Structuralism
Part of a series on |
Sociology |
---|
Structuralism is an intellectual current and
Alternatively, as summarized by philosopher
The structuralist mode of
By the late 1960s, many of structuralism's basic tenets came under attack from a new wave of predominantly French intellectuals/philosophers such as historian
History and background
The term structuralism is ambiguous, referring to different schools of thought in different contexts. As such, the movement in
Apart from Durkheim's use of the term structure, the semiological concept of Ferdinand de Saussure[7] became fundamental for structuralism. Saussure conceived language and society as a system of relations. His linguistic approach was also a refutation of evolutionary linguistics.
Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, existentialism, such as that propounded by Jean-Paul Sartre, was the dominant European intellectual movement. Structuralism rose to prominence in France in the wake of existentialism, particularly in the 1960s. The initial popularity of structuralism in France led to its spread across the globe. By the early 1960s, structuralism as a movement was coming into its own and some believed that it offered a single unified approach to human life that would embrace all disciplines.
Russian functional linguist Roman Jakobson was a pivotal figure in the adaptation of structural analysis to disciplines beyond linguistics, including philosophy, anthropology, and literary theory. Jakobson was a decisive influence on anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, by whose work the term structuralism first appeared in reference to social sciences. Lévi-Strauss' work in turn gave rise to the structuralist movement in France, also called French structuralism, influencing the thinking of other writers, most of whom disavowed themselves as being a part of this movement. This included such writers as Louis Althusser and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, as well as the structural Marxism of Nicos Poulantzas. Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida focused on how structuralism could be applied to literature.[8]
Accordingly, the so-called "Gang of Four" of structuralism is considered to be Lévi-Strauss, Lacan, Barthes, and Michel Foucault.[9][10][dubious ]
Saussure
The origins of structuralism are connected with the work of
- Saussure argued for a distinction between signifié, i.e. an abstract concept or idea) and a "signifier" (signifiant, i.e. the perceived sound/visual image).
- Because different languages have different words to refer to the same objects or concepts, there is no intrinsic reason why a specific signifier is used to express a given concept or idea. It is thus "arbitrary."
- Signs gain their meaning from their relationships and contrasts with other signs. As he wrote, "in language, there are only differences 'without positive terms.'"[12]
Lévi-Strauss
Structuralism rejected the concept of
In Elementary Structures, he examined
Lacan and Piaget
Blending Freud and Saussure, French
'Third order'
Proponents of structuralism argue that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure that is modelled on language and is distinct both from the organizations of reality and those of ideas, or the imagination—the "third order."[14] In Lacan's psychoanalytic theory, for example, the structural order of "the Symbolic" is distinguished both from "the Real" and "the Imaginary;" similarly, in Althusser's Marxist theory, the structural order of the capitalist mode of production is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ideological forms in which those relations are understood.
Althusser
Although French theorist Louis Althusser is often associated with structural social analysis, which helped give rise to "structural Marxism," such association was contested by Althusser himself in the Italian foreword to the second edition of Reading Capital. In this foreword Althusser states the following:
Despite the precautions we took to distinguish ourselves from the 'structuralist' ideology…, despite the decisive intervention of categories foreign to 'structuralism'…, the terminology we employed was too close in many respects to the 'structuralist' terminology not to give rise to an ambiguity. With a very few exceptions…our interpretation of Marx has generally been recognized and judged, in homage to the current fashion, as 'structuralist'.… We believe that despite the terminological ambiguity, the profound tendency of our texts was not attached to the 'structuralist' ideology.[15]
Assiter
In a later development, feminist theorist Alison Assiter enumerated four ideas common to the various forms of structuralism:[16]
- a structure determines the position of each element of a whole;
- every system has a structure;
- structural laws deal with co-existence rather than change; and
- structures are the "real things" that lie beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning.
In linguistics
Part of a series on |
Linguistics |
---|
Portal |
In
- a signifiant ('signifier'): the "sound pattern" of a word, either in mental projection—e.g., as when one silently recites lines from signage, a poem to one's self—or in actual, any kind of text, physical realization as part of a speech act.
- a signifié '(signified'): the concept or meaning of the word.
This differed from previous approaches that focused on the relationship between words and the things in the world that they designate.[17]
Although not fully developed by Saussure, other key notions in structural linguistics can be found in structural "idealism." A structural idealism is a class of linguistic units (
Prague School
In France,
Thus, in English, the sounds /p/ and /b/ represent distinct
Based on the Prague school concept, André Martinet in France, J. R. Firth in the UK and Louis Hjelmslev in Denmark developed their own versions of structural and functional linguistics.
In anthropology
Part of a series on |
Anthropology |
---|
According to structural theory in anthropology and social anthropology, meaning is produced and reproduced within a culture through various practices, phenomena, and activities that serve as systems of signification.
A structuralist approach may study activities as diverse as food-preparation and serving rituals, religious rites, games, literary and non-literary texts, and other forms of entertainment to discover the deep structures by which meaning is produced and reproduced within the culture. For example, Lévi-Strauss analysed in the 1950s cultural phenomena including mythology, kinship (the alliance theory and the incest taboo), and food preparation. In addition to these studies, he produced more linguistically-focused writings in which he applied Saussure's distinction between langue and parole in his search for the fundamental structures of the human mind, arguing that the structures that form the "deep grammar" of society originate in the mind and operate in people unconsciously. Lévi-Strauss took inspiration from mathematics.[18]
Another concept used in structural anthropology came from the
A third influence came from
In Britain, authors such as Rodney Needham and Edmund Leach were highly influenced by structuralism. Authors such as Maurice Godelier and Emmanuel Terray combined Marxism with structural anthropology in France. In the United States, authors such as Marshall Sahlins and James Boon built on structuralism to provide their own analysis of human society. Structural anthropology fell out of favour in the early 1980s for a number of reasons. D'Andrade suggests that this was because it made unverifiable assumptions about the universal structures of the human mind. Authors such as Eric Wolf argued that political economy and colonialism should be at the forefront of anthropology. More generally, criticisms of structuralism by Pierre Bourdieu led to a concern with how cultural and social structures were changed by human agency and practice, a trend which Sherry Ortner has referred to as 'practice theory'.
One example is Douglas E. Foley's Learning Capitalist Culture (2010), in which he applied a mixture of structural and Marxist theories to his ethnographic
Some anthropological theorists, however, while finding considerable fault with Lévi-Strauss's version of structuralism, did not turn away from a fundamental structural basis for human culture. The
In literary criticism and theory
In
The field of structuralist semiotics argues that there must be a structure in every text, which explains why it is easier for experienced readers than for non-experienced readers to interpret a text.[22] Everything that is written seems to be governed by rules, or "grammar of literature", that one learns in educational institutions and that are to be unmasked.[23]
A potential problem for a structuralist interpretation is that it can be highly reductive; as scholar
Structuralist literary criticism argues that the "literary banter of a text" can lie only in new structure, rather than in the specifics of character development and voice in which that structure is expressed. Literary structuralism often follows the lead of
There is considerable similarity between structural literary theory and Northrop Frye's archetypal criticism, which is also indebted to the anthropological study of myths. Some critics have also tried to apply the theory to individual works, but the effort to find unique structures in individual literary works runs counter to the structuralist program and has an affinity with New Criticism.
In economics
Structuralist economics is an approach to
Interpretations and general criticisms
Structuralism is less popular today than other approaches, such as post-structuralism and deconstruction. Structuralism has often been criticized for being ahistorical and for favouring deterministic structural forces over the ability of people to act. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (particularly the student uprisings of May 1968) began affecting academia, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of public attention.[27]
In the 1980s, deconstruction—and its emphasis on the fundamental ambiguity of language rather than its logical structure—became popular. By the end of the century, structuralism was seen as a historically important school of thought, but the movements that it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, commanded attention.[28]
Several social theorists and academics have strongly criticized structuralism or even dismissed it. French
Anthropologist
See also
- Antihumanism
- Engaged theory
- Genetic structuralism
- Holism
- Isomorphism
- Post-structuralism
- Russian formalism
- Structuralist film theory
- Structuration theory
- Émile Durkheim
- Structural functionalism
References
- ISBN 9780195123715.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-954143-0. p. 353.
- ^ ISBN 1-58435-018-0: p. 170.
- ^ Mambrol, Nasrullah (2016-03-20). "Structuralism". Literary Theory and Criticism Notes. Retrieved 2017-06-29.
- ^ Sturrock, John. 1979. "Introduction." In Structuralism and Since: From Lévi Strauss to Derrida.
- ^ Sylvain Auroux, E.F.K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, Kees Versteegh (2008 ) History of the Language Sciences, 2nd volume, p.1882
- ^ Meike Watzlawik, Alina Kriebel, Jaan Valsiner (2015) Particulars and Universals in Clinical and Developmental Psychology: Critical Reflections A book honoring Roger Bibace, pp.33, 44-45
- ISBN 9780857024855
- ^ Moore, Margaret. "LibGuides: Literary Theory: 1910-2010: Post-Structuralism". arthumref.libguides.com.
- ^ "Post-Structuralism". obo. Retrieved 2020-05-30.
- ^ de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique generale, published by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.
- ^ de Saussure, Ferdinand. [1916] 1959. Course in General Linguistics, translated by W. Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library. p. 120.
- ^ Jean Piaget, Le structuralisme, ed. PUF, 1968.
- ISBN 1-58435-018-0. pp. 171–73.
- ^ Louis Althusser and Étienne Balibar. Reading Capital trans. Ben Brewster. London: NLB, 1970. p. 7.
- JSTOR 590235. Archived from the originalon 2018-10-02. Retrieved 2013-07-15.
- ^ Suryo, Roy, and Talbot Roosevelt. [1989]. Landmarks in Linguistic Thought (1st ed.). pp. 178–79.
- ^ Dosse, François. 1997. History of Structuralism: Volume 1: The Rising Sign, 1945-1966. University of Minnesota Press. p. 24.
- ^ OCLC 461631692.
- ^ Barry, P. 2002. "Structuralism." Pp. 39–60 in Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- ^ Slavutin, Evgeny, and Vladimir Pimonov. 2018. Plot Structure. Moscow: Nauka / Flinta Publishing.
- ^ Nöth, Winfried. 1995. Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press. p. 312.
- ^ Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. 2005. A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (5th ed.). Harlow. p. 76.
- ^ Belsey, Catherine. 1983. "Literature, History, Politics." Pp. 17–27 in Literature and History 9.
- ISBN 978-0-19-937102-0.
- The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 4, pp. 527-531.
- ^ Marshall, J. D., ed. 2004. Poststructuralism, Philosophy, Pedagogy. Springer. p. xviii.
- ^ Finlayson, Alan, and Jeremy Valentine. 2002. Politics and post-structuralism: an introduction. Edinburgh University Press. p. 8.
- Continuum. pp. 49, 78ff.
- ^ Kuper, Adam. 1973. Anthropologists and Anthropology: The British School 1922–72. Penguin. p. 206.
- ^ Pettit, Philip. 1975. The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis. University of California Press. p. 117.
- ^ Castoriadis, Cornelius. [1975] 1987. The Imaginary Institution of Society [L'institution imaginaire de la société]. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 116–17.
- ^ C. Castoriadis (1997), The Imaginary: Creation in the Social-Historical Domain. In: World in Fragments. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 3–18.
- ^ Habermas, J. (1990), The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (originally published in German in 1985 as Der Philosophische Diskurs der Moderne), MIT Press, 1990, p. 276.
- ^ Giddens, Anthony. 1993. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 121.
Further reading
- Angermuller, Johannes. 2015. Why There Is No Poststructuralism in France: The Making of an Intellectual Generation. London: Bloomsbury.
- Derrida. New York: Columbia University Press.
Primary sources
- Althusser, Louis. Reading Capital.
- Barthes, Roland. S/Z.
- Hachette
- de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Course in General Linguistics.
- The Order of Things.
- Jakobson, Roman. Essais de linguistique générale.
- Lacan, Jacques. The Seminars of Jacques Lacan.
- Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Elementary Structures of Kinship.
- —— 1958. Structural Anthropology [Anthropologie structurale]
- —— 1964–1971. Mythologiques
- Wilcken, Patrick, ed. Claude Levi-Strauss: The Father of Modern Anthropology.