors of writing imitated the

twenty-five natural symbols [that are found within the library’s books]” (81). This

8

statement has astounding implications. At its most basic level of meaning, it says that

language is a rhetorical human fabrication modeled after physics. In the words of

Friedrich Nietzsche and later Derrida, “all language is metaphor,” although Nietzsche

and Derrida may not have meant that language is a metaphor for the universe’s innate

physical forms. Language is a mere extension of thought, and Borges groups both

language and thought in a category that I have titled rhetoric. The implication is that, like

language, thought itself is modeled after the forms found in physics.

The forms of physics are a natural lexicon for human thought, which is acquired

through first-hand experience, or second-hand transmission of ideas. First-hand

acquisition amounts to direct perception of the physical realm, which has been alluded

to above; the human body, clearly made of matter, allows perception of the immediate

physical surroundings, and the conversion from physical to rhetorical thought is made

possible by the fact that thought is modeled after physics. This dual-nature of humans,

being both physical in their material bodies, as well as rhetorical, in thought and

language, is emphasized by Borges’ idea that language and thought are human

imitations of physics. Of all the components of Borges’ library, this makes humans

unique; they are the only objects to participate in both physics and rhetoric. Humans

acting as the link that bridges the physical with the rhetorical correlates to the idea that

the act of conscious observation is an integral element of quantum mechanics, which

Greene presents as a possibility that would hold humans in a privileged position,

although he himself does not subscribe to this theory (456).

9

The context that we base our rhetorical version of physics on is, of course, true

objective physics. Thus, human rhetorical constructs are created within the context of

objective physics. Although rhetoric itself is a completely separate entity from physics,

the human creations within rhetoric are highly influenced by physics. As discussed

earlier, objective physics does not have meaning or validity; it simply is, and it is entirely

separate from rhetoric, so it cannot be comprehended. The idea of objective physics,

however, is in the rhetorical realm, and can, therefore, be evaluated. In fact, a rhetorical

idea of objective physics is the only way in which the objective physics has meaning to

us, aside from our physical perception through our bodies. When people try to evaluate

the meaning of this idea, however, they use rhetorical constructs that are influenced by

physics. Ergo, our understanding of physics is based on a context of rhetorical

constructs, and those rhetorical constructs are based on a context of physics. In this

poststructuralist twist, Borges breaks down his own binary of rhetoric and physics.

Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that, “The limits of my language are the limits of my

world,” a quote which Borges may have reworded to read, “the limits of my world define

my language, which is the only tool I have to understand my world”. Surprisingly,

Greene seems to be in agreement on this point, stating that, “by deepening our

understanding of the true nature of physical reality, we profoundly reconfigure our sense

of ourselves and our experience of the universe” (5).

Remember that the text-objects within Borges’ metaphor (the books and the

library’s structure) are supposed to fit the basic definition of the word “text”: symbols that

represent ideas or meaning. Ironically, however, the inhabitants of the library participate

in an endless struggle to deduce the true meaning of the text. In fact, using the

10

argument up to this point, the text-objects actually have no meaning; they simply are,

which brings into question their original classification as text. This sense of

meaninglessness is reminiscent of structuralism after WWII, in which the separation of

ideas was used to portray the perceived meaninglessness and absurdity of life. Some

characters in “The Library of Babel” voice this opinion, as evidenced by the following

excerpt: “the impious assert that absurdities are the norm in the library” (86), but Borges

makes it clear that this is not the message of his short story; not only does he call them

“impious”, but he immediately follows with the assertion that, “Actually, the Library

includes all verbal structures, all the variations allowed by the twenty-five orthographic

symbols, but it does not permit one absolute absurdity” (86). With this statement,

Borges refutes the absurdist movement, and gives the text-objects meaning once again.

Human thought, being modeled after physics/text, is limited only by the possible

combinations of all physical forms, which is practically limitless, as demonstrated by the

vast quantity of books in the library. Given that a particular person’s thoughts are

modeled after the forms found in physics, the forms themselves become significant to

that person. The library inhabitants’ search for meaning in these forms is equivalent to

the search for the meaning of one’s life.

One might wonder what Borges has to say about the meaning of human life. It is

unclear whether life falls within rhetoric or physics (since people have physical bodies

and rhetorical minds), and its significance to either is also questionable. Physics was

explicitly stated to exist independently of people, and Borges hints that all possible

rhetoric also exists independently of people through his discussion of the combinations

of physical forms found within the library’s books. In the short story, many of the library’s

11

inhabitants embark on a quest, each one trying to find a book that contains a defense of

his life, called his Vindication (83). Borges affirms that vindication of each man exists,

but there also exist variations of it as well as false vindications, lies, nonsense, and

every other possible book (84). In this paradox, people are searching for the meaning of

life, which they would be unable to recognize and verify as the truth without possessing

a full understanding of it to begin with. In “The Library of Babel,” people have an inability

to recognize the fact that their world contains unsolvable mysteries; just as the

existence of physics cannot be reasoned, neither can the existence of rhetoric or human

life. Physics, life, and rhetoric may be rooted in a deeper context, but it is not one that

humans have direct access to, and, as such, people are left without understanding.

At the beginning of The Fabric of the Cosmos, Greene claims that the key to

understanding the meaning of life lies in understanding physics (5), but goes on to say

that the book will not once more mention the meaning of life (6). The ability to discuss

everything that is known about physics without mentioning what impact this knowledge

has on our evaluation of life appears to be good evidence that Borges is right in

suggesting that physics, rhetoric, and human life are rooted in a deeper context which

humans are incapable of understanding. When the library inhabitants search for their

Vindications, most of them go mad, and the end result is chaos and destruction (83).

Just as the characters in Alan Lightman’s novel Einstein’s Dreams become unhappy

when they begin to obtain a grasp of the true nature of their reality, the narrator of “The

Library of Babel”, who has begun to grasp the “tragic implications” of the library’s nature

(80) laments that he has “squandered and consumed [his] years” in attempts to find a

deeper meaning than can be attained without recourse to a deeper context (85). Greene

12

demonstrates that, through painstaking effort, we can begin to understand physics

through rhetorical representations whose creations span years of assimilation and

communication. Attempting to use this understanding to answer the aforementioned

mysteries of life, without utilizing some means of assimilating our deeper context, will

yield only madness and chaos, as illustrated by the search for Vindications in “The

Library of Babel”.

Borges has created a world that is simultaneously structuralistic and

poststructuralistic. The structuralist may say that through language, we have

internalized a system of rules. Borges shows that language reflects the constructs we

have developed in the context of assimilated rhetorical physics, in a binary world of

physics and rhetoric. Poststructuralists would say that we are living in a world of empty

signifiers. Here too, Borges manages to agree; all of our constructs are formed in the

context of objective physics, which has no meaning; it simply is. Furthermore, his story

hints that the answers to many of life’s deepest questions are unattainable without some

knowledge of the context in which rhetoric and physics exist. When inspected for validity

against the standard of Greene’s The Fabric of The Cosmos, Borges’ story does

admirably well. The physical metaphors and implications are sound, and disagree with

Greene only on matters of opinion and speculation. While Greene believes that the

universe is composed entirely of the physical, and that human life, human thought, and

rhetorical forms all exist within physics, Borges proposes that physics and rhetoric have

independent identities which cannot be unified under one theory, and that there are

questions that cannot be answered strictly within the bounds of physics and rhetoric.

13

Works Cited

Borges, Jorge Luis. Ficciones. New York: Grove Press, 1962. Print.

Greene, Brian. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality.

New York: Vintage Books, 2004. Print.

Lightman, Alan. Einstein’s Dreams. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Print.

Lundeen, Kathleen. "Honors 354." WWU, Old Main 580, Bellingham. 2010. Lecture.

Simpson, John A., and Edmund S. C. Weiner. "Text." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford

University Press, Sept. 2009. Web. June 2010.